ORC minutes 070616 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 Kim Piracci: When you were talking about the 20,000 square foot thing and you were going to get rid of that and it 215 was difficult, is that going away? Is it being moved to 40,000? 216 217 Perdita Holtz: Well, the way zoning works is that you have legislative decisions where you have by-right things and 218 then you have quasi-judicial decisions. SUPs are quasi-judicial decisions and you haven’t experienced one yet but 219 you will next month. They are fairly complicated and there are a lot of limitations on who can say what and when and 220 things like this. And there are lawyers on all sides. We are suggesting doing away with the SUP requirement for any 221 type of developments on two acre or larger lots. It would still be subject to all of the other criteria that are in the UDO, 222 which is fairly extensive. 223 224 Tony Blake: But only in these zones, right? 225 226 Perdita Holtz: Right. 227 228 Craig Benedict: Just to add, SUP’s are typically associated with certain uses that, based on their nature, need 229 additional review. So let’s say, an asphalt mixing plant will still be a SUP. The criteria that we had in here was unique, 230 it was based on an acre size and not on the use and was based on the square footage of a building size. Which a 231 20,000 square foot medical building probably doesn’t have the same scrutiny that a 20,000 square foot different use. 232 But if it is a 20,000 corporate asphalt mixing plant it still has to go through the SUP process. So we’re getting rid of 233 two criteria that were based on acreage and square footage, which are not your normal SUP criteria. So we’re going 234 back to more of a conventional standardization of why you have a special use, and that’s usually because the 235 operation might have glare, noise, a lot of traffic, that type of stuff will put you in a SUP category. 236 237 Lydia Wegman: Just for the record, I’m not comfortable with the elimination of the Class A SUP. It still makes me 238 uncomfortable… So I would just suggest that you provide a little further explanation about why that makes sense. I 239 understand why it makes sense from a development standpoint but why it’s not going to be harmful. 240 241 Perdita Holtz: Well these areas that would be zoned, EDH-3, 4 and 5 are not near residences. 242 243 Lydia Wegman: Ok. 244 245 Craig Benedict: The two amendments she was talking about with the zoning, some are called text amendments and 246 that’s everything that she’s doing with EDH-3 and changes the uses and the floor area ratios; all those are 247 considered text amendments. And the other type of zoning amendment changes is a map amendment. That’s where 248 you’re actually going from EDH-2 and making it EDH-3. So that’s how they’re separate. 249 250 AGENDA ITEM 4: TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE 251 PLAN AMENDMENT 252 253 To receive information about an upcoming Land Use Plan amendment involving five parcels 254 south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86. Amendments are proposed to better 255 promote economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve planned sewer 256 capacities for non-single-family residential uses. 257 258 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 259 260 Tom Altieri delivered presentation. 261 262 Tony Blake: Is this change being driven by the landowners or by the County or by the town? 263 264 Craig Benedict: There will be an interlocal agreement that will probably refer to these changes that occur here that 265 says, “As long as you redevelop consistent with this joint land use plan then please feel free to use this public water 266 and sewer system.” So the commissioners, probably in September, will be seeing a draft of this interlocal agreement 267