Agenda - 05-05-2015 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

57 II 1 109 Lydia Wegman: Is there any history to what the BOCC would consider? 110 111 Perdita Holtz: Not that I can speak to off the top of my head. It is a case by case. 112 113 Pete Hallenbeck: It is so hard to get everything down in English. A lot of these compatibility issues means if it is a 114 close call it is at the discretion of the BOCC. When we look at all these changes I like to look at the rules and format. 115 What are the rules and then there is the content. Is the general setup and format acceptable in terms of rules and 116 are there specific things in the table of permitted uses I don't like and use that as a way to clarify. 117 118 Lisa Stuckey: On page 14, the towns recommended the four uses that we deleted from the rural buffer. What was 119 their thinking? 120 121 Perdita Holtz: I went to seven meetings with the Town of Carrboro for this discussion. It came down to some of them 122 wanted to vote for something and they wanted this to go forward and so they asked their colleagues what their 123 reservations were and that is what they came up with. 124 125 Pete Hallenbeck: It would be interesting to get a current inventory of any agricultural facilities within the rural buffer 126 that have buildings over 5,000 square feet which would address your setbacks. Another one would be a scatter plot 127 of lots to see how many 100 and 200 acre lots that someone could turn into a farm. 128 129 Paul Guthrie: Is there any language in what you have been working on relative to a piece of property that is 130 legitimately classed as agricultural and wants to begin processing that is now currently under tax leniency? Is there a 131 requirement that the tax be paid before the permit is issued? 132 133 Perdita Holtz: To qualify for the tax value program, if they don't meet the requirements of the tax value program, they 134 will probably drop the tax value for that portion of the property. 135 136 Lydia Wegman: Do you know of any farmers interested in these activities? 137 138 Perdita Holtz: We have had a few inquiries. 139 140 Pete Hallenbeck: I like the fact that the APB is involved. I like the rules on the format. There will always be 141 differences of opinion. 142 143 MOTION: Made by Buddy Hartley, seconded by Tony Blake 144 VOTE: (7 -1) Lydia Wegman opposed. 145 146 Lydia Wegmen: I support some of the uses, but have concerns with a community meat processing facility and why it 147 should be included in the Rural Buffer. To me the Rural Buffer should remain rural and a place to come and relax, 148 enjoy the country. A meat processing facility does not fit into my view of the Rural Buffer. 149 150 Pete Hallenbeck: Just to clarify, you are saying a rural buffer, not an agricultural buffer, and it is a mistake to assume 151 the two are synonymous. 152 153 Lydia Wegman: I know the Rural Buffer definition includes agriculture and I am in support of that, but with concerns 154 over inability to raise nuisance questions over odors under state law, I am not comfortable having that in the Rural 155 Buffer. I will also note that on the community meat processing, part of my concern is that it is permitted by right. If 156 there were an SUP required with input from the neighborhood, I would be willing to support it. 157 158 Paul Guthrie: Any meat processing of any scale will require significant water and water disposal which comes under 159 a whole different thing. Getting a permit could be difficult. 160 161