Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 330 Perdita Holtz presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance <br /> 331 (SAPFO). <br /> 332 <br /> 333 Statler Gilfillen: Without the need for new schools, my experience as an architect, maintenance has been severely <br /> 334 limited. Is there any consideration of maintenance upgrades? <br /> 335 <br /> 336 Perdita Holtz: I can't speak as to the exact budgets but there are maintenance needs that are addressed in the school <br /> 337 budgets every year. <br /> 338 <br /> 339 Lamar Proctor: I looked into this and the issue for me is that Mebane is not part of the MOU, all this development in <br /> 340 Western Orange County, if you remove the signature block then the school board doesn't have any advance notice,the <br /> 341 elected body of the school board, has no advance notice of these developments that are going to be Mebane town <br /> 342 developments within Western Orange County that contribute to the school systems until the kids hit the schools. The <br /> 343 MOU does a fabulous job of covering this information for the schools in the MOU but for Mebane, I think in terms of <br /> 344 planning that this does provide a helpful mechanism to notice them. It serves an effective notice mechanism to the <br /> 345 school board of subdivision development in Western Orange County by Mebane that is covered and at the phase one of <br /> 346 SAPFO. <br /> 347 <br /> 348 Perdita Holtz: School staff keeps their school board informed of the work that we're doing and they're invited to attend <br /> 349 Technical Review Committee(TRC) meetings for Mebane. They receive those agendas and can attend and provide <br /> 350 comments. School staff tracks development that is happening. Planning tracks it as well in Orange County's Planning <br /> 351 Department. It's not the only way the school board receives notification of development that's happening and our <br /> 352 development that receive CAPS aren't necessarily subdivisions;there is other development that is subject to CAPS not <br /> 353 just subdivisions. The school signature block is a time burden on school staff and planning staff. We are the only local <br /> 354 government that is part of SAPFO that requires it, the towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough do not. It was added <br /> 355 to the subdivision regulations well after the other SAPFO provision were put in there. It was part of a large subdivision <br /> 356 regulation package and wasn't really spoken to on why it was added. <br /> 357 <br /> 358 Lamar Proctor: I think the underlying issue is Mebane not being part of the MOU for SAPFO and CAPS and our local <br /> 359 government doesn't get notice of those kids until they hit the schools that you are telling me that staff does pay some <br /> 360 attention to but those things have to get approved by Mebane. <br /> 361 <br /> 362 Tyler Sliger presented a PowerPoint presentation and gave an overview of the proposed text amendment. <br /> 363 <br /> 364 MOTION BY Randy Marshall to approve Attachment 2, Statement of Approval and Consistency of the proposed UDO <br /> 365 text amendments with adopted Orange County plans. The Board recommends approval of the proposed text <br /> 366 amendment and issues this Statement of Consistency requirement of UDO Section 2.8 has been met. The amendment <br /> 367 is consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent the applicable plan <br /> 368 because it supports the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 6, A land use planning process that is transparent,fair, <br /> 369 open and responsive. <br /> 370 MOTION PASSED 8—1 (PROCTOR) <br /> 371 <br /> 372 Lamar Proctor: My concerns about notice requirements to the school board for the aggressive growth of Mebane and <br /> 373 Western Orange County and not being part of the MOU. <br /> 374 <br /> 375 <br /> 376 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—EFFICIENCY UNITS-To make a <br /> 377 recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to efficiency <br /> 378 apartments (also known as"accessory dwelling units"or ADUs). This item was introduced at the <br /> 379 October 5, 2022 ORC meeting and is scheduled for a BOCC public hearing in January. <br /> 380 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II <br /> 381 <br /> 382 Tyler Sliger presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the proposed UDO amendment for efficiency units. <br /> 383 <br />