Minutes - 20031124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

b. Amend Article 22 (Definitions), Article 4.1 (Establishment of Use Reaulations), Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), and Article 6.29.4 (Additional Requirements for Certain Subdivisions) of the Zoning Ordinance; and Section II (Definitions) and Section III-D-3 (Preliminary Plat Approval) of the Subdivision Regulations to require subdivisions with more than 20 lots in rural designated areas to follow a planned developmenttspecial use permit/zoning atlas amendment process. Craig Benedict said that this is in regards to the growth management system lot thresholds. At the August public hearing, amendments were brought forward that classified certain areas as rural shown as green on the map and certain areas as urban designated. At that time, the public hearing announcement said that 41 lots + in a rural area would undergo a rezoning. The Planning Board thought that a 20+1ot provision was more in order to represent the impacts that could occur in a rural area. At the November 5th meeting the Board of County Commissioners went with the Administration's recommendation, which was 41+ lots with the rezoning because that is what the legal advertisement said. The Board requested that 21+ lots be considered at this public hearing. There are no changes to thresholds in the urban designated areas. He spoke about impacts of different subdivisions. The assumption for a rural road is that the average high speed is 70 miles per hour. The intent of the enhanced rural preservation and accommodating the agricultural community in these areas is to have a level of service on rural roads that is more accommodating for the agricultural traffic. The level of service B has been used in this analysis, and it shows that a 20-lot subdivision would create a 5°lo increase on the maximum capacity. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no later than December 9, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Text Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance a. Amend Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table) and Article 8 (Special Uses) and the standards therein to allow "School, elementary, middle, and high," with the standards detailed in Article 8.8.29 and Article 8.8.30. Craig Benedict said that this is also a follow up to the August public hearing and a discussion concerning the permitted use table and special uses to regulate schools in different sections of the County. Previously, there have been regulations for schools to be located in an economic development district. It was suggested that a class A special use process be brought back for everywhere a school is located (residential or EDD). This item has two parts. One is to make anywhere where schools are allowed now to have a class A special use process. This allows more input by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, there are other recently adopted special use standards that were very comprehensive. He made reference to the "pyramid" on the handout and explained it. He said that they have imported the regulations for subdivisions and have transferred them over for the use of schools. They have created a new district.