ORC minutes 010417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.1.17 6 the same then we may suggest as a second step, “Let’s come up with ED-1 and get rid of the B and the E and all that stuff. 266 But we’re going to have to go through this iteration because those zoning categories are on the ground and we’ll have to 267 actually go through a zoning process to rename them the different areas. So just like you might remember some of those 268 general or conventional districts we came up with. That new office-manufacturing district, that was a really good mix of uses. 269 We can’t use that in our Economic Development zones right now. We’d love to use that in the other categories so we might 270 come up with some as we’re looking at this and say, “Oh that would be good somewhere else”, and have to go though some 271 extra steps to collapse it even further to use more of a general Economic Development zone. We know there’s uniqueness 272 between those three zones. They’re kind of a part of three separate agreements with the local municipalities that they annex 273 them. So they’re probably going to retain some of their uniqueness, but if there’s a chance we can collapse, we may. 274 275 Tony Blake: That’s why I asked that question this afternoon about Chapel Hill’s new light industrial and the thing that we just 276 approved outside of Hillsborough sounds like they should be similar, if not the same. 277 278 Lydia Wegman: Ok, so that’s not what you’re doing? 279 280 Michael Harvey: Right. We may be making recommendations but this is not going to collapse anything. I think it’s fair to say 281 we would get lost in the minutia of the collapse versus getting the table permitted uses fixed. This is, again, already going to 282 an endeavor. This is already going to be involved. There’s not reason to overcomplicate this ay more than it’s going to have to 283 be. But I think it would be valuable to hear your comments along those lines as we move forward. Why do we have it broken 284 up this way? Why can’t we look at collapsing it? County Commissioners, maybe a future project is X, that is something that 285 you need to keep in mind and that is something that could be beneficial as we go through the process. 286 287 Tony Blake: So just for the sake to make it easier to parse the information is it possible to get this in an XL spreadsheet? 288 289 Michael Harvey: Anything’s possible. 290 291 Tony Blake: Yeah I’m just… being able to write a formula to say, “give me all the ones that have this use, or all of the 292 categories of zoning districts that have this use” because I expect that the paper is going to be longer even than it is wider. It’s 293 going to be huge. And just being able to sort in a spreadsheet would be, I think, easier. And then later, as a Word product if it’s 294 in a common separated format it’s easier to computerize or put in a place where it can be accessed electronically as opposed 295 to by paper. That’s all. I’m making that suggestion, not necessarily… 296 297 Michael Harvey: It’s not a bad idea. The question is how many iterations are we going to be producing? 298 299 Tony Blake: Right, you want one controlled copy. 300 301 Michael Harvey: Yeah, and I think that’s probably where most of my concern is. I think that it’s important that we’re providing 302 you this information in a format and a mechanism that you all can make best use of it and if that’s the best way to do this then 303 we’re going to have to investigate it. Obviously, it’s going to have to be in a table when we get to the final iteration of this so 304 that it’s going to be able to be put into the UDO formatting. 305 306 Paul Guthrie: Can I ask one quick question just to help me get a reference on how we deal with this? What was the decision 307 and on what subject of the Byrd case? 308 309 Michael Harvey: Well the Byrd case involves somebody being denied. There were elements of references to a shooting range 310 but if there was another land use and somebody wanted to develop and somebody made the distinction that, “Well the land 311 use in and of itself is not permitted” We think it falls into this category however which is not permitted in your zoning district. 312 And the suit was, “No, you have to give me a comprehensive list telling me what I can and cannot do with my property. 313 Because if you’re not then you’re denying me fair and impartial use of it because you’re not telling me you can do this and this 314 and this. If it’s all based on your supposition of what this term means and this term means then I don’t have a clear, easily 315 understandable, definable path to determine whether I can do something with my property”. And the Court basically said, 316 “That’s accurate. The responsibility is on the government to provide that data so that you as a property owner can make that 317