Browse
Search
PB Agenda Packet - Feb 5 2025
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2025
>
PB Agenda Packet - Feb 5 2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2025 4:14:08 PM
Creation date
2/3/2025 4:13:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/5/2025
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.
/
34
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
24 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 929 to be considered when we're drafting policy recommendations for this plan. Those are existing <br /> 930 utilities, again,to get to that earlier point about economic development. Most of those areas are <br /> 931 zoned for residential, but there are some non-residential areas in Chapel Hill and Carrboro that <br /> 932 are adjacent to or have proximity to those utilities. All that could be discussed. We are also <br /> 933 currently in the two of the alternatives,well, all the alternatives now have two activity nodes within <br /> 934 the rural buffer. One right outside and one within, and I think we're moving forward with that in <br /> 935 mind. They will depend upon a decentralized, engineered system, so state permitted wastewater, <br /> 936 state permitted water. And to your point about the for-profit management of water. I share your <br /> 937 concern, so I think that, and the commissioners have reached out to the manager who told me we <br /> 938 need more research on, particularly,you know, decentralized wastewater whether it's community <br /> 939 septic or, community wastewater so it's a package plant. The commissioners are intrigued but <br /> 940 concerned. They don't feel that they have enough information today and you feel that way too, so <br /> 941 we need to get more information on all of those matters. But where we're at right now is a real <br /> 942 distaste for sprawl. Real concern about affordability. For those who are informed,concerns about <br /> 943 tax base, and concerns about under-utilization of existing infrastructure. I think all of that's true <br /> 944 and going to inform what we come back to you with in the future. <br /> 945 <br /> 946 Adam Beeman: I'm rotating off of March, so I'm trying to get all of it off and aired out because I probably won't be <br /> 947 here the next time around. So, I apologize. Charity, go ahead. <br /> 948 <br /> 949 Charity Kirk: Adding on to environmental stuff, is there any consideration of wildlife corridors, because we're <br /> 950 talking about alternatives to land use and these conservation neighborhoods, but there's nothing <br /> 951 about connectivity that I've heard. And besides there's watershed protected areas. But what is the <br /> 952 consideration for wildlife connectivity? <br /> 953 <br /> 954 Leigh Anne King: Excellent question. So when we develop the alternatives and we're looking to change the land <br /> 955 uses, particularly for the rural conservation neighborhoods, and the mixed-use centers in <br /> 956 Alternative No.4,we did evaluate the New Hope Conservation Corridor's analysis that was part of <br /> 957 the data that we looked at when locating those areas on the map, and there are gradations of <br /> 958 quality of corridors and patches and so we were prioritizing the most high quality corridors and <br /> 959 patches when locating these areas. If you see the maps of New Hope there's some level,almost <br /> 960 everywhere, that doesn't have development on it today. But there was a concerted effort to look <br /> 961 at that, and it's actually something that as we're drafting the policies for the plan and thinking <br /> 962 about if we're going to be supporting rural conservation neighborhoods and unincorporated <br /> 963 portions of the County,we want to make sure that protected lands,the 60 percent or whatever <br /> 964 number that's landed at, in terms of the open space protection,would be promoting conservation <br /> 965 of high quality conservation corridors for wildlife. <br /> 966 <br /> 967 Charity Kirk: So, in the plan,you would actually specify what would be rural conservation neighborhoods <br /> 968 zoning wise and then they would need to do a rural conservation neighborhood there. They would <br /> 969 have to apply to the County to change it to a standard subdivision. <br /> 970 <br /> 971 Leigh Anne King: The plan is policy. No zoning change will happen as a part of a land use plan. <br /> 972 <br /> 973 Charity Kirk: So,the LIDO would have to be changed separately. <br /> 974 <br /> 975 Leigh Anne King: Correct. And this is the way it always happens in communities throughout the United States. <br /> 976 There's the plan that happens first. And that's the policy guidance that will typically include <br /> 977 recommendations for zoning,subdivision, UDO,whatever the ordinance is called,for changes to <br /> 978 that to bring the code into compliance with the vision of the plan. So, at this stage,there wouldn't <br /> 979 be any zoning changes. I think in our land use categories,we would talk about the types of <br /> 980 zoning categories that make sense to be applied within different areas, but it wouldn't actually be <br /> 981 zoning. <br /> 982 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.