Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
21 <br /> 1 Cy Stober said yes. <br /> 2 Commissioner Richards commended the Planning and Inspections Department for this <br /> 3 staff-initiated recommendation. She said everyone is struggling with how to provide affordable <br /> 4 housing and meeting aging needs. To summarize the changes she said there's a change in the <br /> 5 name of the type of unit, there's a change in the size limitation, but all other zoning and other <br /> 6 requirements will still be in effect. <br /> 7 Cy Stober said that's correct. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to <br /> 10 open the public hearing. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 13 <br /> 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS: <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Delores Bailey, Executive Director of EmPOWERment, Inc. and member of the Orange <br /> 17 County Planning Board. She said the changes proposed are great. She said it's wonderful <br /> 18 because there is a large 1,200 unit gap in affordable housing. She said ADU's are a great way to <br /> 19 close the gap and allow parents to age in place. She said she absolutely supports mobile homes <br /> 20 being considered ADUs. She said when it starts out, it's a great plan. She said she gets concerned <br /> 21 about whether or not other property owners will do the right thing with their newly extended space. <br /> 22 She said she is also concerned about impervious surfaces. She said this is a great idea, but most <br /> 23 importantly, she wants to make sure the right thing is done once this moves forward. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 A motion was made by Vice Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to close <br /> 26 the public hearing. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner Greene said she thinks these amendments are thoughtful and appreciates <br /> 31 the work. <br /> 32 Chair Bedford said she appreciates the Planning Department for initiating the change. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 A motion was made by Vice Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to <br /> 35 approve Statement of Approval and Consistency (Attachment 1) and UDO Amendments <br /> 36 (Attachment 2). <br /> 37 <br /> 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 39 <br /> 40 b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment — Final Subdivision Plat School <br /> 41 District Signature Block <br /> 42 The Board held a public hearing, received the Planning Board/staff recommendations and public <br /> 43 comment, closed the public hearing, and considered action on County-initiated amendments to <br /> 44 the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)to remove the requirement in Section 7.13.3 (F)(3)(g), <br /> 45 the school district signature block on final subdivision plats. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 BACKGROUND: Subdivisions that follow the traditional or major subdivision review process have <br /> 48 to receive several signatures before recording the final plat. Orange County currently requires <br /> 49 signature by the relevant school system, per the language found in Section 7.13.3 (F)(3)(g) of the <br /> 50 UDO. Research into the plat certificate requirement has shown that the requirement was added <br /> 51 to Orange County's former Subdivision Regulations as a small portion of a multi-part amendment <br />