Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
283 <br /> Approved 8.7.24 <br /> 1701 we want to do. Do we know definitively where the dumpsters are going to be and the <br /> 1702 ADA. I'm not speaking for the applicant. I'm just saying that that is a reality and a <br /> 1703 distinction between those two zoning categories. <br /> 1704 <br /> 1705 Beth Bronson: And I think that makes complete sense that you would need a master plan conditional so <br /> 1706 that you could obtain approval and then make those changes necessary as you go <br /> 1707 through. <br /> 1708 <br /> 1709 Pat Mallett: Then you're diving into more of the details in the design of the site plans and construction <br /> 1710 drawing-type documents. <br /> 1711 <br /> 1712 Beth Bronson: Correct. And in the final site plan, if you are awarded a master plan conditional district, <br /> 1713 that final plan that gets submitted with the first land distributing permit is that plan and <br /> 1714 cannot deviate from that plan. Is that correct? <br /> 1715 <br /> 1716 Patrick Mallett: It has to be consistent, yes. <br /> 1717 <br /> 1718 Beth Bronson: Okay. And if anybody wants to see, this is the general statute for family care homes. <br /> 1719 This is the one that they're referencing. They're speaking to about being consistent with <br /> 1720 general statute language. Quite simply, it makes a ton of sense. <br /> 1721 <br /> 1722 Charity Kirk: I don't have a problem with the family care homes. I have a problem with the rural <br /> 1723 neighborhood activity node getting enlarged so much and it not being consistent with what <br /> 1724 they want, but the family care homes I'm fine with. <br /> 1725 <br /> 1726 Beth Bronson: And so, to my original questions that brought you up there to explain so much, it would've <br /> 1727 been so helpful to this application had the Economic Development Department been <br /> 1728 involved in the construction of this or in the development of this idea in setting this <br /> 1729 precedent. There would've been so many more questions that could've been addressed <br /> 1730 that the community would've had. <br /> 1731 <br /> 1732 Charity Kirk: And why? Why would it have been more helpful? <br /> 1733 <br /> 1734 Beth Bronson: Because what they're proposing doesn't have a precedent in the area. It is a stark <br /> 1735 change to the comprehensive land use plan and the future land use map, and so, if there <br /> 1736 were something like that that they have been working with the County on for years, 1 <br /> 1737 thought that it would be beneficial because the Economic Development Department would <br /> 1738 be able to help quantify and qualify all of these different elements that would help <br /> 1739 preserve that natural rural character while also allowing innovation to occur. So, that's <br /> 1740 just my comment. Thank you. I do also wonder if the reason for the amendment cannot <br /> 1741 include the multi-family standards. To what we were talking about earlier, this is an <br /> 1742 extremely complex project, and so, the idea that it's going to be so far from any westward <br /> 1743 expansion of a municipality, that there are no municipalities that could expand north of it <br /> 1744 or south of it, I have a real concern just about going forward with a recommendation that <br /> 1745 is going to be taking such a chance on this rural development. So, that's kind of where 1 <br /> 1746 stand, and I realize that that's not very eloquent, but it does, I think, address the <br /> 1747 neighbors, as well as the concerns of the residents and for the members of H4D. Again, <br /> 1748 it's not that I, and I echo what you guys are saying, it's not that this is a bad plan. It's a <br /> 1749 very good plan. It's just understanding what that's doing while we're in the middle of <br /> 1750 reviewing the comprehensive plan for 2050, and it does bring a lot of questions up for <br />