Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 05-20-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-20-2014 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2015 2:13:04 PM
Creation date
5/16/2014 12:30:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/20/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
Minutes 05-20-2014
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
ORD-2014-022 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments for Agricultural Support Enterprises Outside of the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification - Public Hearing Closure and Action
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
101 <br />Commissioner Gordon asked about the PowerPoint and the use specific standards on <br />the bottom of page 4. She asked if, in the ASE -CZ, there are any uses in which all of the <br />standards are eliminated and it is entirely a case by case basis. <br />Perdita Holtz said no. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked if the standard for major roads is ever eliminated. <br />Perdita Holtz said yes, that is one that has been discussed. She said there are some <br />uses where you have to be located on a major road, but that standard can be modified if you go <br />through the re- zoning process for the conditional zoning district. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked for the reason why R1 does not have agricultural support <br />enterprises. <br />Perdita Holtz said, in the permitted use table, there is a footnote under the R1 zoning <br />that says no uses are being added here. She said the reason for this is because the R1 zoning <br />district purpose statement says that this is a zoning district for rural residential non -farm uses. <br />She said staff did not feel that farm uses should be added as permitted uses, as it would be <br />contrary to this purpose statement. She said, if you are currently zoned rural residential and <br />operating a farm, there are other avenues for approval, such as re- zoning to AR or applying to <br />the ASE -CZ zoning district. She said the R1 purpose statement could be modified, but that was <br />not the purpose of this effort. <br />Perdita Holtz presented the following final two slides: <br />Final Note <br />• Some uses the farming community might be interested in applying for may be <br />permissible as a "Home Occupation" <br />• Home Occupation standards are currently in the amendment approval process <br />• Heard at November 2013 quarterly public hearing <br />• Planning staff can help people determine which review /approval process would be the <br />most advantageous to apply for <br />Recommendation <br />• Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development <br />Ordinance. <br />• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on <br />the proposed amendment. <br />• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be <br />returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC <br />regular meeting. <br />• Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the <br />Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br />Perdita Holtz noted an error in attachment 3, on page 206. She said the sawmill use <br />category should be listed as being allowed in the ASE -CZ zoning district. She said this has <br />been corrected on the internet materials. <br />Commissioner McKee said it seems there is a problem between legal and the planning <br />staff. He asked how to proceed. <br />Michael Talbert said this is a large item with many moving parts, and the area in conflict <br />is fairly small. He feels it would be appropriate to proceed with the staff recommendation, and <br />this can come back on April 15th with revised definitions that meet the requirements of both <br />departments. <br />Perdita Holtz said this was scheduled to go to the planning board next week. She <br />suggested it would be good to have this language turned around in time to put together these <br />agenda materials. She said if this is not possible, it should be continued to a later date. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.