Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ATTACHMENT 8 40 <br />DRAFT <br />274 Hunter Schofield addressed Howard McAdams' concern. This plan does create more variance <br />275 for more dense growth in the areas already identified where growth should occur. He did not <br />276 support Option 2 because of concern of South and East Hillsborough. <br />277 <br />278 Robert Davis said we have another chance when a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is <br />279 considered to review all the districts and coordinate zoning with the various maps. <br />280 <br />281 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked what the timeline was for the UDO. <br />282 <br />283 Craig Benedict replied that it could be completed by December of 2004. <br />284 <br />285 Hunter Schofield said that in the rural area (green area) that the lot counts were significant in <br />286 terms of impacting development decisions, specifically the Special Use Process. In the rural <br />287 area, we have been trying to promote sustainability and there are at least 2 criteria used, <br />288 producing the amount of development; creating larger lot sizes. He stated that he did not see <br />289 where this option does either but may have an inverse reaction to actually facilitate development. <br />290 He referenced page 009, other than a few areas, e.g. drainage, storm water, etc. there are no <br />291 higher standards. There is no significant change from status quo. This process is geared at <br />292 providing the County with a safety net against big, dense development in the rural areas. His <br />293 concern was if that was the role, essentially there is a Special Use Process (SUP) 20-40 number, <br />294 which is a fairly significant loophole area where development can take place under essentially <br />295 existing guidelines. At 41+ you would get the planned development process, when the <br />296 Commissioners can say yes or no, which is a significant addition in terms of process. He <br />297 suggested that what is here is insignificant if the goal is to prevent large, dense developments in <br />298 the rural areas. If the need was for more oversight, then the plan development threshold needed <br />299 to be lowered to 20 or 25 with 2 categories of major and planned development. All these lot <br />300 counts are arbitrary independent of density. For instance, 20 units on 20 acres were already <br />301 grand fathered. Depending on the standard for a rural lot, then 40 units on 40 acres, which is <br />302 currently allowed in some rural areas, is a subdivision that may warrant examination. Absence <br />303 of a density standard used to hone in on particular projects which can be troubling in the future, <br />304 we need to lower the plan development threshold to capture the projects likely to come through <br />305 in the rural areas. <br />306 <br />307 Noah Ranells asked Hunter Schofield to summarize his reference point. <br />308 <br />309 Hunter Schofield replied that he used 2 basic criteria which would be large lot sizes and in terms <br />310 of policy, reducing the overall amount of development. <br />311 <br />312 Noah Ranells doesn't agree with the lot size statement. <br />313 <br />314 Hunter Schofield replied that rural as it is defined, does not seem naturally compatible with high- <br />315 density development. Noah Ranells disagreed because a cluster development in other places has <br />316 shown agricultural land is maintained rather than chewed up and spit out. <br />317 <br />318 Hunter Schofield stated that was combining 2 different things. <br />319 <br />40 <br />