Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
January 5, 1981 <br /> Orange County Board of Commissioners <br /> and <br /> Orange County Planning Staff <br /> Lady and Gentlemen: <br /> As you know, during the past several months the Orange County <br /> planning Board has been reviewing the draft of the new zoning ordinance <br /> for Orange County with the objective of approving this draft or raking <br /> suggestions for further changes. At a recent meeting of the planning <br /> Board section 2.2 entitled Planning Boards was reviewed, and a motion <br /> was made by Dr. S. Kizer to change section 2.2.3, Qualifications; to the <br /> following: "Every member of the Board shall be a member of Orange Countyss <br /> planning jurisdiction. Each township within the County shall be represented <br /> in the-membership of the Board by two residents of that Township"., After <br /> discussion this motion was passed by a vote of 7 to 3. The discussion of <br /> the motion had brought out the fact that currently there are wore than 2 <br /> members of the present Board who are residents of Chapel Hill Township <br /> and the motion, if adopted, would necessitate the resignation of some of <br /> the present members of the Board. Consequently, a second Motion was passed <br /> to the effect that all current members of the Board be permitted to complete <br /> their terms of appointment. <br /> At the meeting of the Planning Board on December 15, 1980 the <br /> question of section 2.2.3 of the revised ordinance was again opened for <br /> discussion by one of the members of the Board who had voted against Dr. <br /> Kizer"s motion to change section 2.2.3. During this discussion the follow- <br /> ing objections were raised to the change in the membership of the Planning <br /> Board: <br /> 1. With two members from each township the total membership of the Board <br /> would be 14. It would be difficult to conduct meetings of the Board with <br /> such a large membership, and it would be more difficult than at present <br /> to obtain a quorum for the meetings• (see attached table of data) <br /> 2. The townships differ greatly in pop ulation <br /> and consequently equal representation from each township would seem to <br /> be inappropriate and inequitable. <br /> 3. The principal business of the Planning Board is to review proposals <br /> submitted by developers. A majority of the proposed developments are <br /> located in Chapel Hill Township (more than :-,al.f of the total proposals <br /> submitted during the past two years), and the remaining proposals are lo- <br /> cated principally in Eno, Hillsborough, and Bingham Townships. Consequently, <br /> it seems desirable to have greater representation on the Board from those <br /> townships in which the greatest developmental activity is occurring since <br /> the representatives from those townships would be better acquainted with <br /> potential problems with those developments. The original statement of <br /> section 2.2.3 would seem to be preferable since it provided for at least <br /> one repersentative from each township with the possibility of 5 other <br /> members who could be appointed from those townships in which the greatest <br /> dev_lopmenta)_ activity was occurring. <br /> 4. Several townships will not be included in the jurisdiction of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance at present (Cedar Grove and Little River Townships are not <br /> included in the proposed zoning jurisdiction, and the Planning Board <br /> voted on December 15, 1980 to recommend exclusion of Cheeks Township <br /> also). Consequently, it does not seem to be equitable for those town- <br />