Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-21-2003-9c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2003
>
Agenda - 10-21-2003
>
Agenda - 10-21-2003-9c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 2:12:43 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:34:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/21/2003
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20031021
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2003
ORD-2003-139 Growth Management System - Amendments to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
ATTACHMENT 7 p.33 <br />Growth Management System -Comments and Responses <br />August 25, 2003 Public Hearing <br />uestion: <br />Does the proposed Growth Management System (GMS) require the creation of a new <br />map or revisions to an existing map? <br />Response: <br />The proposed GMS and amendments utilize existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and <br />Water/Sewer Boundary Agreement maps and do not require the creation of a new map or <br />revisions to any existing maps. The "Rural" and "Urbanizing" areas created by the <br />proposed GMS are determined through the overlay and intersection of existing <br />Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Water/Sewer Boundary Agreement maps. This <br />planning practice of overlaying various land use maps is widely accepted in North <br />Carolina and is presently in use, in Orange County, to decrease density and impervious <br />cover within Watershed Critical Areas such as the Upper Eno Watershed. <br />uestion: <br />Why have so many Growth Management System Map Options been provided? <br />Response: <br />In the past, the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners have asked to see a variety <br />of options that maybe available from which to choose. However, it should be noted that <br />the Planning Department Staff is recommending the selection of Clption 1, Option 2, or a <br />phased combination of Options 1 & 2 for implementation. Options 3 and 4 are seen as <br />less favorable to the Department. The implementation of Option ;would require <br />additional study and formal interlocal agreements for the expansion of "Urbanizing" <br />areas in the Hillsborough, Durham, and Mebane/Efland areas. Option 4 was provided to <br />illustrate the full extent possible for the "Urbanizing" area. However, it is the <br />Department's opinion that Option 4 is not an accurate representation of areas that can be <br />served by public water and sewer and as a result, much too large for consideration. <br />uestion: <br />What is the current thinking on the update of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use <br />Element? <br />ResRonse: <br />The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element will be addressed later this year. <br />Community outreach will be included as part of the process with the assistance of a third <br />party meeting facilitator. The proposed Growth Management System consists of <br />subdivision size (number of lots) and location thresholds and does not address density <br />issues. On the contrary, the Land Use Element will consist primarily of density issues <br />and therefore, is distinct from the proposed Growth Management System. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.