Browse
Search
OCPB minutes 100417
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2017
>
OCPB minutes 100417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:33:48 AM
Creation date
3/14/2018 5:18:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/4/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
OCPB agenda 100417
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
Approved 11/01/2017 <br /> <br />20 <br />could potentially include a textile mill, which would change their lives dramatically. She asked the Board to consider 1004 <br />her comments, to read over the packet thoroughly, ask more questions, and better understand the potential impact 1005 <br />of unknown the light industrial uses. 1006 <br /> 1007 <br />Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman looked to Michael Harvey for more information on light industrial uses that the 1008 <br />speaker mentioned (referring to page 314). 1009 <br /> 1010 <br />Michael Harvey said District 1 is, by its zoning designation, and as defined in the current UDO, a light industrial 1011 <br />zoning district. He said that the County is currently revising its Table of Permitted Uses and that the Board has been 1012 <br />participating in reimagining what the Hillsborough Economic Development Districts would be like, going back a year 1013 <br />ago. The Planning Board and the elected officials recommended expanding the uses in general, including in this light 1014 <br />industrial and research zoning district, EDH-5. The permitted uses listed in the application narrative are the same as 1015 <br />those listed in the application. 1016 <br /> 1017 <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 1018 <br />identified as an allowable use in a zoning district, it is permitted by default? Is this a state ruling? 1019 <br /> 1020 <br />Michael Harvey said yes, Mr. Blake is referring to a state court ruling. 1021 <br /> 1022 <br />Tony Blake asked if the master planning process protects the area better than what the Table of Permitted Uses lists. 1023 <br /> 1024 <br />Michael Harvey said that it sort of does. As a condition, the developer agrees to the list of permitted uses spelled-out 1025 <br />in Staff’s conditions of approval, and understands that this is all he gets. Thus, there cannot be the same reaction for 1026 <br />a use that is not listed, which could mean that by definition, it is permitted. One benefit of the master planning 1027 <br />process it that the aforementioned argument will not stand, based on conditions set and agreed upon. As Board 1028 <br />members and Staff have noted, there will be a Table of Permitted Uses that will allow for a lot of these activities that 1029 <br />are not going to be completed in a comprehensive manner consistent with the UDO, but that process is not this 1030 <br />process. For example, typically, Staff can only require EIAs and TIAs if certain thresholds are met, whereas this with 1031 <br />master planning process, a condition is listed that mandates it. There will now be mandatory assessments, based on 1032 <br />the conditions, on how development of this project could impact Old 86 and the interchanges on the interstate. While 1033 <br />everyone’s concerns may not be addressed, the master plan process does allow for more opportunity to work with a 1034 <br />developer to establish reasonable conditions, especially with respect to environmental and transportation impacts at 1035 <br />the site plan level. If thresholds are not met, Staff does not usually have the opportunity to require a developer 1036 <br />consider the impacts of environmental and transportation impacts. He said that there was some concern about not 1037 <br />being able to find information on this project. The application is on the Planning Department’s website with a link to 1038 <br />the Settler’s Point website. The existing TIA is also available for study (a 600+ page document). 1039 <br /> 1040 <br />Amanda Berry Shocklu introduced herself as Ms. Berry’s (previous speaker) daughter. She lives at 3303 Old 86 in 1041 <br />Hillsborough. She said that they have about 8 acres of land. She said the family is working with someone to get rid of 1042 <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 1043 <br />profit from logging. The wooded area on the property currently has a lot of snakes which is a concern for her. She 1044 <br />also said that her family would like to be connected to Hillsborough’s public water expansion instead of using her 1045 <br />current well, which she worries is not clean. 1046 <br /> 1047 <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 1048 <br />hook-up. 1049 <br /> 1050 <br />Lydia Wegman said that Mr. Harvey could provide some guidance on how to begin the process. 1051 <br /> 1052 <br />Michael Harvey said that the first step is figuring out if her property is in the primary service area where water-sewer 1053 <br />services are being extended. If it is located there, she needs to petition the Town of Hillsborough. If their property is 1054 <br />not within the service area, they will not be able to get public water at this time. Mr. Harvey advised Ms. Berry to 1055
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.