Browse
Search
8-7-24 PB Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2024
>
8-7-24 PB Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2024 9:25:48 AM
Creation date
8/1/2024 9:15:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/7/2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
232
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
37 <br /> 1551 transition node this is some sort of industrial transition node, that, hey, this may be coming <br /> 1552 your way. And if they buy something in the middle of the rural buffer or agricultural <br /> 1553 residential areas, they would not expect that kind of dense development. As this is <br /> 1554 presented, to ask that we change the entire planning scheme to allow for MPD-CD zoning <br /> 1555 within rural activity nodes, I think is too far of a stretch. I wish this had been presented as <br /> 1556 somewhat a more consistent residential conditional district, but for whatever reason that <br /> 1557 was not how this is presented. I think what Cy said is that the anticipated uses and the <br /> 1558 vision, the big picture and the grandeur of this vision, there were uses that the developer <br /> 1559 and the applicant are looking to put in that couldn't conform with residential conditional <br /> 1560 district zoning. <br /> 1561 <br /> 1562 Charity Kirk: I think it was the large-scale multi-family housing. <br /> 1563 <br /> 1564 Lamar Proctor: Right, that's just where I am. I love the vision. I just think expanding MPD-CD zoning into <br /> 1565 rural activity nodes, given the history of it, given the consistency of the uses and within <br /> 1566 entire comprehensive land use scheme is inconsistent for me. <br /> 1567 <br /> 1568 Steve Kaufmann: I guess I just don't feel comfortable with the plan, especially given the feedback from all <br /> 1569 the neighbors. It just doesn't seem to fit in that particular place. Even though the vision is <br /> 1570 great, the neighbors really don't want it, and it doesn't fit with the culture there, so for that <br /> 1571 reason I would not support it. <br /> 1572 <br /> 1573 Beth Bronson: I think that we should be supporting a diverse kind of housing opportunities within the <br /> 1574 county and countywide. I think that the idea that more residents over the age of 55 will be <br /> 1575 coming to the area or aging in place in the area is only going to grow, but as is the rest of <br /> 1576 the population in this county, both for manufacturing, as well as for jobs that are outside of <br /> 1577 the county, and so it's well known that the rural buffer area has long been wanting to be <br /> 1578 preserved with agricultural residential and farmland. There are efforts to preserve <br /> 1579 farmland in the area; however, that doesn't stop owners from wanting to develop on their <br /> 1580 land and wanting to do a novel thing on their land. The master plan development <br /> 1581 conditional district is not something that I would find conducive to be adjacent to <br /> 1582 agricultural residential, and much less that far from community services such as public <br /> 1583 utilities and emergency services. I would find that there's a lot more questions that <br /> 1584 remain, and to go with a master plan development I feel like that would be shortchanging <br /> 1585 the precedent that this would be setting, so that's kind of where I'm at with this. The <br /> 1586 couple of conditions that we've discussed I think might be a good start, but I'm also <br /> 1587 wondering if anybody with Hands Four Development or anybody from planning staff <br /> 1588 brought the Economic Development Department into the discussion around this <br /> 1589 cooperative development or project. <br /> 1590 <br /> 1591 Patrick Mallett: Well two things, so I would encourage you if you get into the part where you're crafting <br /> 1592 conditions you be very specific as you normally do with conditional districts and word <br /> 1593 them out item by item as part of your recommendation. Cases go through a process and <br /> 1594 a calendar and that starts with an internal analysis and then the items are also shared <br /> 1595 with various other departments. Economic Development is part of a development <br /> 1596 advisory committee. <br /> 1597 <br /> 1598 Beth Bronson: So, the DAC saw it? <br /> 1599 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.