Browse
Search
ORC minutes 010417
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Ordinance Review Committee
>
Minutes
>
2017
>
ORC minutes 010417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2018 11:50:50 AM
Creation date
8/29/2018 11:50:38 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.
/
14
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 2.1.17 <br /> <br />11 <br />taking of rights, without compensation. And I think that the honest answer is, I don’t think that Byrd got to that level Paul. But 529 <br />what I think Byrd came from is, you as a government entity have a legal obligation to define for you what’s permitted and if you 530 <br />choose not to say or take a definitive stance on oil and gas pipeline and related structure construction then the person should 531 <br />assume they could do it. 532 <br /> 533 <br />Paul Guthrie: Ok, I can understand that but I’m going back actually a little further, and that is as you redefine our processes to 534 <br />try to comply with the attorneys view of the Byrd decision you may in fact be retroactively making a taking of someone’s 535 <br />property. 536 <br /> 537 <br />Michael Harvey: I don’t share that concern but I understand why you’re asking the question. 538 <br /> 539 <br />Paul Guthrie: Oh I understand that, I’m just saying… 540 <br /> 541 <br />Craig Benedict: We’re putting them into a slot that might not have been as specific as it was before. So we’re trying to match 542 <br />what they can do there now, but there’s going to be some things where we’ve never really answered that question before. 543 <br /> 544 <br />Lisa Stuckey: So then Paul’s question is relevant. 545 <br /> 546 <br />Craig Benedict: Michael, I have a question that you can pose for the attorneys. On page 43, if you had specially trained 547 <br />contractors and this NAICS code heading 2, 3, 8 if we thought all those sub uses below were ok that we didn’t mind if they 548 <br />were in any district or whatever, could we just use the main heading? 549 <br /> 550 <br />Michael Harvey: Yeah. But if I don’t show you and everybody else, because that’s what got us in trouble at the Cou nty 551 <br />Commissioner level with the Hillsborough district, when certain assumptions were made that everything in this particular land 552 <br />use category could be allowed or should be allowed… Well that’s not fair, Perdita had a couple land use categories where no 553 <br />boxes were checked and the concern was, “Well in this land use category this land use is allowed. We don’t know what land 554 <br />uses are allowed” and of course Perdita’s honest and straight forward answer was, “It doesn’t matter, we’re not allowing them 555 <br />in the district” and that’s when we got into some of the problems and trouble we did. But Craig is right. If you have a land use 556 <br />category, or a sector category for example, that lists uses that nobody cares, they’re all fine then you can just have the 557 <br />reference, as long as you’re properly defining all that reference entails somewhere. 558 <br /> 559 <br />Lydia Wegman: So you would say specialty trade contractors NAICS 238 and all… 560 <br /> 561 <br />Michael Harvey: If we stick with NAICS code references, yeah. Or the better example, if you have beauty and barbershop as 562 <br />the overall category and then break it down to what beauty and barbershop could entail as long as it’s the encompassing list. 563 <br />Page 45 begins extracted uses, mining, quarry, and oil and gas extraction. This became a huge issue at the County 564 <br />Commissioner level dealing with the Hillsborough Economic Development district because the concerns that you could have 565 <br />manufacturing activity that may not be deemed reasonable for the area in question. So we listed everything out, obviously 566 <br />capturing everything we currently allow on page 47. What I have listed is what I believe we currently already allow through that 567 <br />proves but yeah, we specifically didn’t include geranium mining. 568 <br /> 569 <br />Tony Blake: Well how about sand, gravel, and ceramic. I mean if you look at the merits over at Chapel Hill Gravel, it’s by 570 <br />definition… 571 <br /> 572 <br />Michael Harvey: Well I would actually say it was stone mining and quarrying, but I understand your point… Again, what I’m 573 <br />hearing a lot of you say and the nods of consensus are that we need the level of detail but if we can eliminate the sector 574 <br />references and just group them it would be a lot easier to understand. 575 <br /> 576 <br />Lydia Wegman: What do you mean by eliminate the sector references? 577 <br /> 578 <br />Michael Harvey: Well for example, I have put in here all the sector references as they live in the NAICS code. What I’m 579 <br />hearing you all say is if you can give the land use category and then provide the uses it would be a lot easier for you to track 580
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.