Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 5, 2025 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 6 <br />NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 7 8 <br />MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair), 9 <br />Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Beth Bronson, At-10 <br />Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township 11 <br />Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel 12 <br />Hill Township Representative. 13 <br /> 14 <br />STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long Range Planning 15 <br />& Administration; Jack Moran, Planning Technician. 16 <br /> 17 <br />AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 <br />Meeting began at 7:15 PM. 19 <br /> 20 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – SUBDIVISIONS - To review BOCC- and 21 <br />Planning Director-initiated amendments to the UDO pertaining to Subdivisions. 22 <br /> 23 <br />PRESENTER: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mr. Stober gave a presentation on the proposed amendments and explained the process by which they are initiated 26 <br />by the BOCC and Planning Staff. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Beth Bronson raised a question about the relationship between the proposed amendments and the upcoming 29 <br />Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Stober explained that the amendments were in part proposed to coincide with 30 <br />expected changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Mr. Stober further explained the rationale behind the amendments and that he was interested in hearing Committee 33 <br />feedback on specific topics such as conservation and agricultural subdivisions, density-related incentives, and 34 <br />administrative versus legislative approvals for different subdivision types. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Charity Kirk, Statler Gilfillen, and Chris Johnston discuss the enforceability of agricultural and farming requirements 37 <br />as part of the subdivision standards. Mr. Stober explains the likelihood of requiring an easement for conservation and 38 <br />explains the relationship between Bona Fide Farms and agricultural subdivisions. There is a question on what could 39 <br />be enforced under state law in relation to Bona Fide Farms. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Adam Beeman asks if there are any other ways to incentivize conservation subdivisions outside of density bonuses 42 <br />such as expedited review or amended fees. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Statler Gilfillen, Perdita Holtz, and Mr. Stober discuss the average lot size of subdivisions in Orange County. Perdita 45 <br />Holtz explains that a number of years ago it was around 2.25 acres and was largely limited by the well and septic 46 <br />capabilities of lots. Statler Gilfillen raises concern around the ecological impact of subdivisions and single-family 47 <br />housing and proposes a European village style change. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Mr. Stober discusses considerations for incentivization and requests Committee feedback on thresholds for density, 50 <br />lot size, number of lots, and conservation requirements. 51 <br /> 52 <br />6