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