|
29
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 1263 standards should be. Planning board should be advising the county on any land use changes that
<br /> 1264 occur in the county, and the planning board should be involved, certainly, in crafting the long-
<br /> 1265 range vision for land use in the county.
<br /> 1266
<br /> 1267 Chris Johnston: Okay, and Whitney, are you on this question as well? Are you asking a question as follow up to
<br /> 1268 her question? I want to make sure that we, no? Okay. So, Meg, do you have a question before
<br /> 1269 we move on, sorry.
<br /> 1270
<br /> 1271 Meg Millard: I have basically the same questions that have been rolling through.
<br /> 1272
<br /> 1273 Chris Johnston: All right,sorry about that,thank you.
<br /> 1274
<br /> 1275 Whitney Watson: So, is it possible then that the planning principles, and in specific, preservation of community
<br /> 1276 character could be, standards could be created that then become part of the ordinance? So that
<br /> 1277 somebody comes, brings a subdivision proposal forward, one of the things that they have to do is
<br /> 1278 demonstrate how they are in keeping with the general area around them,whether it's lot size, style
<br /> 1279 of construction, amount of open space, and so on?
<br /> 1280
<br /> 1281 Cy Stober: We could,there's, I'm thinking Raleigh and Wake County have a racial equity lens that they apply
<br /> 1282 for all their applications,for example, and look at what the impact of the development, any
<br /> 1283 development,will have upon that community,what the price point of the homes is estimated to be
<br /> 1284 relative to the surrounding community. That's not exactly what you're asking, but I mean,that's,
<br /> 1285 my only hesitation, I mean,yes, you could. That's the short answer. I would have to run it by the
<br /> 1286 attorney's office because the state is very protective single family residential homes and our
<br /> 1287 abilities to regulate their appearance, so anything that would be seen as an intrusion on that, and
<br /> 1288 us dictating what a house should look like, that's a big no, and that's very clear in the law. So, it's
<br /> 1289 the matter of how we would navigate that, but, and we'd have to have,they would have to have a
<br /> 1290 product that is tangible and makes sense so that the developer has clear guidance of, or the
<br /> 1291 applicant, has clear guidance on what is the standard we're trying to achieve with that, and they
<br /> 1292 would have to be in the ordinance. So, it would have to be a regulatory standard, not a qualitative
<br /> 1293 standard. Not a goal or an objective. Not a goal, it would have to be an objective.
<br /> 1294
<br /> 1295 Whitney Watson: What I'm thinking about in particular is a proposal that came up in Mebane recently,where
<br /> 1296 somebody wanted to put a bunch of townhomes surrounded by single family homes on, generally,
<br /> 1297 1 acre or more lots.
<br /> 1298
<br /> 1299 Cy Stober: This is the one in Orange County? Yes, okay.
<br /> 1300
<br /> 1301 Whitney Watson: Yes, and there was a lot of push back from all the neighbors about this is not in keeping with the
<br /> 1302 area, because they don't have any standard that they can apply, it all became opinion, and so,
<br /> 1303 can these principles, can, I guess, a goal for planning staff to find ways to articulate these
<br /> 1304 principals and has qualitative guidelines that can be incorporated into the UDO.
<br /> 1305
<br /> 1306 Cy Stober: Possibly,we could consider that. I think the case that you're talking about was also a rezoning
<br /> 1307 when the principles do come fully into play because you are leaning on your land use plan, and
<br /> 1308 you can, and the law is different for rezoning cases because the elected bodies actually given
<br /> 1309 broad discretion to consider what is reasonable, and they can make any finding about what's
<br /> 1310 reasonable, including community character to say this is not a reasonable request, even though
<br /> 1311 it's met all of our standards. Give us double the open space that we otherwise would require. It's
<br /> 1312 not reasonable because of X,Y, or Z. It can't be totally bogus. It can't be we think it's going to
<br /> 1313 ruin the community, based on what? But it,you know, and it can't be, like a good one would be,
<br /> 1314 it's going to cause traffic problems when you have a traffic analysis that says no it won't. That
<br /> 1315 would be problematic, but if it fails to meet one of those aspirational standards,then that's totally
<br /> 1316 the principle and a zoning case. For a subdivision, that is the right of property owner to divide and
<br /> 1317 develop the land as the county says it sees fit. So, the long-winded answer, I think it was part of
<br />
|