Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
115 <br /> 1 - Do these changes allow for reasonable development while boosting Orange County's <br /> 2 competitiveness in the region to attract non-residential development to the designated <br /> 3 growth areas? <br /> 4 Environment/Economic I Social <br /> 5 <br /> 6 It's All a Balance <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Recommendation <br /> 9 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as detailed in <br /> 10 the abstract and attachments. <br /> 11 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on <br /> 12 the proposed amendments. <br /> 13 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be <br /> 14 returned to the BOCC in time for the February 7, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. <br /> 15 4. Adjourn the public hearing until February 7, 2012 in order to receive and accept the <br /> 16 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> 17 Questions/Public Comment <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the process for approving multi-building, multi-use <br /> 20 development. <br /> 21 Perdita Holtz said that very little land is zoned properly to allow for something like that. If <br /> 22 zoned correctly, the limiting factors would be complying with all of the requirements of the UDO <br /> 23 —stream buffers, landscaping, parking, etc. If there were a multi-building, multi-use and all of <br /> 24 the requirements were met, the applicant would dome in for a site plan approval, which is <br /> 25 administrative. <br /> 26 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was anything that regulated the appearance of <br /> 27 structures. <br /> 28 Perdita Holtz said that there is a section of the UDO that has architectural standards for <br /> 29 the EDDs and those are not proposed to be changed. <br /> 30 Discussion ensued about the height regulations. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Planning Board member Alan Campbell left at 9:21 p.m. <br /> 33 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 343 and 344 and said that he <br /> 34 appreciates the chart on decibel levels. He thinks that the noise ordinance using decibels is a <br /> 35 failure because there is no good way to judge the noise. He is very hesitant to raise decibel <br /> 36 levels from what exists. <br /> 37 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 352 and asked that information that was <br /> 38 provided regarding Buckhorn Village and how much of a disturbance in the interstate buffer was <br /> 39 reasonable be provided. He said that this seems larger to him. <br /> 40 Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciated the color-coding. She made reference <br /> 41 to page 310 and asked about the rationale for changing the requirements for something like a <br /> 42 public interest district. <br /> 43 Perdita Holtz said that Section 6.2.5 and 6.2.6 are going to be changed and will <br /> 44 potentially affect many zoning districts. The way things are referenced are changed and the <br /> 45 process is not changed at all. <br /> 46 Commissioner Gordon flagged this for now because it was not clear. <br /> 47 Commissioner Gordon asked several clarifying questions, which were answered by <br /> 48 Perdita Holtz. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 <br /> 3 <br />