Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
50 <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> This proposed amendment has many inherent conflicts with the <br /> JPA Land Use Plan, as well as some conflicts within itself. <br /> The amendment is not found to be consistent with the Joint <br /> Planning Area Land Use Plan, fails on many of the evaluated <br /> criteria, and goes against the policies and objectives of the <br /> Plan. The applicant does not wish to seek a change in the <br /> policies or objectives of the JPA Plan, as stated in the <br /> application letter. Therefore, the proposed amendment does <br /> not seek a change in policy, and accordingly fails the <br /> existing tests for compliance. <br /> Given these factors, the proposed amendment receives a . <br /> unanimous unfavorable recommendation from the planning staffs <br /> of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <br /> The sole basis for this proposed amendment is stated to be <br /> the growth factor of the Interstate 40 corridor. However, <br /> this assertion is not valid on its own since the ,TPA plan was <br /> designed with this growth factor in mind, and made a <br /> conscious attempt to encourage urban growth to occur in the <br /> urban areas that existed for Chapel Hill and Carrboro - while <br /> discouraging urban growth in the Rural Buffer. A good example <br /> of the intent of the JPA Plan can be found in the node that <br /> was originally proposed for this interchange in 1986. After <br /> discussion, it was determined that a node at New Bethel <br /> Church Road, while being at an interstate interchange, would <br /> be detrimental to the cause of preserving the Rural Buffer. <br /> It should be further• noted that not every interstate <br /> interchange is automatically a node .of commercial <br /> enterprise. This interchange happens to fall between the . <br /> nodal interchanges in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough's service <br /> area. This property at New Hope Church Rood is, as stated in <br /> the Energy Use criterion above, within close proximity to <br /> several areas where both small-scale and large-scale <br /> commercial uses are currently present. The development of yet <br /> another commercial node at this interchange does not appear <br /> to be necessary to serve either the existing or future <br /> • land uses. <br /> The proposed Agricultural-Residential area also is <br /> inconsistent, as it is incompatible with the adjacent land <br /> proposed for Commercial Transition Activity Node. The <br /> applicant gives as justification for this amendment the <br /> statement that a need for locally-available service <br /> facilities does and will exist as a result of increased two- <br /> acre residential lots. While this could be viewed as a <br /> sufficient basis for the proposed Commercial Transition <br /> Activity Node, the applicant fails to show a "changed <br /> Condition" that is required to justify the proposed <br /> Agricultural-Residential Area. The.proposed Agricultural- <br /> , <br /> 12 <br />