Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved May 4, 2011 <br />Michaei Harvey: The best way to answer that question is there is a proposal to limit the number of cars and in this particular <br />instance, which I believe is acceptable. <br />Craig Benedict: There will be a site plan approval required allowing for this type of development within the NC-2 zoning district <br />as for any non-residential development. If this text amendment goes through, the use will become a permitted use at this leve4 in <br />that area and they will have to come in with a site plan prior to commencing operations. <br />Mark Marcoplos: I am comfortable with this proposal <br />Larry Wright: I welcome this. I am against sprawl but we do live in a county where when you rank a{I the counties together, <br />probably has the top 10% of the mean economic. As far as tax revenue, we are probably in the bottom five or ten. We have got <br />to do more of this and if we can do it in the Economic Development Zone and the Economic Districts. This is the way we need to <br />think about this. I would like to see more of this. <br />Peter Hallenbeck: Mr. Lloyd's property is adjacent to mine. I know the location they are talking about. It certainly fits in with the <br />character and community in Efland. That area is being designated as a place to bring in more businesses for all those reasons <br />and the economy being the way it is any kind of business is good. This process has been underway for a while and I am <br />concern that this application was stuck during the UDO wars but would this be a good example of how to use a conditional use <br />zoning, should we just change the zoning. I don't think it is fair to the applicant to have that long period of time because we are <br />doing other things. <br />Mark Marcoplos: On point which is unrelated so we can deal with this issue after we deal with the motion or not but I was <br />curious as to the reference of sitting with the Planning Board for six months to get a general idea of how it did get slowed down <br />and if that is an accurate statement. <br />Michael Harvey: That is not an accurate statement. The application was submitted by the applicant in December. February is <br />the first Quarterly Public Hearing that this proposal could be scheduled for a review in accordance with our existing processes. <br />MoTiow made by Alan Campbell to approve the item as per staffs recommendation. Seconded by Mark Marcoplos. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />Craig Benedict: As a post note, unrelated to this application. As was noted in the agenda packet there are two different ways to <br />do things. On is to change the text that is not necessarily specific to any person's property and the other way is in the future, the <br />new UDO we have, allows an applicant a specific property and a specific applicant to say I think I have an appropriately placed <br />business and it works with the neighborhood and I am going to say on my property i am going to do something like this. That will <br />be another avenue that you will have in the future. We now have another way to achieve the same goals and be specific to the <br />needs of a neighborhood or individual. That was one area that needed to be corrected. <br />14 <br />2 <br />