Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-05-2000-8q
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Agenda - 09-05-2000
>
Agenda - 09-05-2000-8q
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 5:34:07 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 11:20:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/5/2000
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8q
Document Relationships
Minutes - 09-05-2000
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~ Thera were no questions from Planning Board members, <br />2 <br />3 Jahn Link made reference to page 10 and comparing the old with the new procedure and asked <br />a about the BOCC work session. Craig Benedict said that each item would be presented at a work <br />5 session before beginning the process of public input. John Link feels it is a goad idea. However, <br />6 typically work session agendas are full. He wonders if this is workable. <br />~ 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, 2000. <br />13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />14 <br />i5 ~ b. Section 4,2.12 Existing Commercial ~ V (EC-5) <br />15 Craig Benedict explained that there were 113 separate existing commercial uses, known <br />17 as EC-5, The Planning staff is suggesting that under extreme circumstances, small existing commercial <br />18 parcels, less than one acre, would be able to shift from one let 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 EC-5 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 />24 <br />25 UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS <br />26 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 />zs one district, the tract shall be retumed to the lower use category." She asked for 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 porkian 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" an the same page and asked why expansion would <br />33 be allowed. Craig Benedict said that this was in~respanse to a cancem to encourage the property <br />34 owners to redo their building and this would provide an incentive for their potential conversion and <br />35 adherence to the strict regulations. <br />35 Commissioner Gordon suggested using an additional square footage allowance as an incentive. <br />37 She asked if the EC-5 was allowed by right or 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 EC-5 is that if the property owner wants to change the zoning district by purchasing <br />4o 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 EC-5 uses how many were operational and Craig Benedict <br />43 did not know. He has received complaints an quite a few of these propertles. <br />44 Karen Ban'aws said that it feels that something has happened to bring this item forward. Craig <br />a5 Benedict said that the best way to address a regulatory change is to address it comprehensively <br />46 instead of doing it far one ar two people who have requested that this be reviewed for changes. He <br />4"l said that he has received requests from same of the owners of EG5 properties to expand or change <br />48 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 some standards for some <br />5o consistency, <br />51 Karen Barrows clarified that Craig Benedict has received some inquiries from businesses and also <br />sz same complaints from citizens and Craig Benedict verified this. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.