Browse
Search
ORC minutes 070616
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Ordinance Review Committee
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
ORC minutes 070616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2018 11:50:33 AM
Creation date
8/29/2018 11:50:29 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.
/
6
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
<br />6 <br />that if the County puts “x” amount of dollars into public water and sewer that they’ll use it for, primarily, non-residential 268 <br />economic development purposes. This is kind of a pre-requisite to that impending public water and sewer extension. 269 <br /> 270 <br />Lydia Wegman: So they’re not disturbed at losing the mixed residential… 271 <br /> 272 <br />Craig Benedict: No, because along the frontage of South Churton and Old 86 it’s still there. 273 <br /> 274 <br />Tom Altieri: So I’ll just add that the agreement that Craig mentioned, that is the last bullet in the PowerPoint here, and 275 <br />it is an important component. The group mentioned “annexation” and the text and zoning amendments that are being 276 <br />made to the UDO, those are within the County’s UDO. In the case of an annexation, a development would occur 277 <br />under the town’s land develop ordinance. So it is that type of an agreement that would outline under what conditions 278 <br />annexation might occur, its timing, if there were a component of, let’s say, this entire Hillsborough economic 279 <br />development district is approximately 500 acres, potentially what percentage of that might be developed for non-280 <br />residential uses versus residential? An agreement could address. So that’s where the County could receive that 281 <br />official handshake from the town on the ratio between residential and non-residential development in the area. 282 <br /> 283 <br />Craig Benedict: Orange County has met with Hillsborough Staff, both engineering division and planning division, to 284 <br />discuss this over the last six months or so, so they’re in line with what’s suggested. We put a lot of these things on 285 <br />the map just three years ago or so, and we’re learning. So here is our first amendment coming forward. They’re 286 <br />working on some interchange improvements on I-85 and South Churton so that’s a few years from now. And that will 287 <br />be a dramatic design. 288 <br /> 289 <br />Tony Blake: By the way, I always saw in the plan for Orange Grove Road to not stop at Churton Street and go 290 <br />straight across. Is that ever going to happen? 291 <br /> 292 <br />Craig Benedict: Yes. We’re moving that forward through the prioritization process, and it’s probably just off this map. 293 <br /> 294 <br />Craig Benedict explained where it was on the map and the details of the proposed transportation improvement. 295 <br /> 296 <br />AGENDA ITEM 5: UPCOMING PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 297 <br />A public information meeting to present the upcoming proposed amendments pertaining to the 298 <br />Hillsborough EDD to interested persons has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 26 from 6:00 to 299 <br />7:30 p.m. in Room 004 of the West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane in 300 <br />Hillsborough). The documents proposed for amendment include the Town of Hillsborough/ 301 <br />Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, Zoning Atlas, and UDO. 302 <br />These items are scheduled for the September 12, 2016 quarterly public hearing. 303 <br /> 304 <br />AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 305 <br /> 306 <br />Meeting was adjourned by consensus. 307 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.