Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 4.9.25 <br /> 1 SUMMARY NOTES <br /> 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br /> 3 FEBRUARY 5,2025 <br /> 4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE <br /> 5 <br /> 6 <br /> 7 NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair), <br /> 10 Hillsborough Township Representative;Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Beth Bronson,At- <br /> li Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township <br /> 12 Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel <br /> 13 Hill Township Representative. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning <br /> 16 &Administration; Jack Moran, Planning Technician. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER <br /> 19 Meeting began at 7:15 PM. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—SUBDIVISIONS- To review BOCC-and <br /> 22 Planning Director-initiated amendments to the LIDO pertaining to Subdivisions. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 PRESENTER: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Mr. Stober gave a presentation on the proposed amendments and explained the process by which they are initiated <br /> 27 by the BOCC and Planning Staff. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Beth Bronson raised a question about the relationship between the proposed amendments and the upcoming <br /> 30 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Stober explained that the amendments were in part proposed to coincide with <br /> 31 expected changes to the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Mr. Stober further explained the rationale behind the amendments and that he was interested in hearing Committee <br /> 34 feedback on specific topics such as conservation and agricultural subdivisions, density-related incentives, and <br /> 35 administrative versus legislative approvals for different subdivision types. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Charity Kirk, Statler Gilfillen, and Chris Johnston discuss the enforceability of agricultural and farming requirements <br /> 38 as part of the subdivision standards. Mr. Stober explained the likelihood of requiring an easement for conservation <br /> 39 and <br /> 40 explained the relationship between Bona Fide Farms and agricultural subdivisions. There was a question on what <br /> 41 could be enforced under state law in relation to Bona Fide Farms. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Adam Beeman asked if there are any other ways to incentivize conservation subdivisions outside of density bonuses <br /> 44 such as expedited review or amended fees. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Statler Gilfillen, Perdita Holtz, and Mr. Stober discussed the average lot size of subdivisions in Orange County. <br /> 47 Perdita Holtz explained that a number of years ago it was around 2.25 acres and was largely limited by the well and <br /> 48 septic capabilities of lots. Statler Gilfillen raised concern around the ecological impact of subdivisions and single- <br /> 49 family housing and proposed a European village style change. <br /> 50 <br /> 51 Mr. Stober discussed considerations for incentivization and requested Committee feedback on thresholds for density, <br /> 52 lot size, number of lots, and conservation requirements. <br /> 53 <br />