Planning Board - 081920 Agenda Packet

Browse Search

D R A F T 13.2 acres). The parcels are located in Hillsborough Township, south of Interstate 40 and east of 779 Old Highway 86. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 780 PRESENTER:Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor781 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the Zoning Atlas Amendment 782 783 David Blankfard: Anybody from the Board have any questions or comments?784 785 Hunter Spitzer: My first question is in rezoning these parcels back to what they were prior to this, particularly on the 786 east side of 86, could I recommend or ask for consideration to rezoning to low intensity to medium intensity 787 residential in this area? It seems as though the industrial land uses are not very in line with the vision that the 788 residents have and I would add this zoning in addition to the ones that you already have recommended and in place 789 of Rural Residential this would allow for a more transition, a different opportunity for development in the area that I 790 think would be more in line with what some people have voiced.791 792 Michael Harvey: Thank you for the question, that suggestion in my opinion is inconsistent with the Comprehensive 793 Plan, which identifies this area as Economic Development. I also think that these property owners would object to be 794 down zoning their property and loss of potential development value. There parcels have been zoned Economic 795 Development for several decades. I think that it is not something that I am comfortable with recommending or 796 supporting. I think that if you have an interest in restudying the area that statement needs to be made to the County 797 Commissioner who would need to take it under consideration. What I will say is that, as with other projects in this 798 general area, there has been an interest in expanding our current Hillsborough Economic Development District and 799 Economic Development opportunities in this area. I also think it’s not necessarily the best planning idea to put a low 800 intensity residential right up against an interstate. I think that the current land use categories and zoning that we 801 have recommended that would allow for purposeful development and expansion consistent with current County 802 policy.803 804 Hunter Spitzer: I have another, more of a comment and this is pertaining to the analysis section of the introduction of 805 this amendment. ‘It finds that this is consistent with land use goal 3, a variety of land uses that are coordinated within 806 a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, 807 supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.” This is not mentioned again in the actual motion or I 808 believe the resolution we have to recommend to the Board. So if that will not be included over in summary words 809 those things that we’ve accomplished then I have no further objections but I do find that land use goal in itself a little 810 bit contradictory and not applicable to this situation.811 812 David Blankfard: All right, anybody else have any comments? Ok, again I’d like to ask people from the community to 813 say if they received a letter from the planning department. 814 815 Stephen Williams: I did receive a letter from the County Planning Board. I just want to reiterate something that the 816 gentleman just said that was speaking. He said that he didn’t think that the residents or the owners, I’m sorry, the 817 owners of the property that we are discussing now would appreciate a rezoning that would devalue their property and 818 I think that that’s something that every resident here is concerned about. It’s interesting that we’re concerned about 819 these particular parcels and the owners of them and worried about decreasing the value they have in their property 820 but I think it should be noted that rezoning these areas and putting in this development which is the goal here, is also 821 going to devalue the properties of the residents that are around those areas. Thanks.822 823 Bob Bundschuh: I have a question if these go back to their old zoning and they’re allowed to develop independently, 824 two questions. Is water and sewer does the loop have to be supplied to them before they can do that and secondly, if 825 someone decided to develop again can you reiterate what steps they would have to take. Would it go through zoning 826 and then the County Commissioners again or since it is zoned does it just go to the zoning board?827 828 Michael Harvey: I think I can answer that question. So, any development of this property will have to be done in 829 compliance of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, it would be staff administrator review, it would not 830 go back to the Planning Board or the County Commissioners. If these property remain Settler’s Point, MPD-CZ it 831 would also not have to go back to the County Commissioners or the Planning Board it would develop under site plan 832 review. There are standards in the Unified Development Ordinance dealing with shared driveway access that any 833 17