Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~J <br />~~~~~~~ C~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~P~~mb~~ a~P~~ ~~~~~~~~ <br />~~a~c~ ~~~ Q~~~~d~~~~ ~~P, ~~~~~~~' <br />~ti~~~~ ~ ~°'r~r <br />~, <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ wp ~a~7g~~~~ ~~~~ <br />`~~Qrf~ ~~~~ ~ ~ <br />~~~ ~» ~ <br />~~: a <br />~~~~~'~~~9~rn~ <br />~~; board o~l: Caunty Car~rnissianers <br />~~~~~: Planning ~ta~ <br />~a~~x Larch g, ~D~ ~ <br />~~: ~espanse to 6~arch ~, ~g~ ~ ~a~c trcarro Ca~nrnissioner Cordon <br />Just priarto the Pianning hoard meeting on March ~, ~~~~, Commissioner ord~an <br />faxed a nun~berotcomn~ents to the Planning Qep~rtment~orthe Planning ~aard's <br />review. I he Planning ward's response to Co~mn~issioner Cordon's r""axis included in <br />the rrainu~ces o~ that nneeting. T his memo is provided as Planning starl''s response to the <br />March ~, ~0~ ~ rax. <br />following the February ~~, ~g~~ quarterly public hearing, staff prepared a dra~~ versian <br />o~the issue and response paper included in the atfiachment, ~orthe Planning hoard's <br />cansideration, addressing the main concerns expressed at the hearing, as directed by <br />the I~QCC. ~ number o~the connrnents in Carnnnissioner cordon's March ~, Zg~~ fax <br />echoed connments heard at the quarfierly public hearing and are addressed in the issue <br />and response paper. In addition, staff provided the Planning hoard several possible <br />text changes to the UDC to address same o~the concerns e~~pressed at the public <br />hearing see Attachment}, same a~~which were included in Carnnnissioner ~~ordon's <br />f~arch ~n~ fax. The Planning ~aard reviewed and discussed the possible changes and <br />voted to recornrnend the following changes to the UDO: <br />~ Text to be added to ~ectian 3.7 -~ IUIPDaC~ Chart: <br />l~1PQ-C~ districfis shall foe limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the <br />Qrange County Planning Jurisdiction and Dural Community modes, as defined <br />in the grange County Comprehensive Plan. ~N~T~~ 'chis is slightly di~l'erent <br />than fibs language shown in the Attachment as the Planning hoard voted to <br />rrtodi~y the language. <br />~l~estore PlQ coning district as a general use district as originally in the Orange <br />County caning ordinance, and rnodi~y language in the UDC that identifies the <br />PlD district as a conditional caning district. <br />Qne co~nrnent e~cpressed by Commissioner pardon in the March ~, ~g~ ~ ~a~~, not <br />addressed iOy the issue and response paper or the P[anr~ing Board's reconnrnendaticns, <br />