Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• •.. ' <br /> :• ' ':-' ,: `.4',k 014)! -- c <br /> .. . <br /> Crawford asked about the last sentence in 6.23.3. <br /> •Polatty.Stated that in all cases lots of record would <br /> be exempt. He added that both majors and minor sub- <br /> . <br /> divisions would be included in PW-II. Polatty noted <br /> it was an effort at a compromise between two recom- <br /> mendations in the Task Force report. The recommendations <br /> were that McGowan Creek become urban and there be some <br /> watershed protection standards. Polatty stated 6.23.1 <br /> e) and f) may need to be rewritten. <br /> Crawford asked Polatty why he picked buffers as pro <br /> tective measures in the urban watersheds, while lot <br /> sizes protect rural watersheds. Polatty noted buffers <br /> would be required in both. urban and rural watersheds. <br /> The Board discussed the compromise on McGowan Creek <br /> 'Sub-basin and a possible teexamination' of .the com-! <br /> Ipromise. <br /> Shanklin suggested widening the Cheeks Transition Area <br /> so that it would extend from Old #10 to Lebanon church <br /> Road. <br /> Crawford asked if these concerns would be addressed <br /> in the Land Use Plan. Polatty responded that amend- <br /> ments to the Land Use Plan would have to be made, <br /> noting the Commissioners would not consider extension <br /> of zoning to Cheeks until the report was considered. <br /> . ._ <br /> ir <br /> Crawford noted the Planning Board had never seen the <br /> Agricultural Task Force Report. Crawford asked if <br /> policies in the Land Use Plan would be enough to <br /> deny a rezoning without specific language in the <br /> Zoning Ordinance. She noted that commercial and <br /> industrial restrictions in PW-Il were eliminated and <br /> asked if a rezoning could be denied. Cannity stated <br /> that no reasons for denial were required because <br /> zoning is a legislative action, Polatty noted the <br /> activity node concept from the Land Use Plan. <br /> Crawford asked that Staff make clarifications and <br /> changes to the proposed Amendments and recognized <br /> that the Staff had indicated they intended to <br /> rewrite them. <br /> Shanklin inquired about the 300' reference in 6.23.2 <br /> b) . Cannity responded it was measured from the building <br /> setback line. Luce added that it was intended to provide <br /> reasonable dimensions for lots fronting on water bodies_ <br />