Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
149 <br /> APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24 <br /> 1046 Ashley Moncado: Staff looks at the Future Land Use Classification, and this is kind of what we really rely on <br /> 1047 as planners, is this table. When they did first come to staff, I think that initial feedback was what would be <br /> 1048 supported, or would it be allowed in that Future Land Use Classification would be ASE-CD, and then also in <br /> 1049 NR-CD. <br /> 1050 <br /> 1051 Charity Kirk: So, the reason why they can't just do what they want in the Rural Buffer is the commercial <br /> 1052 nature of it? <br /> 1053 <br /> 1054 Ashley Moncado: Yes. The Agricultural Services use is not permitted in the Rural Buffer zoning district. <br /> 1055 That's what kind of started this. But that Agricultural Service use is permitted in the NR-CD and the ASE-CD <br /> 1056 district. <br /> 1057 <br /> 1058 Charity Kirk: Are there currently any ASE-CD districts? <br /> 1059 <br /> 1060 Ashley Moncado: No. This would be the first one within the county. <br /> 1061 <br /> 1062 Charity Kirk: And it's already encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan to allow rezoning to it? <br /> 1063 <br /> 1064 Ashley Moncado: Yes. <br /> 1065 <br /> 1066 Charity Kirk: Then my other question is if this business goes out of business, we are then stuck with <br /> 1067 the current land use that is suggested here. Right? And if anything is going to change with the plans or how <br /> 1068 this land isβ€” what buildings and the parking structures and everything, then someone has to come back here? <br /> 1069 <br /> 1070 Cy Stober: That is 100 percent correct. With the exception of the Special Use Permit that prevails on <br /> 1071 the property and will be unaffected by this for the telecom tower. So, that permit persists in that the cell tower <br /> 1072 operator has the right to the property for that specific use under their Special Use Permit in perpetuity. If they <br /> 1073 want to modify that, they would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for the permit modification as well. <br /> 1074 <br /> 1075 Charity Kirk: What would be a looser rezoning of this that would allow future changes? Just out of <br /> 1076 curiosity. <br /> 1077 <br /> 1078 Cy Stober: Oh, sure. Any of the Conventional Districts. We would determine if it was a Commercial <br /> 1079 use or a Light Industrial use, or if it would be more intensive than the Agricultural Residential uses, so an AR or <br /> 1080 residential zoning district would not be appropriate, but we would have to get around the table with Treeist to <br /> 1081 determine if it's a commercial use or a Light Industrial use, and from there forward, we'd make a <br /> 1082 recommendation to both Planning Board and the Commissioners on that Conventional District. But you go <br /> 1083 back to the Table of Permitted Uses in that case, and you look at the menu of uses in that, say, Light Industrial <br /> 1084 or GC4 district, in any one of those uses could be allowed if somehow you could extend water and sewer. <br /> 1085 Under GC4, you could have fast food there. <br /> 1086 <br /> 1087 Charity Kirk: Okay. This ASE-CD fits very nicely with the current Rural Buffer because the <br /> 1088 Comprehensive Plan is already pointing you to it, and it is very limiting in the other potentials of Commercial <br /> 1089 and Light Industrial. Like, it will not eventually be in the future get more removed from the Rural Buffer. <br /> 1090 <br /> 1091 Cy Stober: No. What you have before you is a site-specific plan, and I believe Ashley's analysis also <br /> 1092 reflects that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the harmony of land use with the surrounding land <br /> 1093 uses, all but one of which, arguably two with the kennel, are publicly owned, and if there's any major <br />