Minutes 02-28-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Desiree Goldman has lived in Orange County for 14 years and is the Legislative Affairs Director for the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors. She urged the County Commissioners to approve Phase I and move forward with this UDO. Many of the issues that the citizens have spoken to are related to Phase II. She said that there is no such thing as a perfect plan. She spoke in support of economic development. The UDO is one way that Orange County can get into the game. Kristen Smith is from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. She spoke on behalf of Aaron Nelson, President and CEO. She said that she was here to represent the interests of over 900 businesses and non-profit members who understand that successful economic development in Orange County is good for all of Orange County and that growing the commercial tax base outside the municipal boundaries will have a positive impact on the taxes paid by the people within the municipal boundaries. She said that there is increased interest in the surrounding towns for economic development. She said that one of the most important ways to show that Orange County is supportive of economic development is for the County Commissioners to take action and proceed with implementing Phase I as soon as possible. Linda Finch read a prepared statement. She said that she has practiced architecture for many years. She asked that the email that she sent to the County Commissioners last night be entered into the record: February 27, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Orange County, NC Re: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Consideration Commissioners: I previously wrote you of my concerns about the UDO on November 21, 2010. Since that time I have made a conscious effort to understand its contents and potential impacts on the County once implemented. I would like to offer the following comments: On 10/19/09 during a public meeting, Mr. Harvey summarized that the UDO document would be "rewriting but not changing policy". I must respectfully disagree and voice my concern that both the Conditional Use District and the Conditional Zoning Districts could lead to commercial, mixed use, industrial, warehousing and many other higher density developments which are not consistent with the land uses identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the County. I doubt that even planning staff can project the consequences of enacting what I believe are "spot zoning" alternatives to the general rezoning processes we currently have in place. The Conditional Use District calls for a "concurrent" Legislative and Quasi-Judicial approval which could limit public input to one meeting. The Conditional Zoning District MPD-CZ changes the approval process to merely a Legislative process, eliminating the Quasi-Judicial (Special Use Permit) process.