Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />10 <br />Woods said that he was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they have not addressed any interfacing <br />with this area at all. The work has been Countywide and not site specific. He will bring a report to the next <br />meeting on the Affordable Housing Task Force. <br />McAdams said that there was one homeowner that was for the rezoning and one homeowner that was <br />opposed to it. Also, Chandler Concrete is opposed to the rezoning. He asked if there was any way to leave <br />the one homeowner and Chandler Concrete out so that they do not have to go through an arduous process to <br />be rezoned to their current use. Benedict said that the board could recommend that some properties be left in <br />or out. He said that it was generally not good to spot -zone. <br />Woods said that he was in favor of 9a, 9b, and 9c. In regards to 9d (listed as l Ob in the agenda), he does not <br />understand why a truck stop is not appropriate at the intersection of 1 -40 and NC 86. He asked where it <br />would be appropriate to have a truck stop. <br />There was no public comment about 9a, 9b, or 9c. <br />MOTION: Woods moved approval of the proposed amendments as given in item 9a. <br />Seconded by Allison. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (McAdams - he thinks four acres is an extremely large lot for <br />a business.) <br />MOTION: Allison moved approval of the creation of an Economic Development- <br />Limited Office 1 District in the Orange County permitted use zoning tables <br />as given in item 9b. Seconded by Selkirk. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />MOTION: Selkirk moved approval of the proposed EDD Design Manual - Abridged <br />Version. Seconded by Allison. <br />Benedict said that, in regards to item 9c, smaller lot sizes are allowed by virtue of rezoning. This is in the <br />planned development standards. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />d. Zoning Atlas Amendment for Areas 3a and 3b located at NC 86/1- <br />85 /Old NC 10 Intersection <br />Allison said that there should be some type of "grandfathering" for non - conforming properties that already <br />exist. <br />Benedict said that residential structures could be rebuilt if they are destroyed up to 75% or more of the floor <br />area. No expansion is allowed, but there is an appeal process. With commercial/industrial structures, they <br />could be rebuilt if they are destroyed up to 60% or more of the floor area. <br />Woods said that he understands that the intent was that this area (700 acres) would be a high - density <br />commercial area totaling 6.6 million square feet. He asked when the Planning Board would talk about the <br />6.6 million square feet of mixed -use development intended for the 700 -acre tract. He reiterated his concern <br />about an appropriate place for a truck stop in Orange County. <br />Strayhom asked what an appropriate use would be for the site at Chandler Concrete. Benedict said that an <br />appropriate use would be small office buildings or small retail uses. <br />