Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment 8 Approved 7/10/13 <br /> 1 Excerpt of approved June 5, 2013 <br /> 2 Planning Board minutes <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Njovdt <br /> 5 PSBCHF!DPvcLzQ coicH!CPBSE <br /> 6 K/cF!6-3124 <br /> 7 SFFNM3S!N FFUCH <br /> 8 <br /> 9 NFNCFS_P03FTFC.t!Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township <br /> 10 Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; <br /> 11 Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Alan Campbell, <br /> 12 Cedar Grove Township Representative <br /> 13 <br /> NFNCFSPB;CTFC..S!Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;.Dawn Brezina, Eno Township..Rep.resentative.:.... ... .. . ... <br /> 15 Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; <br /> 16 <br /> 17 TU3G303FTFC! Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Bhf oeb!df n !8;! [POUCH BLWT!BNFCENFCU6 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a property owner- <br /> 21 initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a 3.36 acre parcel of property along US <br /> 22 Highway 70 (PIN 9803-81-7503) from EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) to <br /> 23 EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity). This item was heard at the May 28, 2013 <br /> 24 quarterly public hearing. <br /> 25 Qf t f od si!!Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Pete Hallenbeck: The EDE-1 to the south of that property,the expectation is it would stay EDE-1. <br /> 30 <br /> 3,1 Michael Harvey: Action on this item will not have any impact on the zoning.of the Southern propert y. Even.if the.zoning.. .. <br /> 32 of the Baldwin property is changed to EDE-2, the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance requires a 100 foot <br /> 33 perimeter buffer for all EDD zoned properties. Regardless of the zoning of the Baldwin property the 100 foot buffer will <br /> 34 still apply. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Pete Hallenbeck: The 100 foot buffer is only in the transition from EDD to something else, it is not EDE adjacent to <br /> 37 each other? <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Michael Harvey: I am referring to the 100 foot perimeter buffer that has to surround the EDD zoned areas of the <br /> 40 County. The rezoning of this property will not impact or reduce this perimeter buffer requirement in any way. Let's <br /> 41 assume this parcel to the south of the Baldwin property were rezoned to Rural Residential. This would mean the <br /> 42 perimeter buffer would be imposed on the properties to the north. The rezoning of the Baldwin property from EDE-1 to <br /> 43 EDE-2 however will not impact this requirement. Also bear in mind there are different land use buffers required for <br /> 44 different land uses. EDD properties adjacent to one another have to have some form of land use buffer based on what <br /> 45 is proposed to be developed. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 NPUPO made by Lisa Stuckey to accept staffs recommendation and recommend approval to the Board of County <br /> 48 Commissioners. <br /> 50 VOLF:VcBaNPVT <br /> 51 <br /> 52 <br /> 53 <br /> 1 <br />