Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 1/6/2016 <br /> <br />5 <br /> 209 <br />Patricia Roberts: I don’t have any opposition I guess. 210 <br /> 211 <br />Andrea Rohrbacher: I recommend the changes to be adopted. 212 <br /> 213 <br />Herman Staats: I have no concerns. 214 <br /> 215 <br />James Lea: I have no concerns. 216 <br /> 217 <br />Paul Guthrie: I still have concerns about the legality. 218 <br /> 219 <br />Buddy Hartley: I am fine with everything, so I recommend it. 220 <br /> 221 <br />Laura Nicholson: I am generally in favor. 222 <br /> 223 <br />Lydia Wegman: I see no concerns. Do we have a motion? 224 <br /> 225 <br />MOTION made by Buddy Hartley to make the recommendations to BOCC. Seconded by Andrea Rohrbacher. 226 <br />VOTE: 8-1 (Paul Guthrie) 227 <br /> 228 <br />Paul Guthrie: I am opposed for the same reasons previously explained. 229 <br /> 230 <br />AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - TO MAKE A 231 <br />RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOCC ON GOVERNMENT-INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF 232 <br />THE UDO REGARDING CAR SALES AND RENTAL OPERATIONS. THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AT THE 233 <br />NOVEMBER 23, 2015 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 234 <br /> 235 <br />Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 236 <br /> 237 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 238 <br /> 239 <br />Laura Nicholson: Why has this become more of an issue? 240 <br /> 241 <br />Michael Harvey: The County has been receiving complaints related to the storage and display of vehicles being 242 <br />offered for sale, specifically too many cars being placed on a parcel of property blocking or impeding access for both 243 <br />customers and emergency vehicles. 244 <br /> 245 <br />Patricia Roberts: I don’t think the allowed numbers of display vehicles is enough. 246 <br /> 247 <br />Herman Staats: Where did the number of cars displayed come from? 248 <br /> 249 <br />Michael Harvey: Ultimately the recommended numbers were designed to allow for approximately 20% of the property 250 <br />to be used in support of motor vehicle display allowing for the remaining area to satisfy setback, office, customer 251 <br />parking, and required land use buffer development. 252 <br /> 253 <br />James Lea: Does this address the storage of vehicles off-site? 254 <br /> 255 <br />Michael Harvey: This amendment would not address or impact vehicles being stored on another property or prohibit 256 <br />same. Such storage would be treated as a separate, independent, land use and have to be permitted in accordance 257 <br />with the provisions of the UDO. 258 <br /> 259 <br />Lydia Wegman: if vehicles stored on the property, and screened from view, would be counted as part of the display 260 <br />limit. 261