Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 090617
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
OCPB agenda 090617
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 3:38:41 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 3:38:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/6/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 090617
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
<br /> <br />12 <br />site to support that amount of power without the Special Use Permit requirement. However, a school would need a 581 <br />Special Use Permit per the UDO. 582 <br /> 583 <br />Randy Marshall asked if the school was already there and it wanted solar arrays, how would it go about getting 584 <br />them. 585 <br /> 586 <br />Michael Harvey responded that if they wanted to add solar arrays, the school would need to amend its current 587 <br />Special Use Permit for the school to accommodate new development on the school project. Mr. Harvey used the 588 <br />example of Gravelly Hill Middle School off of West Ten Road in the Cheeks Township. As part of its existing 589 <br />development, it has a physical fitness track and a football field. If the school did not have these facilities, and 590 <br />Orange County Schools came to Planning to add a track, an athletic field and lights on this property, the Special 591 <br />Use Permit would need to be amended and re-approved, since the additions were not in the originally approved 592 <br />permit by the Board of County Commissioners. If they wanted a solar facility, the same course of action would 593 <br />apply; the existing Special Use Permit would have to be amended to include a modified site plan to include it and 594 <br />documentation showing that the solar facility would be generating power consistent with current power usage. 595 <br /> 596 <br />Randy Marshall asked if residential solar arrays are regulated. 597 <br /> 598 <br />Michael Harvey responded that residential solar arrays are regulated in terms of kilowatts and location, including 599 <br />setbacks. If the solar arrays are roof-mounted, Planning requires documentation proofing they are mounted in a 600 <br />structurally-sound way. 601 <br /> 602 <br />Lydia Wegman asked – what is a 5 megawatt solar array? 603 <br /> 604 <br />Michael Harvey answered that at that level, it is a public utility. 605 <br /> 606 <br />Kim Piracci noted that there is no mention of wind as a utility in the Table. 607 <br /> 608 <br />Michael Harvey said that no, wind is not included. He explained that originally, when solar energy as a utility was 609 <br />being added as an amendment to the UDO, Staff was proposing an entire amendment packet to include alternative 610 <br />energies that was all-encompassing. The County Manager at the time, who was supportive of the construct, 611 <br />decided that it would be easier to do it piecemeal and to focus on the main desire at the time: solar. He did not want 612 <br />to delay opportunities for permitting and requirements because someone took issue with other types of alternative 613 <br />energy. Staff has continued to consider bringing back the discussion of alternative energies, but in light of recent 614 <br />laws and moratoria, it is not something Staff is pursuing at this time. 615 <br /> 616 <br />Craig Benedict said that similar to the worries that telecommunications towers could disrupt birds’ migratory 617 <br />patterns, there were concerns that wind farms would have the same effect. This is an example that could have 618 <br />halted the movement on solar utilities at the time. 619 <br /> 620 <br />Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 160 and 161). He said that no changes were made to “Waste 621 <br />Management.” In regards to “Wholesale Trade – Durable Goods” and “Wholesale Trade – Non Durable Goods,” the 622 <br />10 -15 uses that were named in this category have been consolidated and will be further distinguished in 623 <br />Definitions, not to mention that all of the uses were allowed in the same zoning districts. Lastly, Mr. Harvey 624 <br />reviewed “Miscellaneous” with the Board. He said that Planning Staff has recommended the deletion of “Airports” 625 <br />from being allowed in the residential zoning districts (Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, Rural Residential); they 626 <br />are now only allowed in industrial districts. Under “Miscellaneous,” the Table shows certain terms as stricken, such 627 <br />as “Cemetery,” “Church,” and others, because they were moved and/or rebranded. 628 <br /> 629 <br />Randy Marshall said that playing the devil’s advocate, would we want an airport in an industrial district, or would we 630 <br />want it out somewhere where there was nothing a plane could run into? 631 <br /> 632 <br /> 16
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.