Minutes-06-06-2023-Business Meeting Con'd

Browse Search

62 Vice-Chair McKee said that they won't know until the schools come back to the BOCC, and he would hate to see the timeframe exceeded. Commissioner Fowler asked as the land is currently zoned, can the developer currently put in ball fields and tennis courts. Cy Stober said yes, as a special use, and it would have to be considered by the Board of Adjustment at a quasi-judicial public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton thanked everyone who participated in the discussion of the issue. She said this issue has brought out the need for ball fields and recreational facilities in the community. She said her job is to balance the needs of the county. She said when she looks at a land use issue, she does not think about who owns, uses, or operates it. She said she is considering the use of the land — a school, ballfields, tennis courts, and recreational facilities — and if it is consistent and reasonable. She said she sees some issues where this project is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. She said she reviewed the definition of mixed use residential. She said in the definition, the dominant land use is expected to be residential. She said there is some ability to integrate other uses. She said that is very important. She said she read a lot about the 20-year transition plan. She read a section of the 20-year transition plan which stated that all densities of residential development would be appropriate. She said the tone points to that this land use should be primarily residential. She said that as an Orange County Commissioner, she is elected to interpret the comprehensive plan, and her reading is that it is residential use. Commissioner Fowler thanked applicant for his presentation and for the passionate engagement by Orange County residents. She said the developer created a project that met several needs in the county. She said all of the proposed amenities sound valuable. She said some amenities could occur by right under the current zoning. She said the other entities could pursue their project in a location that meets the current comprehensive plan. She said she thinks that the charter school developer appears to have wonderful success, but the Board is not allowed to consider the type of school, just whether a school of that size is appropriate in that location. She said as of the 2023 SAPFO report, Orange County does not need a new high school for the next ten years. She said having baseball fields and tennis courts sounds wonderful, but the question is whether all of this could fit in the space and maintain the community and character of the location and be consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan. She said that one commissioner has already requested that staff look into possible sites for potential baseball fields. She said the county is adding three tennis courts in the CIP. She said that the Planning department said it meets FLUM mixed residential, which allows non-residential and infill serving more than 50 dwellings and walkable in nature. She said that the Planning department them a pass from this requirement, because NCDOT is not allowing sidewalks. She said that it is not serving more than 50 dwellings in a walkable manner, because NCDOT disallowed it. She said no matter whose fault it is, it's really not walkable. She said NCDOT disallowed it because there are no connecting sidewalks, which confirms it is not a walkable area. She said she disagrees with the Planning department and agrees with the comments made by the Planning advisory board. She said they stated that it is not consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan, based on land use objectives 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, and 3.2 and possibly 6.1. She said they stated it is because it is not walkable and is not on public transportation. She said she agrees with their decision and their reasoning. She said typically MPZD is used if it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and our ordinance. She said that's the Planning department's job. She said it is the Board's job to determine if the Planning department's decision true, and also to determine if MPZD zoning is reasonable. She said that is based on three things: 1) Is it correcting an error in the zoning ordinance? She said it is not. 2) Is it reasonable because it is improving the public welfare? She said many of these amenities can lead to improvements, but several of the amenities can already occur by right, and others can in other places that fit in the comprehensive plan and UDO. 3) Does it fit the rural character of the neighborhood? She said that it does not. She said the plan has a lot of good