Browse
Search
ORC minutes 040616
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Ordinance Review Committee
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
ORC minutes 040616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2018 11:50:28 AM
Creation date
8/29/2018 11:50:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 5/4/16 <br />3 <br />Tony Blake: If you can. A lot of people live within walking distance; the least we could do is provide a good, raised 108 <br />platform sort of transit. 109 <br /> 110 <br />Lisa Stuckey: What is raised platform? 111 <br /> 112 <br />Tony Blake: The big slam against buses versus light rail is light rail you board and you walk directly from the platform 113 <br />onto the platform without steps. But BRT actually has the ability to pull a bus in at a raised platform and where you 114 <br />are walking directly onto the bus, the same way you would walk onto a light rail train. And it’s being deployed and it’s 115 <br />a lot cheaper than light rail and more flexible. And the travel lane down Martin Luther King will actually be able to be 116 <br />used for emergency vehicles as well. 117 <br /> 118 <br />Ashely Moncado continued with the presentation 119 <br /> 120 <br />James Lea: What would that do to the property owners? Would that raise their taxes? 121 <br /> 122 <br />Craig Benedict: No. The property taxes are based on the properties of a similar zoning category sell over time. So, 123 <br />putting even sewer on a piece of property eventually would raise the value of it but changing the uses would not 124 <br />automatically, until somebody determines that this new use list is better and therefore more valuable but, we’re a 125 <br />couple years from where that would ever matriculate into higher values. 126 <br /> 127 <br />Lisa Stuckey: It leads to the potential of higher value, so higher taxes. 128 <br /> 129 <br />Paul Guthrie: It could potentially. Property is less and less areas available for residential, for example, outside of that 130 <br />district if someone wanted to sell their house in that they would have, potentially, a sale of their house that would 131 <br />raise as assess valuation in the next re-evaluation. 132 <br /> 133 <br />Craig Benedict: We have examined which districts have residential. If they sell their residential property for office 134 <br />research manufacturing and they get more money for it at some point in the future, they’d love that. 135 <br /> 136 <br />Paul Guthrie: But you can’t keep them from selling it for another residential person. 137 <br /> 138 <br />Craig Benedict: Probably not. 139 <br /> 140 <br />Paul Guthrie: This is a far out thing, but we’re still in the area. I spent a good part of the afternoon reading about this 141 <br />other thing, the Supreme Court case, and these are the kinds of things you start getting trouble with down the road. 142 <br /> 143 <br />Craig Benedict: One last thing about that, we addressed this in the Buckhorn EBB area. We asked the people if they 144 <br />would like the zoning rollback to residential one that would allow the house to be reconstructed and burned down or 145 <br />would you like it to remain Buckhorn District 2 that has higher value if you ever sell it, it was resounding to leave it 146 <br />EDB-2. 147 <br /> 148 <br />Michael Harvey: One more thought in question when I read this. There’s a demand right now. There’s a lack of wet 149 <br />lab space in the area and this talks about laboratories, not limited laboratories, prototype production, general facilities 150 <br />but, wet labs sometimes have some pretty onerous stuff going on in them. Is there something that you would put in 151 <br />here to protect that or restrict that or change that? Basically, this is something I can see where somebody would want 152 <br />to come in and put in a wet lab and this thing they’re dealing with some kind of biological agent or something like that 153 <br />and people go crazy, but it’s permitted by right and so I’m just trying to air on the side of caution here. 154 <br /> 155 <br />Craig Benedict: Two answers in there. There might be room to add something here. One is we tried not to legislate 156 <br />water consumption, even though there are some provisions in some of our economic development zones that talk 157 <br />about it, but it doesn’t say that if you use over one galloon per square foot we’re not going to allow you. So that’s one 158 <br />element we try not to legislate uses by the water they use but, admittedly in all of our economic development zones 159 <br />we have limitations on water use because there’s just not a lot of water. In Hillsborough there’s some water limitation, 160 <br />also in Eno. The bigger restriction is the sewer outfall that comes from it, that’s where the restriction is. So with the 161
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.