7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.7.24 signed up to speak in June, the numerous community members opposed to the project, 403 who are here tonight hoping to speak, and yet, even if everyone here were to speak 404 tonight, we represent a small fraction of the wider community expected to participate in 405 envisioning County land use policy for the next 26 years. On Highway 54 and Morrow Mill 406 Road, there's a gas station, convenience store, and Piedmont Feed fully consistent with 407 the definition of rural neighborhood activity nodes in the UDO and comprehensive plan. 408 Seeking rural neighborhood activity node, which I'll call RNAN, designation to add 70 plus 409 acres of mixed use, serving only this proposed private development's residents and 410 visitors is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's direction to locate RNANs to serve 411 the local agricultural and residential community. Changing policy to allow commercial use 412 with no public benefit on a non-crossroads property would threaten the genuine public 413 interest of local communities of crossroads throughout Orange County. The future land 414 use map includes ten RNAN nodes totaling 1,166 acres and 82 percent of that is zoned 415 agricultural residential, 15 percent of it is R1 residential. By design, these nodes are 416 confined to a small radius. This developer requests adding 70 plus acres to a 125-acre 417 node beyond the circle. The intersection of 54 and Morrow Mill Road, like other nodes, is 418 not in an area marked for transition from rural to urban-type development or infrastructure. 419 This is a significant inconsistency because development standards in the UDO state that 420 MPD-CD districts shall be limited to transition land use categories. If this board were to 421 recommend allowing MPD-CDs in nodes, you would open up ten nodes in non-transition 422 areas to unlimited exponential high-density intrusion into the surrounding low-density rural 423 communities. It's important to note that if you were to rezone a conditional district in a 424 node, there's an exception in which acreage limitations do not apply as they would for the 425 existing small-scale LC1 or NC2 commercial zoning, each of which are limited to a 426 maximum of 5 acres under the existing ordinance. I urge you not to recommend this 427 change to the future land use map and comprehensive plan because there are significant 428 unanswered questions about the rationale for allowing multiple and mixed uses in our 429 node. At the last meeting, the developer stated they would provide no services to outside 430 people, such as restaurants. The full range of proposed commercial uses are unclear in 431 the application packet, but in communications with planning staff and at neighborhood and 432 orientation meetings, the developer has discussed a pub, a coffee shop, and a store 433 exclusively for the development's investors and guests. The developer's proposal is 434 inconsistent with Appendix F stating that a rural neighborhood activity node identifies 435 areas in the county where small-scale commercial uses serving the population in the 436 surrounding area are appropriate and the overlay locational criteria that say serving the 437 local low density rural and agricultural population generally less than 1,000 persons. So, 438 residents of a high-density development cannot simultaneously be part of the node and 439 also be the low-density population surrounding the node. We in the Morrow Mill Road and 440 Goldmine Loop communities make up the surrounding population, and we would not be 441 served. Please do not allow a single developer to re-write County policy to benefit 442 themselves and burden rural communities around all ten nodes with misplaced high-443 density use in low-density areas without supporting infrastructure. There would be zero 444 harm in not recommending the proposed UDO amendments in Item 7. Not expanding the 445 node would not harm the public interest because the proposal does not plan uses that 446 would serve members of the public. Not allowing MPD-CD districts and RNANs would not 447 harm local communities because rural communities at these nodes are not seeking high-448 density mixed-use development that would encroach on farms and rural properties. Item 449 8, I urge you not to amend the UDO to allow family care homes in an MPD-CD zoning 450 district. The developer proposes changing UDOs necessary to build these centers and 451 that the rural neighborhood activity nodes designation should change. The parcel’s 452