Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />9 <br />Council Member Palmer asked if this means changing the plan to allow clustering to <br />have lots of half an acre as long as the density is maintained. <br />Michael Harvey said that is one thing that would have to change, but there are many <br />more changes that would have to occur, and he is not prepared to discuss that this evening. <br />Council Member Palmer asked if it is possible in much of the rest of the County. <br />Michael Harvey said yes. He said there are existing subdivision categories that give <br />people the option to go through a process to create exactly what Council Member Palmer is <br />talking about. He said most of these are in areas where water and sewer are available. <br />Alderman Seils said he has concern about any reduction of lot sizes. He said these <br />discussions are describing an urban area, and the purpose of the rural buffer is to not be an <br />urban area. He said he is not interested in changing the rural buffer to an urban area. <br />Commissioner Gordon agreed with Alderman Seils comments. She said the proposed <br />concepts that Town Council Member Palmer mentioned require public water and sewer. She <br />said there are good reasons why the requirements are in place for lots with septic and well. <br />Commissioner Price said she is in favor of the proposal, but she has looked at the <br />clustering option in the past. She said she some of these developments have community wells <br />in other areas, and it requires creative planning and a consideration of the carrying capacity of <br />the land. <br />a. Orange County <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to refer <br />this item to the: <br />Orange County Planning Board for recommendation — May 7, 2014 <br />Board of County Commissioners for possible action — June 3, 2014 <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />b. Chapel Hill <br />A motion was made by Council Member Palmer, seconded by Council Member Storrow <br />to refer this item to the : <br />Chapel Hill Planning Board for recommendation — May 6, 2014 <br />Town Council for possible action — June 9, 2014 <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />c. Carrboro <br />A motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Seils to refer this item to <br />the: <br />Carrboro Planning Board for recommendation — May 1, 2014 <br />Board of Aldermen for possible action — June 3, 2014 <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />2. Text Amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement <br />Revise existing language to allow for the possibility of locating appropriate agricultural <br />support enterprises in the Rural Buffer land use classification. <br />Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: <br />Text Amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement to Allow for the <br />Possibility of Locating Appropriate Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural <br />Buffer Land Use Classification <br />