Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 109 <br /> 110 Patrick Mallett: It's probably a good idea. <br /> 111 <br /> 112 Beth Bronson: Yeah, it is and I don't mean anything to doubt it. I just didn't know if you were able to create a <br /> 113 solar array farm and then say that you're making money off of it. <br /> 114 <br /> 115 Patrick Mallett: I don't want to get too far down the utility rabbit hole, but in all instances our state, is pretty <br /> 116 definitive about power,who can create power. Who cannot create power,who has the ability to be <br /> 117 able to.A farm can't be a public utility,a subdivision can't be a public utility. <br /> 118 <br /> 119 Beth Bronson: Did Orange County want to manage that, or they couldn't? Well, not Orange County, but if a utility <br /> 120 company wanted to manage that solar array on a bona fide farm. <br /> 121 <br /> 122 Patrick Mallett: They'd have to get a special use permit to do that. <br /> 123 <br /> 124 Beth Bronson: Okay. <br /> 125 <br /> 126 Lamar Proctor: Any other discussion about the specifics of the language or any discussion about proposed <br /> 127 amendments to any of the language covered by this agenda item? <br /> 128 <br /> 129 Beth Bronson: Is there any reason that the solar array shouldn't be available at every type of land use? So,within <br /> 130 R-1, R-2, R-8. Is there any reason that there was no exception or exemptions for locations for <br /> 131 solar arrays? <br /> 132 <br /> 133 Patrick Mallett: No, because it's also covered with what it's supporting. Whether it's to a non-residential use. <br /> 134 Theoretically this could come up in any of the districts with performance standards. And does <br /> 135 anyone have any other questions before we make a motion. I do want to draw your attention to <br /> 136 one item. If you turn to the table of permitted uses on Page 98, you'll see land use item sited on <br /> 137 the table of permitted uses. Item No. 73. The county attorney's office, has of course, seen this. <br /> 138 We always vet this through legal. He had pointed out,we don't necessarily call out accessories <br /> 139 uses in the table of permitted uses,and my rebuttal back to him was this one is fairly unique and <br /> 140 specific and does need to be called up in my opinion. My last communication with James was I'm <br /> 141 not opposed to removing the word accessory and it's in this table, but I think it's important. 1 <br /> 142 haven't heard back from him. In your motion, I would just ask that we have the ability to modify <br /> 143 the terminology of land use, Item 73, as currently proposed, so long as it is consistent with staff <br /> 144 attorneys'guidance. <br /> 145 <br /> 146 Chris Johnston: I would like to make a separate motion. <br /> 147 <br /> 148 Dolores Bailey: Before you make your motion.Where are you talking about? <br /> 149 <br /> 150 Chris Johnston: Page 98. Up there is Line 73,that's above 71 and 72 and it has the word accessory in it, though it <br /> 151 doesn't necessarily need to. <br /> 152 <br /> 153 Dolores Bailey: I see it.Thank you. <br /> 154 <br /> 155 Chris Johnston: Do we care that 73 is above 71 and 72? <br /> 156 <br /> 157 Patrick Mallett: As we discussed earlier,words matter, but I do know that that could go one way or another. <br /> 158 <br /> 159 Beth Bronson: He's saying that the row was inserted above Row 71. <br /> 160 <br /> 161 Chris Johnston: And then you're saying that because it's got an A at the start of it, it may be at the top, or it may be <br /> 162 at the bottom. <br />