Minutes-04-04-2023-Business Meeting

Browse Search

42 Commissioner Portie-Ascott thanked the public for their comments. She said she went to the area to understand it better. She said after listening to the presentations and comment, she thought it was interesting. She thought the proposal was consistent with the community and they cannot consider the tenant. She said she was supportive of the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Hamilton said she reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and found there is latitude for the elected officials to determine what it means. She said the project is not consistent with principles 5 and 7. She said it would undermine economic diversity and would not preserve the rural character. She said it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not support it. Commissioner Greene said the 2008 plan said to do better. She said it asked for commercial development to be walkable and not in a strip style development. She said that if they make an exception here and then again later, they would not be following the Comprehensive Plan. Vice-Chair McKee said this area is one of those areas designated by the plan. He said there is nothing in any ordinance or plan that is sacrosanct. He said they have made changes during his time on the Board. He said if they lock in something that was approved earlier and they decide that it is sacrosanct, it further turns Orange County into a gated community for those with the wealth and means to live here and continues to exclude those with lower wealth that can't pay the tax burden that falls almost entirely on homes. Chair Bedford said she looked up what the zoning definition really means. She said that it would generally would not serve persons or commuters out of the neighborhood. She said she listened carefully to the other commissioners and the public, read the slides, and is not concerned about the impact of traffic on Highway 54 by the project. She said she studied the conditions and felt they improved the project. She said overall this is a land use decision, and they do not choose between specific preferences, for example between Barnes and Noble versus a locally owned book store. She said that many of the arguments made by the public do not apply, because they do not pertain to land use. She said this would be a good fit as it pertains to land use. She said the first principle is the efficient and responsible provision of public services and that that it is not really applicable. She said the second is sustainable growth and development and that should occur in a pattern and location that is sustainable. She said that NC2 zoning is a good fit for this area. She said the third principle is lower energy consumption, air quality protection, and the traffic is not impacted, so that is not impacted significantly. She said the fourth guiding principle is preserving special sensitive areas and this is not applicable here because they are not cutting down old-growth hardwoods. She said the fifth is the principle of rural land use patterns. She said she thinks this one is very important and that she agrees with the Planning Board on the surpassing of the 20 acre limit. She said this project would not put it over twenty acres, and they cannot look to the future. She said that water resource preservation is the sixth guiding principle and that they are using a well and will have a septic tank so that is all fine. She said that number seven is promotion of economic prosperity and diversity. She said that tax revenues could contribute to prosperity. She said there are already commercial businesses there and that she does not think this really adds to diversity. She said the last guiding principle is preservation of community character. She said it is hard to argue that a retail store would do that. She said she does not think it will fit. She said that she feels it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the current zoning is appropriate. Commissioner Fowler said she wanted to make a motion to deny the application. Chair Bedford said that she needed to say more in her motion about the denial. Commissioner Fowler said she previously outlined that she thought it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She asked if she needed to repeat everything she said previously. John Roberts said yes; he had heard several Board members talk about inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that if that is the rationale they are using for their motion, then yes. He said if they have rationales of inconsistency, they must state them.