Minutes 02-28-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

specifically ties any rezoning to compliance with the underlying Comprehensive Plan. What is missing, for example, is language utilized for the original Planned Development (PD) district that explicitly refers to protecting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and seeking opportunities for neighborhood scale mixed use; and • Certain provisions for the University Lake Watershed Overlay District: the Conditional Districts should be prohibited in the University Lake Watershed Overlay District, and • For the Cane Creek and Upper Eno Protected and Critical Watershed Districts though outside of the Joint Planning Area, the conditional use district should be prohibited; and • Certain provisions for the Rural Buffer: the original language in the existing zoning ordinance specifies that development is for low densities and relies on ground absorption systems for sewage disposal. The new UDO text changes the disposal method to wastewater treatment facilities, which seems to imply the use of package systems. WHEREAS, it is important to understand these major changes to the UDO, because these could have an unintended effect on the way development occurs in Orange County; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen asks the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to look further into these areas of concern explained above, in order to head off possible consequences unintended by the Board. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and was duly adopted this 22nd day of February 2011. Email below from Lee Rafalow Member, Economic Development Commission Dear Orange County Commissioners; Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight's public hearing but I do have a couple of concerns that I hope you will take into consideration. I am disappointed that in the EDC meetings we were told several times that this phase of the UDO development process was simply to consolidate existing ordinances and that no new proposals would be included in this first phase. On scanning some sections of the proposed Ordinance, this is clearly not the case. But since I don't recall the sources of that information and since it appears to be a moot point now, I would only ask, if you haven't done so already, that the staff be directed to never make such a claim in its interaction with volunteer boards and the public at large. My principal concern about the portions of the proposed Ordinance that I have had the opportunity to read is with the new designation of Conditional Districts. There appears to be virtually no limit to where these districts can be placed. Surely there are areas of the County and joint planning jurisdictions that we know are not appropriate for these uses and others where we believe it might be appropriate for such uses.