Orange County NC Website
19 <br /> 652 you asked some good questions about why the rural nodes were created, and what were <br /> 653 the concerns in creating them. I'd like to summarize. Marvin Collins, an Orange County <br /> 654 planning director, brought this topic before the Planning Board seeking feedback on the <br /> 655 following issues: The initial drafts of the county land use plan and zoning maps did not <br /> 656 have a category to recognize the presence of what we now call rural nodes. Unless a <br /> 657 change was made by extending zoning, these locations would have become a non- <br /> 658 conforming use, and zoning was already a highly contentious issue. The pledge you <br /> 659 speak of at the beginning of this meeting came from those meetings, and making these <br /> 660 mom-and-pop rural services in the smaller communities and agricultural regions of the <br /> 661 county non-conforming was not an acceptable option. On the other hand, there was <br /> 662 concern that, without very explicit definition and size limitation on these rural nodes, <br /> 663 uncontrolled expansion would become the mechanism through which strip development, <br /> 664 spot zoning, and urban sprawl would happen. Significant urban high-density development <br /> 665 in the rural areas would also have the effect of putting Chapel Hill's water supply at risk, <br /> 666 especially since 54 West extends through our watersheds, and this proposal would <br /> 667 change all rural nodes in the county. Uncontrolled rural node growth would become the <br /> 668 endline around the rural buffer districts put in place to protect and preserve water quality <br /> 669 not only for rural residents but Chapel Hill to avoid urban sprawl and to protect the <br /> 670 economic viability of the agricultural operations. As stated in Sections 1.1. 5 and 1.1.7 of <br /> 671 the UDO, rural activity node encompasses land focused on designated road intersections <br /> 672 within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses and mom-and- <br /> 673 pop convenience stores. This use is inconsistent with that goal. <br /> 674 <br /> 675 Sadie Rapp: My name is Sadie Rapp. I grew up at 6819 Morrow Mill Road, and I now run a craft studio <br /> 676 and lead adult arts education on my family's property here. I'm also working to shift the <br /> 677 pastures on the property into food agriculture so as to better steward this land. I won't <br /> 678 have time to get into all of my concerns regarding this proposal, so I've tried to focus on <br /> 679 two main points. The proposed amendments hinge, in part, on whether or not this parcel <br /> 680 gets the designation of rural neighborhood activity node. These nodes are defined in the <br /> 681 comprehensive plan as land focused on designated rural intersections that is appropriate <br /> 682 for small-scale commercial uses that serve the public. The intersection of Morrow Mill and <br /> 683 54 has had that pink dot over it on the future land use map since the 80's. This identifies <br /> 684 the intersection as a place where, essentially, some commercial development may be <br /> 685 appropriate. The developer is claiming it is relevant to their application because the pink <br /> 686 dot overlaps with the corner of their parcel but fails to contend with the fact that this <br /> 687 subdivision as it's currently proposed does not touch an intersection and contains no <br /> 688 commercial element. The designation as a rural neighborhood activity node would be <br /> 689 wholly relevant to the proposed location and uses. The developer has failed to <br /> 690 meaningfully make the case otherwise. Looking beyond the existing ordinances, the <br /> 691 Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 effort just released their new issues and <br /> 692 opportunities report, which I think serves as an excellent tool for anchoring our discussion <br /> 693 today. As I'm sure you all know, last fall, residents and County staff had the chance to <br /> 694 share their values and vision for the future of the county and to help guide its conservation <br /> 695 and growth efforts through the year 2050. This report outlines key planning themes <br /> 696 identified during the first engagement window. The first bullet point is protect critical <br /> 697 watershed areas in open spaces and preserve agricultural lands, which I'm personally <br /> 698 worried is kind of hard to achieve if we are rezoning agricultural parcels and building <br /> 699 subdivisions between streams. Farmland conversion, which is the change of farmland to <br /> 700 non-agricultural uses is one of the threats identified in this report. Maintaining farmland is <br /> 701 critical, not only to the identity and image of the county, but to our resiliency as a region. <br />