Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> opened to the public, Mr. Compton asked how the nodes were determined <br /> and what was the process for changing them. Bell stated that the nodes <br /> were determined in 1981 . He stated that there had been a series of <br /> informational meetings, TAC meetings, public hearings and Planning <br /> Board meetings at which various drafts and <br /> discussed and that the current node plan alternatives were <br /> finally adopted. In response to changingrtheasnodetconfiguration, oBell <br /> stated that such amendments had to be approved by the County <br /> Commissioners. He stated that a proposal for amending a node could <br /> come from the Commissioners, TAC, Planning Board/Staff, or public. He <br /> emphasized the importance of arterial/collector intersections and the <br /> fact that amendments creating new nodes were only considered at the <br /> February public hearing. Mr. Compton said he thought one of the best <br /> areas for commercial use had been left off the plan and this was the <br /> intersection of NC 86 and Hurdle Mills Road. Bell stated that Hurdle <br /> Mills Road was not classified as an arterial or collector road and that <br /> this was why the intersection was not classified as a node. <br /> A member of the public , asked about the difficulty of establishing <br /> a commercial use outside of a. node. Bell stated that in the absence of <br /> zoning it was no more difficult to establish a commercial use outside <br /> of a node than in one. He stated that if zoning were implemented, <br /> commercial uses established thereafter ( with the exception of <br /> agricultural service uses) would be restricted to nodes. <br /> ' <br /> Carl Walters referenced the figure of slightly over 1% annual <br /> population growth mentioned earlier by Bell and asked why such a low <br /> rate was used. Bell responded that in doing <br /> the township, the historical record was reviewed. In projections the <br /> 1970 and 1980 census and building particular, the <br /> studied. Analysis of these figures presulted dinu the vgrowthrratessused. <br /> e <br /> Someone asked if the Commissioners could adopt the plan on <br /> November 23. Bell responded that they could not, <br /> the twenty-third was for presentation and comments tonl the hearing on <br /> that.the Planning Board would review the record of the hearingeatstheir <br /> meeting in December and make a recommendation to the <br /> _ Commissioners who could take action on the plan at their first meeting <br /> -__ _-_.i_n January ' if they so desired. meeting <br /> A member of the audience asked why was the plan update eve <br /> -- = , done-if . Cedar. Grove was growing so slowly. _ ._._ n being <br /> '-'Bell_ stated . the-- main reason was the five-year update <br /> - specified at the time of plan - adoption in 1981 . He referenced chedule <br /> ": work that. had already taken place (Little River Township- need update =. . - <br /> _ --!Planning Area) and work_I n-progress-. (Bingham, Eno, and Hillsborough <br /> p and the Jo1nt <br /> Townships).. <br /> - ... <br /> There _ were several questions concerning .soil suitabili <br /> Township and Health Department requirements, . Bell tg 1n the e - <br /> Planning Department required a Health Department stated tngt the <br />_ there was a suitable perk site or a properly functioningcseptic1tank on <br /> a piece of property _ before a residential building permit tank be <br /> 9 P could be <br />