Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the process and said that she is concerned <br />that this approach seems to do two things at once —1) we are trying to improve the <br />subdivision process so that there is a higher standard of performance for larger <br />developments and 2) we are basically changing the map. She said that it is not as <br />logical as what she thought the process was supposed to be. She would like to leave <br />the comprehensive plan and zoning plan alone, and focus on trying to improve the <br />subdivision process. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked for information on subjective cut -off sizes for the different <br />threshold sizes. He would like to see some real examples to see what impacts there <br />actually are that led the staff to these numbers. He also asked about the current thinking <br />of pursuing updating the comprehensive land use plan. Craig Benedict said that this is a <br />procedural and standard process and these amendments do not have any linkage to <br />comprehensive land use planning density changes. He said that they are suggesting an <br />outreach proposal using a facilitation firm to propose some changes to the overall plan of <br />the County. This will be coming back to the Board for approval soon. Regarding the <br />threshold numbers, they did some research on existing subdivisions. They considered <br />traffic, location, and impacts on water and sewer. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that, as a practical matter, there is a land use plan map as <br />part of the comprehensive plan and a zoning map, and Craig Benedict is suggesting <br />another map. She submits that it makes a lot more sense to get the comprehensive plan <br />straight and the rezoning map straight and then do this. Then there would not have to <br />be the different options. She said that this is extremely confusing. <br />Commissioner Gordon made some suggestions about the text language as follows: <br />- page 23, section 3, Subdivision Regulations — reword this so it is clear <br />- page 24, section 5, New Classifications — check on level 1 versus level 2 analysis <br />- page 25, section c1, word it so that there is always a public utility handling it <br />- page 26, Open Space Connectivity, section d, define "borrowed open space" <br />- section a on the same page, "natural, man, and manmade resources" — she suggests <br />"natural and constructed resources" (something gender neutral) <br />- page 29, c1, define this better <br />- page 30, d1c, she asked if fenced rows should be included in the list, along with <br />streams and other things, in terms of connectivity <br />- page 31, e5, Nitrogen load contribution must be held to 3.6 pounds per acre, and she <br />asked for a justification of this number <br />- page 37, in the permitted use table, star is used two ways <br />- page 38, explain what 'S' means <br />Renee Price asked about the various options and to make sure the planning process <br />does not appease the developer but is not good for the County. She said that there <br />were too many categories. She would like to focus more on the process and how much <br />the citizens of Orange County understand where they are in the County. <br />Barry Katz said that the land use element map and the zoning map do not harmonize <br />and asked if the intent was to create a map that does harmonize. Craig Benedict said <br />that R -1 zoning may have different densities in different sections of the County. The <br />land use map does not differentiate between densities. They are adding another map to <br />the land use plan - a water and sewer boundary map. He said that they were not <br />suggesting four different options, but they wanted to show the most restrictive <br />