Browse
Search
12.7.22 PB Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2022
>
12.7.22 PB Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2022 4:57:35 PM
Creation date
11/30/2022 4:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/7/2022
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
18 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 606 increased a great deal and I've talked to some of my neighbors about the incidents of accidents in that area and they say <br /> 607 that they have definitely increased. I don't personally verify that but I am not surprised that they have said that so my <br /> 608 concerns are the change in our rural status and the traffic that was possibly increased along that area and the <br /> 609 reduncency of the store there. It just seems a waste of property. It could be used for something else some other time <br /> 610 and if you rezone this for this type of store, are you going to rezone something for another type of redundant store? <br /> 611 You're kind of setting your standards pretty low and I'm surprised. Thank you. <br /> 612 <br /> 613 Delores Bailey: Are we allowed to ask the citizens questions? <br /> 614 <br /> 615 Adam Beeman: I don't see why not. <br /> 616 <br /> 617 Delores Bailey: Leah,would you come up please. What do you imagine should go there? <br /> 618 <br /> 619 Leah Cook: That's a great question. Honestly, I've lived in Cedar Grove for over 20 years. I've farmed in Cedar Grove <br /> 620 for over 20 years and I hadn't really thought about that because I assumed, it had been Mebane Shrubbery, it had been <br /> 621 a hot dog stand before that,so I hadn't thought about that prior to this and Mimi had some pretty great suggestions. To <br /> 622 give you my honest answer, nothing. Why can't we leave it? Why can't we preserve the integrity of the rural area in very <br /> 623 Northern Orange County? I bet most of you all don't live there in the very northern tip of Orange County. It's pretty great <br /> 624 up there and we live there because we like it that way. I don't need to have a grocery store right down the road from me. <br /> 625 I'm ok with going into Hillsborough once a week. I have to plan a little more, Mark and I have to double up on our <br /> 626 errands. Let's go to the bank, let's go to grocery store and we'll hit Home Depot or something like that or we go to <br /> 627 Roxboro to Tractor Supply so honestly nothing. Shiver. Mimi had some pretty great thoughts,what about a Vet's office <br /> 628 or Tractor Supply what about a real grocery store could we come up with something innovative that will provide food to <br /> 629 people in the area aside from canned stuff. <br /> 630 <br /> 631 Lamar Proctor: Planning's recommendation is that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Planning <br /> 632 believes it's consistent? Is that fair to say? That's the recommendation correct? I'm wondering if Planning could <br /> 633 articulate what is consistent given the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and maintaining the rural character and I'm looking <br /> 634 through the Table of Permitted Uses and retail is not listed as an Industrial Use and this is a Rural Industrial Activity <br /> 635 Node so I don't know if there is anything Planning could add to that or if there was some thinking there or what the <br /> 636 thought process was. <br /> 637 <br /> 638 Cy Stober: The General Statute compels us to make 2 findings, 1 is that it is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of <br /> 639 our adopted plans, particularly our Comprehensive Plan which is to be maintained to reflect the needs of the County and <br /> 640 that it is generally consistent with that Plan so we evaluate the Future Land Use Map,we determine if an amendment is <br /> 641 needed to that. We've determined that it is not because it is in the Rural Industrial Activity Node and that the zoning <br /> 642 request is consistent with the Plan and per Appendix F,which is the land use matrix which defines the allowable uses <br /> 643 within the Future Land Use Map not the zoning district. This is one of the uses that is allowed so that is the basis of the <br /> 644 finding of staff plus insuring that the submitted site plan is in compliance with the development standards of the Unified <br /> 645 Development Ordinance and should it not be a condition is noted and if the condition appears to produce any safety <br /> 646 concerns or intersectionality, negative impacts,to surrounding neighborhood properties that we would not support a <br /> 647 waiver or deviation from our standards that would introduce negative impact on surrounding land uses. Otherwise the <br /> 648 zoning determination, land use determination in this case is defined largely by the Future Land Use and the Appendix F, <br /> 649 allowable uses for that Future Land Use. <br /> 650 <br /> 651 Statler Gilfillen: I'm trying very hard to listen to what they are saying what the objection is, regardless of the industrial <br /> 652 zone. I live in the Eno District and not too long ago, I believe it went through the zoning because it is a major retail <br /> 653 establishment, the Eno River Farm at St. Mary's and Lawrence Road, it is a major retail establishment right there in my <br /> 654 neighborhood that generates a lot of traffic. I took no exception to what was done or any of the zoning on that issue <br /> 655 because I felt that was compatible with what was there. If I'm hearing you and the other neighbors,the issue may be not <br /> 656 an Eno River Farm but a national chain store coming in to the neighborhood, it's the type of business in retail that is <br /> 657 there that you feel is really incompatible with what that neighborhood is. <br /> 658 <br /> 659 Adam Beeman: I think it's the duplicity, its 4/10s of a mile to Dollar General and the gas station there is nothing out there <br /> 660 that warrants another store. I don't care if it's a tobacco or vape store or whatever, I don't see any kind of convenience <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.