Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would not want to preclude the possibility of having <br />commercial activity along the interstate. This would require action by the Board of County <br />Commissioners. He does not want to tie the hands of future Boards. He prefers leaving this as it <br />is and relying on the Board of County Commissioners to make appropriate decisions as to where <br />transition nodes should and should not be located. <br />Commissioner McKee said that his concern is to not to eliminate the possibility of <br />commercial development along the interstates. His point is that there are intersections on these <br />interstates that do not have sewer and water, but should be available for low-impact commercial <br />activity. <br />Discussion ensued about the language. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought that Commissioner Gordon was trying to make <br />this clear and not to have a debate on it. He suggested calling the question. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict if he was firm in the conclusion that the language <br />about 10- and 20-year transition areas could not be kept. Craig Benedict said yes. He said that <br />it would be appropriate at this time to discuss where public utilities could be planned. <br />Commissioner Gordon clarified that she wants to keep the language that she read <br />regarding the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node, which was related to water and <br />wastewater services. <br />Commissioner Gordon restated her motion: Approve Attachment Two, with the changes <br />as stated, which add "land located at major road intersections or near major transportation routes <br />that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail or <br />other commercial uses." This would be on page 18 and page 53. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to <br />close the public hearing. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />Vote on Commissioner Gordon's motion: <br />VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1(Commissioner McKee) <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked that staff be encouraged to take into account some of the <br />other concepts that were referred to about alternative construction of activity nodes. <br />e. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text (UDO/Zoninq 2011-06) <br />The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, <br />and making a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Unified Development <br />Ordinance. <br />Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item. She said that this was heard at the Quarterly Public <br />Hearing, and there was no public comment, but several County Commissioners made comments <br />and these are summarized on pages 2-3 of the abstract. As a result of these comments, staff <br />made two revisions to the proposed amendments. The first was to revise the definition of <br />"research facility" to provide greater clarity. This is on page 111 of the packet. Regarding the <br />question about architectural design controls for Section 6.2.5 and 6.2.6, staff is proposing that <br />the existing architectural design standards for economic development districts be amended to <br />apply to all of the nodes that are subject to the proposed changes in those two sections. On <br />pages 78-82, it has the revised language. <br />NO PUBLIC COMMENT <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger <br />to close the public hearing. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />