Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 6b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 6b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2016 12:26:46 PM
Creation date
6/1/2012 2:50:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/5/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6b
Document Relationships
Minutes 06-05-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
ORD-2012-021 Ordinance Amending the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning District
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
36 <br />Tony Blake: That's exactly what I was thinking is that is the kind of thing you, music <br />or.... <br />Buddy Hartley: Now, could it be upgraded, sure but that would cost a lot of money. <br />That's the thing. <br />Maxecine Mitchell: The 200 foot buffer, it's not currently there right? Is that something <br />the owner would have to bring up to code? <br />Glenn Bowles: Correct. If they want to upgrade the facility or if they want to sell it to <br />use for something else, then we will have a discussion. <br />Michael Harvey: One of the reasons we provided these attachments was at the <br />quarterly public hearing both Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Jacobs brought <br />this concern to light. Staff had proposed buffer and parking requirements, etc. Both <br />Commissioners wanted to see the practical application of the proposed standards on <br />the existing sites so we provided the planning board these aerial photos to see the <br />impacts for discussion and feedback. <br />Glenn Bowles: Continued reviewing abstract and slides. <br />Larry Wright: We are talking about a go -cart track that has not been used in a <br />considerable timeframe and a speedway that is for eight or ten races. Now you have <br />taken us through these conditions that need to be met. I see a discrepancy in that is in <br />incongruent with the amount of money coming and how these people are going to find <br />money to deal with the stands, lights and building a new track, etc. We've listened to <br />this for about 15, 20 minutes and I don't, it seems incongruent to me. <br />Glenn Bowles: We are trying to develop a process to bring them forward into <br />conformance should they choose to on a voluntary basis. <br />Larry Wright: I don't see where we are going with this. <br />Michael Harvey: There are limitations on what non - conforming land uses can do in a <br />given calendar year and over its lifetime to continue to maintain and upgrade their <br />facilities. It is limited, according to the UDO by year and dollar amount. There are <br />severe limitations. This process is twofold. We have recommendations in a small area <br />plan to develop a rural economic development zoning construct. We also had to <br />establish regulations governing what would happen if a new go -kart track, motorized <br />track or speedway would come into this area so we could address identified issues that <br />local residents have expressed concern. In the specific example of the go -kart track <br />and speedway, if the individual owners wish to keep the existing facility as is, they can <br />do that. If they choose to expand the facility, they now have a process if the REDA <br />zoning designation is adopted, they can come before the County Commissioners to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.