Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
16 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 146 that. And I haven't done a radius analysis to see if there, what those properties would be that could allow for <br /> 147 that but- <br /> 148 <br /> 149 Beth Bronson: Much less, would a retail space align with the current neighborhood businesses in those <br /> 150 Economic Development Districts, correct? I mean, those are warehouse, manufacturing. <br /> 151 <br /> 152 Cy Stober: It would be consistent with the uses in the EDD, in the Durham County line. And it <br /> 153 wouldn't be inconsistent, I could see it going in over at Buckhorn as well if it could qualify for the radius <br /> 154 restrictions. But, again, this is the staff presentation. To your point, I think the proposal of restricting to NR-CD <br /> 155 makes it bit more vulnerable to legal challenge, but I think that we're still permitting the use in the county, we're <br /> 156 not prohibiting it, we've just required a high burden of responsibility by the applicants to qualify for that use. <br /> 157 <br /> 158 Chris Johnston: And that was going to be my point. We do have uses in the use chart that aren't allowed <br /> 159 anywhere. Like there are ones that are not allowed at all. Tobacco Processing, Preparation, Packaging and <br /> 160 Distribution, as far as I can tell isn't anywhere. Starch, Vegetables, Fats, and Oils Manufacturing, we have use <br /> 161 cases where they're not allowed anywhere and it's not necessarily a feeling of targeting. <br /> 162 <br /> 163 Charity Kirk: What is the Health Department planning on doing? <br /> 164 <br /> 165 Cy Stober: They support the amendment. I don't know if they've gotten into the level of nuance that <br /> 166 you have about which zoning district they would like to see it in, but they support the amendment. <br /> 167 <br /> 168 Charity Kirk: Was the goal of the commissioners to eliminate it via zoning? <br /> 169 <br /> 170 Cy Stober: To tightly restrict it with a goal of tobacco cessation. I'd have to go back and look at <br /> 171 Commissioner Fowler's language, but the goal is to minimize as much as possible exposure of minors to these <br /> 172 products and she was pretty frank in her language. Wake County did this recently, I think they did allow it in <br /> 173 industrial districts, which they have less than we do because most of their industrial districts are actually in the <br /> 174 incorporated municipalities, but I don't know that, I'm guessing here, hypothesizing. We're following in the lead <br /> 175 of Wake, and I think Harnett County now, and the idea is to use this to broker a conversation with the <br /> 176 municipalities about doing the same in the municipalities in Orange County. <br /> 177 <br /> 178 Chris Johnston: That was going to be my follow-up question is if there is that partnership with the <br /> 179 municipalities, because if we do it and they don't, what are we doing, right? I mean, we're still doing <br /> 180 something, but it's like half. <br /> 181 <br /> 182 Cy Stober: Commission Fowler was I think pretty clear that she wants to set the example and she <br /> 183 had the consensus of the Board. <br /> 184 <br /> 185 Marilyn Carter: Is there anything that would prevent our Board to make a recommendation that we'd like <br /> 186 to see actually stricter, implementation of the change to some of the districts that we talked about earlier? <br /> 187 <br /> 188 Beth Bronson: How can it be more strict than a conditional district, you know? <br /> 189 <br /> 190 Marilyn Carter: Well, we just talked about some zoning areas that it sounded like would not be subject, for <br /> 191 example, in the Economic Development Districts, correct, where this change would not be applicable. <br /> 192 <br /> 193 Cy Stober: Right, they would still have to go through the zoning process as presented with the <br /> 194 amendment that staff is bringing tonight. To Ms. Kirk's point, if they were allowed by right or with the <br />