Agenda - 06-03-2014 - 7d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

14 Chair Jacobs said parts of the monies are dedicated to agricultural economic development activities. He said the County is in the process of hiring a new agricultural economic development person who will be dedicated just to that portion of the economy. He said the Board has been working on this since Maple View Farms ice cream store came into existence. He said the County had to figure out a suitable process for engaging the flexibility to review different uses without granting them by right or having a blanket ban. He said the conditional use zoning has finally gotten them to this place. Commissioner Rich said when Commissioner Gordon shares information, she does it because she has a passion, and she wants to make sure everyone has all of the information in order to make an educated decision. Commissioner Gordon said agricultural uses were originally created for the existing farms. She referred to page 80 on the back of her handout and said the uses that are allowed are not the most intensive uses. She said the intensive uses are the ones that are only allowed as Agricultural Support Enterprises conditional zoning (ASE -CZ). She said there is some recognition in the advisory boards that some of these uses should not be allowed in the rural buffer. She listed some of these possible exclusions. Commissioner Gordon referred to the end of page 38 and read the following: "The rural buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain low- density residential uses, agricultural uses, and agricultural support uses and not require urban services (public utilities and other town services). Agricultural support uses are those designated in the County's UDO ordinance as allowable in the RB (rural buffer) general use zoning district or those permitted through the ASE - CZ conditional zoning district." Commissioner Gordon suggested that the board members look through all of the uses and review or tweak them before signing off on this. a. Orange County A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to include Commissioner Gordon's hand out information as well as the farm information requested by Alderman Slade and refer the item to the: • Orange County Planning Board for recommendation — May 7, 2014 • Board of County Commissioners for possible action — June 3, 2014 VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Chapel Hill A motion was made by Council Member Ward, seconded by Council Member Greene to to include Commissioner Gordon's hand out information as well as the farm information requested by Alderman Slade and refer the item to the to: • Chapel Hill Planning Board for recommendation — May 6, 2014 • Town Council for possible action — June 9, 2014 VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Carrboro A motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Seils to include Commissioner Gordon's hand out as well as the farm information requested by Alderman Slade and refer this item to the: • Carrboro Planning Board for recommendation — May 1, 2014 • Board of Aldermen for possible action — June 3, 2014