Orange County NC Website
17 <br /> 1 He said some of the intended but not articulated consequences of the plan are that it <br /> 2 recognizes the rural buffer to the south of Hillsborough. It also de-facto creates rural buffers to <br /> 3 the west of Hillsborough in the upper Eno and to the east, separating Durham from <br /> 4 Hillsborough. <br /> 5 He said this includes an Orange Grove access management plan that would have been <br /> 6 very informative for people in the Eno River EDD. <br /> 7 He said this is the kind of plan that the County eventually needs to have with Mebane. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 10 <br /> 11 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING <br /> 12 <br /> 13 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to <br /> 14 adjourn the public hearing at 9:44. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 17 <br /> 18 E. BOCC WORK SESSION: <br /> 19 <br /> 20 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises (Continued) <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Perdita Holtz resumed her presentation with discussion points, looking at pages 1-4 of <br /> 23 the abstract. She asked for direction on whether changes should be written into the existing <br /> 24 public hearing process for Agriculture Support Enterprises. <br /> 25 Chair Jacobs asked what the other 80 pages of the abstract contain. <br /> 26 Perdita Holtz said these additional pages contain the UDO text amendments that are <br /> 27 expected to move forward next month. She said the approval process must happen first. <br /> 28 Commissioner Rich said the presentation left off on page 9. She said she agrees with <br /> 29 the staff opinion that option 3 is not preferred due to extra time, and cost. She is trying to <br /> 30 understand the difference between the other options and what makes the most sense. <br /> 31 Perdita Holtz said the difference between options 1 and 2 is the timing of the Planning <br /> 32 Board recommendation, and the difference in the number of Public Hearing dates available for <br /> 33 development projects throughout the year. She said there is currently a quarterly process for <br /> 34 Public Hearings. <br /> 35 She said previous agriculture support work advocated that re-zonings and special use <br /> 36 permits for Agriculture Support uses should be allowed on any BOCC regular meeting agenda <br /> 37 under the public hearings section. She said this is being brought forward to see if the Board is <br /> 38 interested in this. <br /> 39 She said there is now a UDO, and in order to incorporate all of the previous work into the <br /> 40 UDO a decision must be made regarding changes to the development approval process. <br /> 41 Commissioner Rich asked if allowing the public hearings at regular meetings would <br /> 42 make the process move faster. <br /> 43 Perdita Holtz said it would probably not make the process move faster, as it is already a <br /> 44 favorable approval time. She said it would make a monthly cycle for applicants to be heard <br /> 45 earlier. <br /> 46 Commissioner Rich asked what this means for staff time. <br /> 47 Perdita Holtz said staff time is expected to remain the same. <br /> 48 Commissioner Gordon clarified that the discussion tonight is simply about the Board <br /> 49 commenting on the public hearing process and not the substance of Agricultural Enterprises. <br /> 50 Perdita Holtz said yes. <br /> 51 Commissioner Gordon said there are a lot of reasons why the public hearing process is <br /> 52 done the way it is done today. She said there were major land use questions that would come <br /> 53 up at these four quarterly public hearings. She said this meant that the public only had to keep <br /> 54 track of these four hearings in order to follow an issue being discussed. <br />