Browse
Search
7-10-24 PB Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2024
>
7-10-24 PB Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2024 11:55:40 AM
Creation date
7/18/2024 11:54:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
7/10/2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
18 <br /> 608 following uses: church,fire station,small post office, school or other similar institutional uses and one or more <br /> 609 commercial uses. And then again,just to hear them back to back,the rural neighborhood activity node is defined as, <br /> 610 land focused on a designated road intersection within the rural areas that is appropriate for small scale commercial <br /> 611 uses,characteristic of mom and pop convenience stores and gas stations. I do know that part of the rationale for the <br /> 612 location of the community nodes was that they correspond with historic crossroad communities in the county and so <br /> 613 in addition to White Cross,there's Cedar Grove,there's Carr,there's Caldwell and Schley which are four rural <br /> 614 community nodes that are all in the northern part of the county. As far as why MPD-CD was left out of one node and <br /> 615 not the other, I just won't venture to guess, I would say I would do the same thing that the board and others might do <br /> 616 is try to read the definitions there and try to maybe guess at what may have been the original intentions. We did <br /> 617 have previously, before conditional districts, there was a planned development district and so there were some <br /> 618 changes when the code was updated to include conditional districts and that may have been,the time in between the <br /> 619 original establishment of those nodes and the creation of the original matrix from 1981,when a change was made to <br /> 620 the matrix. So, I will stop there. I hope that helped some. <br /> 621 <br /> 622 Lamar Proctor: All right,any questions of Mr.Altieri? <br /> 623 <br /> 624 Chris Johnston: I do have one quick question. The rural neighborhood activity district,they're all circles and so my <br /> 625 question would be in regards to how often they expand outside those designated circles that they have? They all <br /> 626 looked pretty standard still, and so was this the first one that has tried to venture outside of its designated zone since <br /> 627 1981? <br /> 628 <br /> 629 Tom Altieri To my knowledge I believe this would be the first expansion of one of those nodes. There are a <br /> 630 couple going back, again to the original plan that aren't full circles,that were like little slices of circles, and there are a <br /> 631 couple of those in different areas of the county. Having read a while back the 1981 plan, these things were located <br /> 632 where there were existing uses on the ground at that point in time, so my guess is where there's a slice and not a full <br /> 633 radius they were trying to cover maybe one corner of an intersection and make sure that there was a consistent land <br /> 634 use classification. <br /> 635 <br /> 636 Chris Johnston: Sure, and I guess my follow-up question then is in regards to why they picked a circle versus, 1 <br /> 637 mean, I don't want to get into the logistics there, but why they picked a circle instead of following the existing parcels <br /> 638 or anything along those lines. It just feels like it belabors itself to having to be expanded one way or another if it were <br /> 639 to follow that. <br /> 640 <br /> 641 Cy Stober: If I may, that is a consistent frustration of staff with our Future Land Use Map.The failure to follow <br /> 642 property lines presents some challenges. <br /> 643 <br /> 644 Chris Johnston: So, it's not unreasonable to expand it because the circle just seems to have been pulled out of— <br /> 645 <br /> 646 Tom Altieri: Correct. And so again, going back to 1981,well before geographic information systems we had <br /> 647 paper copies, I wasn't here then, but paper copies of the zoning maps with the parcel lines, literally blue lines. <br /> 648 There's been a lot of changes in technology and so yes,with our update to our plan we do see it being more parcel <br /> 649 based than what we have now. <br /> 650 <br /> 651 Chris Johnston: Okay,thank you. <br /> 652 <br /> 653 Marilyn Carter: Thank you for the presentation and the history. I do have a question about MPD-CDs and whether <br /> 654 any rezonings have taken place under that classification with the rural community activity node over time. Have we <br /> 655 had an MPD-CDs yet in the county? <br /> 656 <br /> 657 Tom Altieri: There have not been. <br /> 658 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.