Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1. Requirements which are not currently clearly satisfied: <br />a. The rezoning request is for property that is located in an area where <br />necessary water .and sewer infrastructure may be available to support the <br />proposed development. Consistent with the Orange County-Mebane water <br />and sewer agreement, although it is not clear how the demands of the <br />development would affect other future development that requires water and <br />sewer capacity in the Efland area and other nearby locales; <br />[Finding 2 B-1 (a) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote] <br />b. The rezoning request relates to property that is properly situated and located <br />to be served by Interstate I-40 and mass transit facilities; however the <br />transportation analysis provided by the applicant fails adequately to address <br />issues related to weekend transportation patterns ,and issues related to <br />Orange County residents' travel from within the County to reach the project <br />property, and insufficiently addresses transportation issues that would arise <br />in the event the North Carolina Department of Transportation fails to fund <br />improvements in I-40 and Buckhorn Road. <br />[Finding 2-B-1 (b) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote] <br />C. Requirements relating to unified control of the property and the suitability of any <br />~% ~ proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, <br />contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, <br />or for amendments in those proposed; <br />1. Requirements that are satisfied: <br />a. The rezoning application contains sufficient documentation indicating that <br />the development will be under unified control the development of the <br />property consistent with the proposed rezoning. <br />[Finding 2 C-1 (a) was unanimously approved] <br />D. Consistency with Economic Development Plans: <br />1. Requirements that are not currently clearly satisfied: <br />a. The applicant projects creation of retail and hotel jobs, but not higher- <br />income employment of the type anticipated by County plans calling for <br />higher-income full-time employment opportunities; <br />[Finding 2 D-1 (a) was adopted by a Five (5) to Four (4) vote] <br />b. The applicant and the county's consultant have submitted economic <br />analysis that assumes that significant sales tax and real property tax <br />revenues would be generated by the proposed development, but this <br />analysis is significantly flawed insofar as it fails adequately to assess costs <br />3 <br />