Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />Commissioner Marshall indicated that a "clearinghouse" needs to exist to keep track <br />of those who want to buy the house as well as those who are under density bonus. It <br />cannot be left entirely to the builder to market these homes for sale to low- income <br />households. The county also needs to address that issue. <br />In response to a question from Larry Reid, Scearbo indicated that improvements could <br />be made to the home, however, if the home were sold during the 15 year period it would <br />need to be sold to a qualifying household regardless of improvements /additions which <br />might have been made to the home by the owner. <br />Waddell asked for clarification of the definition of income. The consensus was that <br />HUD guidelines would be used to determine eligibility. This point will be clarified in <br />the amendment. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to <br />refer these items to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board <br />of Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br />a. Section III -D-1 -b Planning Department Review Procedures <br />This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was <br />presented to receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide adequate time for staff <br />review of major subdivision Concept Plans. Current Subdivision Regulation time limits <br />do not always allow sufficient time for staff review of major subdivision concept plans. <br />The proposed amendment would assure a minimum time period of 30 days between project <br />submittal and its presentation to the Planning Board. <br />QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. <br />Commissioner Marshall stated that when time is added onto the process at one point, <br />consideration needs to be given to taking an equal amount of time off at a later point <br />in the process. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT <br />Larry Blalock, a resident of Cedar Grove, indicated that he opposed adding time to this <br />process. He pointed out that adding time also adds to the cost of housing. <br />Cathy Carroll also requested that time not be added to this process. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to <br />refer this to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of <br />Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />b. Section IV -B -8 -e Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers <br />This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was <br />presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV -B -8 of the <br />Subdivision Regulations, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements. Two amendments are proposed <br />for Section IV -B -8 of the Subdivision Regulations. The first involves interpretation of <br />