Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7- /Z <br /> e. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text(UDO/Zoninq- 2011-061 <br /> The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, <br /> and making a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Unified Development <br /> Ordinance. <br /> Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item. She said that this was heard at the Quarterly Public <br /> Hearing, and there was no public comment, but several County Commissioners made comments <br /> and these are summarized on pages 2-3 of the abstract. As a result of these comments, staff <br /> made two revisions to the proposed amendments. The first was to revise the definition of <br /> "research facility" to provide greater clarity. This is on page 111 of the packet. Regarding the <br /> question about architectural design controls for Section 6.2.5 and 6.2.6, staff is proposing that <br /> the existing architectural design standards for economic development districts be amended to <br /> apply to all of the nodes that are subject to the proposed changes in those two sections. On <br /> pages 78-82, it has the revised language. <br /> NO PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger <br /> to close the public hearing. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> Commissioner Gordon suggested some additional language and Perdita Holtz said that <br /> this would be appropriate. This language is, "manufacturing and processing operation of large <br /> finished products, which have limited impacts on surrounding properties." Such uses will include <br /> but not be limited to the following: heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances, <br /> manufactured homes, recreational vehicles and related components, automotive, farm, and <br /> construction machinery, and commercial building components." <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is too limiting if it is limited to the lot. It would be <br /> more appropriate to limit it to the zoning district. He said that it is very difficult to determine what <br /> an adverse impact is. <br /> John Roberts said that "adverse or limiting" impacts are very subjective and can leave <br /> the County open to lawsuits to anything involving any kind of impact. He cautioned about the <br /> lack of specificity. <br /> Frank Clifton said that if the Board wants to go with zoning districts, it is a policy decision <br /> on potential impacts. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like staff to spend time reviewing this more <br /> closely. <br /> Chair Pelissier suggested bringing back this section and approving the remaining parts. <br /> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING <br /> THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY <br /> WHEREAS, Orange County would like to more strongly encourage quality, non-residential <br /> development in its designated growth areas while balancing any adverse impacts to adjacent <br /> properties and the environment, and <br /> WHEREAS, County staff has conducted a review of development regulations contained in the <br /> Unified Development Ordinance and it has been determined that some development regulations <br /> limit development potential in growth areas intended for economic development, and <br /> WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and terminology used therein have <br /> necessitated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance in order to ensure consistency, <br /> and <br />