OCPB minutes 080316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/7/2016 11 540 Perdita Holtz: That would be correct. 541 542 Franklin Garland: The question here is if people had investigated, not if they would have been notified. No one was 543 notified. I’ve been there since 1975. No one was notified. And that would make more sense. Let me explain 544 something, you say I’m not affected because --- and I got notified because I’m within 1,000 feet. Well 1,000 feet I 545 can walk back and forth ten times in this room and that’s 1,000 feet. So I am affected. But I wasn’t notified. 546 547 Lisa Stuckey: My question was simply whether this land had been identified for Economic Development for many 548 decades. 549 550 Craig Benedict: On both the Orange County land use map and on our zoning map and also on the Hillsborough -551 County joint land use map we do note where there are flood zones and we restrict development in there. So you 552 can see that, so yes, part of that 160 acres is encumbered by a flood plain and we recognize that and no 553 development can occur there. But there are other lands that would be available. 554 555 Perdita Holtz: I’m wondering if it might be helpful since these 3 items are inter-related to go on and do the 556 presentation on the second and third items because it might answer some of the questions and then we’ll wait to 557 act on each of them until after the presentations. Would that be helpful? 558 559 Lydia Wegman: Yes, I do. Thank you. 560 561 MOTION [later in the evening, after all three related items had been presented] by Lydia Wegman. Seconded by Lisa 562 Stuckey. 563 VOTE: 7-1 OPPOSED- GUTHRIE 564 565 Paul Guthrie: I am uncertain, which is why I voted no. 566 567 Lydia Wegman: I am voting in favor because I think there is a benefit to diversify land use. 568 569 570 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: To make a recommendation to 571 the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that would modify 572 existing regulations that pertain to the Hillsborough Economic Development District. This 573 item is scheduled for the September 12, 2016 quarterly public hearing 574 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 575 576 Perdita Holtz presented item. 577 578 Lisa Stuckey: So you’re going to allow apartments but not single family or duplexes? Why? 579 580 Perdita Holtz: Well because the purpose of the EDDs is to promote non-residential uses. Multi family, although it is 581 residential, it is actually taxed differently than single family residential. It’s considered more of a commercial use so 582 there is some diversification of the tax base that occurs with multi family. 583 584 Lisa Stuckey: I think I read some place that there is a worry that if you permit single family that the land will actually 585 get eaten up by that. That there’s a tendency for subdivisions. 586 587 Craig Benedict: Part of the Waterstone development, it’s called planned development, part of the County plan was 588 more non-residential and over the years the market, because of the recession, the non-residential component was 589 more muted and after the recession faster residential growth comes back so some conversions were made there. 590 So residential is easier and so it’s good that these areas were preserved. EDH3 now allows single family. We had a 591 proposal, some of the Board members may remember, that some of these lands were going to be part of 592 Hillsborough’s extra territorial jurisdiction. Mainly the ones north of I-40. And they were going to afix their zoning 593