080520 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/2/2020 779 acres in size) or EDH-2 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) (7 parcels totaling 780 13.2 acres). The parcels are located in Hillsborough Township, south of Interstate 40 and east of 781 Old Highway 86. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15,2020. 782 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 783 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the Zoning Atlas Amendment 784 785 David Blankfard: Anybody from the Board have any questions or comments? 786 787 Hunter Spitzer: My first question is in rezoning these parcels back to what they were prior to this, particularly on the 788 east side of 86, could I recommend or ask for consideration to rezoning to low intensity to medium intensity 789 residential in this area? It seems as though the industrial land uses are not very in line with the vision that the 790 residents have and I would add this zoning in addition to the ones that you already have recommended and in place 791 of Rural Residential this would allow for a more transition, a different opportunity for development in the area that 1 792 think would be more in line with what some people have voiced. 793 794 Michael Harvey: Thank you for the question, that suggestion in my opinion is inconsistent with the Comprehensive 795 Plan, which identifies this area as Economic Development Transition. I also think that these property owners would 796 object to (their property being) the down zoning of their property and loss of potential development value. These 797 parcels have been zoned Economic Development for several decades. That it is not something that I am comfortable 798 with recommending or supporting. If you have an interest in restudying the area, that statement needs to be made to 799 the County Commissioners who would need to take it under consideration. What I will say is that, as with other 800 projects in this general area, there has been an interest in expanding our current Hillsborough Economic 801 Development District and increasing economic development opportunities in this area. I also do not think it's the best 802 planning idea to put low intensity residential right up against an Interstate. I think that the current land use categories 803 and zoning that we have recommended would allow for purposeful development and expansion consistent with 804 current County policy. 805 806 Hunter Spitzer: I have another, more of a comment and this is pertaining to the analysis section of the introduction of 807 this amendment. `It finds that this is consistent with land use goal 3, a variety of land uses that are coordinated within 808 a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, 809 supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system." This is not mentioned again in the actual motion or 1 810 believe the resolution we have to recommend to the Board. So if that will not be included over in summary words 811 those things that we've accomplished then I have no further objections but I do find that land use goal in itself a little 812 bit contradictory and not applicable to this situation. 813 814 David Blankfard: All right, anybody else have any comments? Ok, again I'd like to ask people from the community to 815 say if they received a letter from the planning department. 816 817 Stephen Williams: I did receive a letter from the County Planning Board. I just want to reiterate something that the 818 gentleman just said that was speaking. He said that he didn't think that the residents or the owners, I'm sorry, the 819 owners of the property that we are discussing now would appreciate a rezoning that would devalue their property and 820 1 think that that's something that every resident here is concerned about. It's interesting that we're concerned about 821 these particular parcels and the owners of them and worried about decreasing the value they have in their property 822 but I think it should be noted that rezoning these areas and putting in this development which is the goal here, is also 823 going to devalue the properties of the residents that are around those areas. Thanks. 824 825 Bob Bundschuh: I have a question if these go back to their old zoning and they're allowed to develop independently, 826 two questions. Is water and sewer does the loop have to be supplied to them before they can do that and secondly, if 827 someone decided to develop again can you reiterate what steps they would have to take. Would it go through zoning 828 and then the County Commissioners again or since it is zoned does it just go to the zoning board? 829 830 Michael Harvey: I think I can answer that question. Any development of this property will have to be done in 831 compliance with the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Development would be under staffs 832 administrative review, it would not go back to the Planning Board or the County Commissioners. If these properties 833 remain Settler's Point, MPD-CZ it would also not have to go back to the County Commissioners or the Planning