Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-14-2017 - D.1 - Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning —Master Plan Development
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2017
>
Agenda - 11-14-2017 - QPH
>
Agenda - 11-14-2017 - D.1 - Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning —Master Plan Development
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/14/2017 2:50:16 PM
Creation date
11/14/2017 2:41:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/14/2017
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
D.1
Document Relationships
Minutes 11-14-2017
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2017
ORD-2017-023 Ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas - Settler's Point
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
82 <br /> could potentially include a textile mill, which would change their lives dramatically. She asked the Board to consider <br /> her comments, to read over the packet thoroughly, ask more questions, and better understand the potential impact <br /> of unknown the light industrial uses. <br /> Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman looked to Michael Harvey for more information on light industrial uses that the <br /> speaker mentioned (referring to page 314). <br /> Michael Harvey said District 1 is, by its zoning designation, and as defined in the current UDO, a light industrial <br /> zoning district. He said that the County is currently revising its Table of Permitted Uses and that the Board has been <br /> participating in reimagining what the Hillsborough Economic Development Districts would be like, going back a year <br /> ago. The Planning Board and the elected officials recommended expanding the uses in general, including in this light <br /> industrial and research zoning district, EDH-5. The permitted uses listed in the application narrative are the same as <br /> those listed in the application. <br /> Tony Blake said he knows that the Table of Permitted Uses is being redone. Is it the case that if a use is not <br /> identified as an allowable use in a zoning district, it is permitted by default? Is this a state ruling? <br /> Michael Harvey said yes, Mr. Blake is referring to a state court ruling. <br /> Tony Blake asked if the master planning process protects the area better than what the Table of Permitted Uses lists. <br /> Michael Harvey said that it sort of does.As a condition, the developer agrees to the list of permitted uses spelled-out <br /> in Staffs conditions of approval, and understands that this is all he gets. Thus, there cannot be the same reaction for <br /> a use that is not listed, which could mean that by definition, it is permitted. One benefit of the master planning <br /> process it that the aforementioned argument will not stand, based on conditions set and agreed upon. As Board <br /> members and Staff have noted, there will be a Table of Permitted Uses that will allow for a lot of these activities that <br /> are not going to be completed in a comprehensive manner consistent with the UDO, but that process is not this <br /> process. For example, typically, Staff can only require EIAs and TIAs if certain thresholds are met, whereas this with <br /> master planning process, a condition is listed that mandates it. There will now be mandatory assessments, based on <br /> the conditions, on how development of this project could impact Old 86 and the interchanges on the interstate. While <br /> everyone's concerns may not be addressed, the master plan process does allow for more opportunity to work with a <br /> developer to establish reasonable conditions, especially with respect to environmental and transportation impacts at <br /> the site plan level. If thresholds are not met, Staff does not usually have the opportunity to require a developer <br /> consider the impacts of environmental and transportation impacts. He said that there was some concern about not <br /> being able to find information on this project. The application is on the Planning Department's website with a link to <br /> the Settler's Point website. The existing TIA is also available for study(a 600+ page document). <br /> Amanda Berry Shocklu introduced herself as Ms. Berry's (previous speaker) daughter. She lives at 3303 Old 86 in <br /> Hillsborough. She said that they have about 8 acres of land. She said the family is working with someone to get rid of <br /> some trees on the property. She had heard that she needs to have a certain amount of trees on the property to turn a <br /> profit from logging. The wooded area on the property currently has a lot of snakes which is a concern for her. She <br /> also said that her family would like to be connected to Hillsborough's public water expansion instead of using her <br /> current well,which she worries is not clean. <br /> Tony Blake said that he is not sure if the expansion of water-sewer will affect her property. There would be a fee to <br /> hook-up. <br /> Lydia Wegman said that Mr. Harvey could provide some guidance on how to begin the process. <br /> Michael Harvey said that the first step is figuring out if her property is in the primary service area where water-sewer <br /> services are being extended. If it is located there, she needs to petition the Town of Hillsborough. If their property is <br /> not within the service area, they will not be able to get public water at this time. Mr. Harvey advised Ms. Berry to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.