7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.7.24 you asked some good questions about why the rural nodes were created, and what were 653 the concerns in creating them. I'd like to summarize. Marvin Collins, an Orange County 654 planning director, brought this topic before the Planning Board seeking feedback on the 655 following issues: The initial drafts of the county land use plan and zoning maps did not 656 have a category to recognize the presence of what we now call rural nodes. Unless a 657 change was made by extending zoning, these locations would have become a non-658 conforming use, and zoning was already a highly contentious issue. The pledge you 659 speak of at the beginning of this meeting came from those meetings, and making these 660 mom-and-pop rural services in the smaller communities and agricultural regions of the 661 county non-conforming was not an acceptable option. On the other hand, there was 662 concern that, without very explicit definition and size limitation on these rural nodes, 663 uncontrolled expansion would become the mechanism through which strip development, 664 spot zoning, and urban sprawl would happen. Significant urban high-density development 665 in the rural areas would also have the effect of putting Chapel Hill's water supply at risk, 666 especially since 54 West extends through our watersheds, and this proposal would 667 change all rural nodes in the county. Uncontrolled rural node growth would become the 668 endline around the rural buffer districts put in place to protect and preserve water quality 669 not only for rural residents but Chapel Hill to avoid urban sprawl and to protect the 670 economic viability of the agricultural operations. As stated in Sections 1.1. 5 and 1.1.7 of 671 the UDO, rural activity node encompasses land focused on designated road intersections 672 within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses and mom-and-673 pop convenience stores. This use is inconsistent with that goal. 674 675 Sadie Rapp: My name is Sadie Rapp. I grew up at 6819 Morrow Mill Road, and I now run a craft studio 676 and lead adult arts education on my family's property here. I'm also working to shift the 677 pastures on the property into food agriculture so as to better steward this land. I won't 678 have time to get into all of my concerns regarding this proposal, so I've tried to focus on 679 two main points. The proposed amendments hinge, in part, on whether or not this parcel 680 gets the designation of rural neighborhood activity node. These nodes are defined in the 681 comprehensive plan as land focused on designated rural intersections that is appropriate 682 for small-scale commercial uses that serve the public. The intersection of Morrow Mill and 683 54 has had that pink dot over it on the future land use map since the 80’s. This identifies 684 the intersection as a place where, essentially, some commercial development may be 685 appropriate. The developer is claiming it is relevant to their application because the pink 686 dot overlaps with the corner of their parcel but fails to contend with the fact that this 687 subdivision as it's currently proposed does not touch an intersection and contains no 688 commercial element. The designation as a rural neighborhood activity node would be 689 wholly relevant to the proposed location and uses. The developer has failed to 690 meaningfully make the case otherwise. Looking beyond the existing ordinances, the 691 Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 effort just released their new issues and 692 opportunities report, which I think serves as an excellent tool for anchoring our discussion 693 today. As I'm sure you all know, last fall, residents and County staff had the chance to 694 share their values and vision for the future of the county and to help guide its conservation 695 and growth efforts through the year 2050. This report outlines key planning themes 696 identified during the first engagement window. The first bullet point is protect critical 697 watershed areas in open spaces and preserve agricultural lands, which I'm personally 698 worried is kind of hard to achieve if we are rezoning agricultural parcels and building 699 subdivisions between streams. Farmland conversion, which is the change of farmland to 700 non-agricultural uses is one of the threats identified in this report. Maintaining farmland is 701 critical, not only to the identity and image of the county, but to our resiliency as a region. 702