Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a lot going on here and the maps are confusing. He <br /> 2 thinks that it is important to look at the entire scope of what is reasonable to serve regarding water <br /> 3 and sewer. He is not suggesting rushing this, but the infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for <br /> 4 reasonable and considerate development of this property over the next 20-30 years. He thinks that it <br /> 5 will be short-sighted not to move forward at this point. <br /> 6 Commissioner Jacobs said that he wants to take a particular exception to the way in which <br /> 7 staff is proposing the impact on Stoney Creek. He said that the thought that this should be higher <br /> 8 intensity industrial is preposterous. He does not know why Orange County would be so insensitive to <br /> 9 the environment. <br /> 10 Craig Benedict said that no matter what land use or zoning category that is applied to the <br /> 11 lands in and around creeks,they will adhere to the highest standards applicable. Those impacts will <br /> 12 be monitored equally no matter what type of use. The reason the EDE-2 is suggested is that <br /> 13 because it does have 1-85 frontage and is near an intersection and isolated by railroad tracks to the <br /> 14 south. Also, the uses across from the mobile home park are industrial in nature. He said that the <br /> 15 staff will continue to take comments from the County Commissioners and the public and work with <br /> 16 the Planning Board to come up with recommendations. <br /> 17 In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict said that one of the <br /> 18 higher intensity areas in the Stoney Creek Basin plan is similar to areas where there is an existing <br /> 19 truck stop and additional retail opportunities. It is a mix of land uses and not just residential or non- <br /> 20 residential. <br /> 21 Commissioner Jacobs said that it would have been helpful to have a small area plan on the <br /> 22 website or in the packet. <br /> 23 Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' comments about the Stoney <br /> 24 Creek area. She said that she does believe that had the task force had the opportunity to look at that <br /> 25 area in particular,there would be no recommendations to include this part. She does think that the <br /> 26 task force agreed to what is proposed here otherwise, but not this particular area of Stoney Creek. <br /> 27 Commissioner Hemminger said that this is very confusing to her and she does not feel <br /> 28 comfortable making a decision. She thinks that this should be reworked. She would not be ready by <br /> 29 April 174h. <br /> 30 Chair Pelissier said that the Board could change this to another date. <br /> 31 Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board would like an opportunity to extend this item. <br /> 32 The Planning Board will need three or four meetings to really work this through. <br /> 33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to defer <br /> 34 this item to be heard again at the Quarterly Public Hearing in May and direct staff to address the <br /> 35 concerns that have been raised and bring them back to public hearing. If staff chooses to have <br /> 36 another public information meeting, the materials can be presented then. <br /> 37 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz) <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Chair Pelissier pointed out that a motion was missing on Item 1. This motion was added to <br /> 40 the end of Item 1. <br /> 41 <br />