Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
b. Zoning <br /> 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public, BOCC and Planning Board comments, <br /> 3. Refer the matter to Planning Board to be returned for BOCC action by September 6, <br /> 2012, <br /> 4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 6, 2012 to receive any written comments <br /> between May 29, 2012 and Planning Board recommendation. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked why the County was doing the land use amendments and <br /> the zoning amendments together. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the UDO allows government-initiated amendments to have a <br /> land use and zoning change together. Also, the differentiation between land use and zoning to <br /> the general public is a nuance. For clarity, it is better to bring them forward together. <br /> Public Comment: <br /> Charles Gunter said that he has written a number of letters to the elected officials and <br /> his concern with this matter. He said that he is not opposed to economic development. He has <br /> owned a business for 31 years. This is a heavy construction business. He is concerned that <br /> there are unintended consequences that can occur. He said that Stoney Creek from Gorilla <br /> Materials runs through his property. He does not want to see the County make another mistake <br /> by inviting other businesses that might also follow that same pattern. He asked the Board to <br /> look at this further and to look at the effects that this one business is causing and consider how <br /> other ones like that might affect the people there. He said that in the future it should be <br /> proposed to the public differently. It should be explained and then the questions that should be <br /> asked by the public should also be brought forward. He asked the County to do further <br /> investigation on this. <br /> Darcy Willson said that one of the things that concerns him is that some residential <br /> areas have been removed and others have not. He said that this does not seem fair. He said <br /> that he would like to be removed as well. He said that the negative financial and social impacts <br /> to area residents are too great to allow this zoning change to move forward. He said that this <br /> zoning change will greatly reduce the buffer between new non-residential development and <br /> existing small residential properties. He said that by incorporating the small residential <br /> properties, it will reduce the required buffers from the current 100 feet to as little as 25 feet. He <br /> said that the tax value of the residential properties will go up and many people will be unable to <br /> afford the increases. The areas affected by this change have a high percentage of affordable <br /> housing. He said that the Eno economic Development District Small Area Plan states that <br /> "development in the Eno Economic Development District is intended to occur under Orange <br /> County development regulations with coordination with the City of Durham." The interlocal <br /> agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham for construction and operation of <br /> water and sewer facilities in the Eno Economic Development zone of Orange County does not <br /> include provisions for this to occur. He said that it needs to be amended so that it complies with <br /> the Eno Economic Development Small Area Plan regarding this matter. <br />