Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-05-2015 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 05-05-2015 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-05-2015 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2015 10:00:37 AM
Creation date
5/1/2015 8:49:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/5/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
2015-197 Statement of Consistency of Proposed Comprehensive Plan and UDO Amendments with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and/or other Adopted County Plans
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\General Contracts and Agreements\2010's\2015
Minutes 05-05-2015
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2015
ORD-2015-011 Ordinance Amending the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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
56 <br />1 <br />Perdita Holtz: Community meat processing would be permitted, but that is not agricultural processing under the <br />definition. There is non -meat and meat. <br />Lydia Wegman: It says, permitted by right. <br />Perdita Holtz: On the table of permitted uses, a community meat processing facility would be permitted by right. <br />Lydia Wegman: If it is permitted by right, that means only the staff gets to address those issues, correct? So the <br />public has no input at all regarding size, noise, and smell? <br />Perdita Holtz: Yes. But there are standards about the size and what is permitted. In the use specific standards for a <br />community meat processing facility, the building cannot be more than 10,000 square feet, located at least 100 feet <br />from the property lines, and outdoor storage only in the rear yard, screened from view. As far as the odors, under the <br />performance standards in Section 6.4..... <br />Michael Harvey: In Section 6.4 there is air pollution, but not odor per say. There are statutory limitations and <br />protections granted to farmers with respect to odors, limiting them from being classified as a nuisance and limiting <br />adjoining property owners to sue under a nuisance provision under the general statute. <br />Lydia Wegman: Are there any restrictions on ag odors? <br />Michael Harvey: There are certain restrictions. Certain farm operations are provided, as defined by state statutes, <br />an exemption from being sued as a nuisance case. <br />Lydia Wegman: About the 100 foot setback, one of the slides talked about reducing the setback if there is an existing <br />farm building so that 100 foot could potentially be reduced so there is no guarantee of 100 feet between the <br />processing facility and the adjoining property. <br />Tony Blake: Would the definition of processing be extended to slaughter? <br />Perdita Holtz: If it's a meat processing facility, yes. If it's agriculture processing not including animals it is just an <br />agricultural processing facility. <br />Lydia Wegman: When does the Agricultural Preservation Board get involved? <br />Perdita Holtz: Their involvement is outlined on pages 22, 23, and 24. <br />Lydia Wegman: The reference in Section 2.5.4(C)(1)(b) is just definitional, it is not limited? <br />Perdita Holtz: Correct. <br />Lydia Wegman: There is no provision for neighborhood information meetings, is that correct? <br />Perdita Holtz: There is if you are doing a special use permit application or rezoning application which is a <br />requirement. It is in Section 2.7. <br />Lydia Wegman: On page 25, Base Zoning Districts, on the ASE -CZ, is there a definition of compatibility, and then it <br />says thus ensuring and I think that should be en and not in, is there a definition of compatibility, continued <br />conservation, building values or appropriate use of land. <br />Perdita Holtz: There is not but the applicability section was taken from existing language in others. It is a legislative <br />decision as to what is compatible. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.