Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-04-2025; 5-a - Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize “Fiddlehead Corner”, a Master Plan Development – Conditional District
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2025
>
Agenda - 02-04-2025 Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 02-04-2025; 5-a - Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize “Fiddlehead Corner”, a Master Plan Development – Conditional District
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2025 1:32:28 PM
Creation date
1/30/2025 1:34:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/4/2025
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5-a
Document Relationships
Agenda for February 4, 2025 BOCC Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2020's\2025\Agenda - 02-04-2025 Business Meeting
Minutes 02-04-2025-Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2020's\2025
ORD-2025-005-An Ordinance Amending the UDO of Orange County
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2020-2029\2025
OTHER-2025-005-Acceptance of the Agricultural Growth Zone Grant with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2020 - 2029\2025
OTHER-2025-006-CHCCS & OCS Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Approval of Membership and Capacity Numbers
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2020 - 2029\2025
OTHER-2025-007-OCS-SAPFO- Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance -Approval of Membership and Capacity Numbers
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2020 - 2029\2025
OTHER-2025-015-Statement of Consistency of a Proposed UDO Text Amendment with Adopted Orange County Plans
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2020 - 2029\2025
OTHER-2025-016-Statement of Inconsistency of a Proposed Zoning Atlas Map Amendment with the Adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other ApplicableAdopted Plans
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Various Documents\2020 - 2029\2025
PRO-2025-001-Black History Month Proclamation
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Proclamations\2020-2029\2025
RES-2025-010-Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release Refund
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2020-2029\2025
RES-2025-011-Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption Exclusion
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2020-2029\2025
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.
/
361
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
280 <br /> Approved 8.7.24 <br /> 1552 transition node this is some sort of industrial transition node, that, hey, this may be coming <br /> 1553 your way. And if they buy something in the middle of the rural buffer or agricultural <br /> 1554 residential areas, they would not expect that kind of dense development. As this is <br /> 1555 presented, to ask that we change the entire planning scheme to allow for MPD-CD zoning <br /> 1556 within rural activity nodes, I think is too far of a stretch. I wish this had been presented as <br /> 1557 somewhat a more consistent residential conditional district, but for whatever reason that <br /> 1558 was not how this is presented. I think what Cy said is that the anticipated uses and the <br /> 1559 vision, the big picture and the grandeur of this vision, there were uses that the developer <br /> 1560 and the applicant are looking to put in that couldn't conform with residential conditional <br /> 1561 district zoning. <br /> 1562 <br /> 1563 Charity Kirk: I think it was the large-scale multi-family housing. <br /> 1564 <br /> 1565 Lamar Proctor: Right, that's just where I am. I love the vision. I just think expanding MPD-CD zoning into <br /> 1566 rural activity nodes, given the history of it, given the consistency of the uses and within <br /> 1567 entire comprehensive land use scheme is inconsistent for me. <br /> 1568 <br /> 1569 Steve Kaufmann: I guess I just don't feel comfortable with the plan, especially given the feedback from all <br /> 1570 the neighbors. It just doesn't seem to fit in that particular place. Even though the vision is <br /> 1571 great, the neighbors really don't want it, and it doesn't fit with the culture there, so for that <br /> 1572 reason I would not support it. <br /> 1573 <br /> 1574 Beth Bronson: I think that we should be supporting a diverse kind of housing opportunities within the <br /> 1575 county and countywide. I think that the idea that more residents over the age of 55 will be <br /> 1576 coming to the area or aging in place in the area is only going to grow, but as is the rest of <br /> 1577 the population in this county, both for manufacturing, as well as for jobs that are outside of <br /> 1578 the county, and so it's well known that the rural buffer area has long been wanting to be <br /> 1579 preserved with agricultural residential and farmland. There are efforts to preserve <br /> 1580 farmland in the area; however, that doesn't stop owners from wanting to develop on their <br /> 1581 land and wanting to do a novel thing on their land. The master plan development <br /> 1582 conditional district is not something that I would find conducive to be adjacent to <br /> 1583 agricultural residential, and much less that far from community services such as public <br /> 1584 utilities and emergency services. I would find that there's a lot more questions that <br /> 1585 remain, and to go with a master plan development I feel like that would be shortchanging <br /> 1586 the precedent that this would be setting, so that's kind of where I'm at with this. The <br /> 1587 couple of conditions that we've discussed I think might be a good start, but I'm also <br /> 1588 wondering if anybody with Hands Four Development or anybody from planning staff <br /> 1589 brought the Economic Development Department into the discussion around this <br /> 1590 cooperative development or project. <br /> 1591 <br /> 1592 Patrick Mallett: Well two things, so I would encourage you if you get into the part where you're crafting <br /> 1593 conditions you be very specific as you normally do with conditional districts and word <br /> 1594 them out item by item as part of your recommendation. Cases go through a process and <br /> 1595 a calendar and that starts with an internal analysis and then the items are also shared <br /> 1596 with various other departments. Economic Development is part of a development <br /> 1597 advisory committee. <br /> 1598 <br /> 1599 Beth Bronson: So, the DAC saw it? <br /> 1600 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.