5_1_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6.5.24 648 Cy Stober: They support the amendment. I don't know if they've gotten into the level of nuance that 649 you have about which zoning district they would like to see it in, but they support the amendment. 650 651 Charity Kirk: Was the goal of the commissioners to eliminate it via zoning? 652 653 Cy Stober: To tightly restrict it with a goal of tobacco cessation. I'd have to go back and look at 654 Commissioner Fowler's language, but the goal is to minimize as much as possible exposure of minors to these 655 products and she was pretty frank in her language. Wake County did this recently, I think they did allow it in 656 industrial districts, which they have less than we do because most of their industrial districts are actually in the 657 incorporated municipalities, but I don't know that, I'm guessing here, hypothesizing. We're following in the lead 658 of Wake, and I think Harnett County now, and the idea is to use this to broker a conversation with the 659 municipalities about doing the same in the municipalities in Orange County. 660 661 Chris Johnston: That was going to be my follow-up question is if there is that partnership with the 662 municipalities, because if we do it and they don't, what are we doing, right? I mean, we're still doing something, 663 but it's like half. 664 665 Cy Stober: Commission Fowler was I think pretty clear that she wants to set the example and she had 666 the consensus of the Board. 667 668 Marilyn Carter: Is there anything that would prevent our Board to make a recommendation that we'd like to 669 see actually stricter, implementation of the change to some of the districts that we talked about earlier? 670 671 Beth Bronson: How can it be more strict than a conditional district, you know? 672 673 Marilyn Carter: Well, we just talked about some zoning areas that it sounded like would not be subject, for 674 example, in the Economic Development Districts, correct, where this change would not be applicable. 675 676 Cy Stober: Right, they would still have to go through the zoning process as presented with the 677 amendment that staff is bringing tonight. To Ms. Kirk's point, if they were allowed by right or with the 678 development standards in the industrial or the commercial districts, then they could potentially be placed there 679 with a simple permit application,Zoning Compliance Permit,to the staff and we would permit it if they could prove 680 that they meet the radius requirements, as well as all of our other development standards. 681 682 Marilyn Carter: So, I guess my question is to the Board. Does it feel that there should be a stricter 683 implementation beyond what we've already discussed? I wasn't sure. So, if that's not the case then I'll move on 684 to my other question.And my other question is how many businesses are currently grandfathered in—clearly the 685 support from myself and sounds like the rest of the Board for this ordinance—how many businesses will be 686 grandfathered in that are in existence right now? 687 688 Cy Stober: I don't know of any at this time in the county. Again, in the unincorporated areas of the 689 county there may be some, but I'm not aware of them.And if they, if someone registered a complaint we would, 690 of course, investigate and have to determine when they were given the Certificate of Occupancy and if they 691 already have it and they're not making any expansions or other intensifications to the property, they're allowed to 692 persist there indefinitely. 693 694 Marilyn Carter: Okay, well, that's good to know there's no, there's no one under the grandfathering 695 situation. 696 697 Cy Stober: No, there's no sunset clause in this amendment.