Orange County NC Website
There were no questions from Planning Board members. <br />3 John Link made reference to page 1 a and comparing the old with the new procedure and asked <br />4 about the BOCC work session. Craig Benedict said that each item would be presented at a work <br />s session before beginning the process of public input. John Link feels it is a good idea. However, <br />6 typically work session agendas are full. He wonders if this is workable. <br />7 Craig Benedict clarified that the notice of the public hearing would follow the item being introduced <br />s at a work session. He wants, in some way, to notify the County Commissioners that the process has <br />9 begun on a specific item or issue. <br />to A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer item <br />11 C-1-a to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be retumed to the Board of Commissioners no <br />12 sooner than June 29, 2oaa. <br />13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />14 <br />15 b. Section 4.2.12 Existing Commercial - V (EC-5) <br />16 Craig Benedict explained that there were 113 separate existing commercial uses, known <br />17 as EG5. The Planning staff is suggesting that under extreme circumstances, small existing commercial <br />is parcels, less than one acre, would be able to shift from one lot to an adjacent one. This would be <br />19 allowed under a list of ten criteria. The criteria are listed in the agenda. This would allow for the <br />20 continuation of the commercial use in the future. Any change in the operation would have to meet new <br />21 standards. He made reference to the criteria and said that if an EG5 district is wiped off the map, <br />22 reduced, or becomes non-functional based on some sort of right-of-way taking that is in excess of what <br />23 is required by the comprehensive plan, the property owner would not be able to purchase other land. <br />Za <br />25 UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS <br />x6 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12, item "C° that reads, "Existing district shall be <br />27 eliminated and retumed to the zoning of surrounding land. If the old district is adjacent to more than <br />z8 one district, the tract shall be retumed to the lower use category." She asked far further explanation. <br />29 Craig Benedict said that it means that if a portion of the district is made non-functional and they will lose <br />3o the rights they have of a portion of the land, that portion of the land would have to revert back to the <br />31 use designation of the adjacent property. Craig Benedict said that this language would be reworded. <br />32 Commissioner Gordon asked about item "D" on the same page and asked why expansion would <br />33 be allowed. Craig Benedict said that this was in~response to a concern to encourage the property <br />34 owners to redo their building and this would provide an incentive for their potential conversion and <br />3s adherence to the strict regulations. <br />36 Commissioner Gordon suggested using an additional square footage allowance as an incentive. <br />37 She asked if the EG5 was allowed by right ar by condemnation and how it would be decided if the land <br />38 was condemned whether or not there was an impact on adjacent properties. Craig Benedict said that <br />39 the process for EG5 is that if the property owner wants to change the zoning district by purchasing <br />ao additional property that notification would be given to the neighbors and the County Commissioners <br />41 would approve through the regular rezoning process. <br />42 Commissioner Brown asked of the 113 EG5 uses how many were operational and Craig Benedict <br />43 did oat know. He has received complaints on quite a few of these properties. <br />44 Karen Barrows said that it feels that something has happened to bring this item forward. Craig <br />as Benedict said that the best way to address a regulatory change is to address it comprehensively <br />46 instead of doing it for one or two people who have requested that this be reviewed for changes. He <br />47 said that he has received requests from some of the owners of EG5 properties to expand or change <br />as their business in same way. He said that right now there were not enough regulations in the code to <br />49 direct what the future building should look like. He hopes to have same standards for some <br />so consistency. <br />si Karen Barrows clarified that Craig Benedict has received some inquiries from businesses and alsc <br />s2 some complaints from citizens and Craig Benedict verified this. <br />