HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-21-2007-6aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No. (r> ~ q
SUBJECT: NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
Economic Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 5-21-07 DRAFT QPH Minutes
2. Draft 7-11-07 Planning Board Minutes
3. 6-14-07 Economic Development
Commission Minutes
4. Final Draft of NC Highway 57
Speedway Area Small Area Plan
(separate enclosure)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Planning Dir., 245-2592
Willie Best, Asst. Co. Mgr., 245-2300
Glenn Bowles, Planner II, 245-2577
PURPOSE: To review the recommendations of the Economic Development Commission and
the Planning Board for the final draft NC Highway .57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan and
consider adoption of the Small Area Plan. Proposed implementation regulations are not
part of this approval and will be addressed at a later date.
BACKGROUND: On June 27, 2006 the County Board of Commissioners authorized the
formation of a citizen Task Force for the purpose in working with County staff to complete a
Small Area Plan for an area of the County along NC Highway 57, near the Person and Durham
County lines, including the Orange County Speedway and the Hanson Aggregate Quarry
operation.
The purpose of the Small Area Plan was to evaluate and review the constraints and
opportunities of allowing for additional development within the area and identify opportunities for
the County and existing non-residential developments to work together to address identified
offsite impacts on surrounding property owners.
This work was originally being completed according to the planned update of the Orange County
Land Use Element. As the Land Use Element's timeline for completion has been extended,
staff believes that this project should be completed independently of the update.
The recommendations contained within the Small Area Plan attempt to address the following
questions identified by the Task Force, local citizens, and County staff:
1. What is an appropriate level of additional residential and nonresidential development
within the area?
2. Is there a desire for additional non-residential development in the area?
3. How will buffering and transitioning of existing, and possible future, nonresidential
development be accomplished to avoid impacts on existing, and possible future, low-
density residential development within the area?
4. How will the County address noise levels generated by the Speedway and possible future
reopening of the go-kart track?
5. What types of additional nonresidential land uses are to be considered for the area and
how will their impact be mitigated?
6. What additional traffic related issues would be generated by potentially allowing for
additional nonresidential development?
7. How will allowing for additional development within the area affect the existing
groundwater public water supply and how will existing, and future, residential
developments be protected from the increase in groundwater demand?
8. What will be done to protect the environmental integrity of the Flat River and Little River
Watershed Overlay districts?
9. What ancillary impacts will be generated in Person and Durham Counties as a result of
potentially allowing for additional development in the area?
Four planning principles contained in the Task Force Report include:
1. Preservation and protection of the rural character and nature of the area;
2. Minimization of negative impacts on natural systems/environmentally sensitive areas;
3. Restrict growth and development so that it complements the rural character and
lifestyles; and
4. Maintenance of present service levels for existing infrastructure.
Traditional rezoning and special use permit processes were not felt to afford the community and
Task Force sufficient protection and assurances of maintaining a rural lifestyle and character,
and the Task Force suggests a zoning overlay entitled Rural Economic Development Area
(REDA) be created to facilitate bringing the nonconforming activities into compliance.
The Draft Small Area Plan was presented at the May 21 Quarterly Public Hearing. Comments
were received from three speakers. Task Force members Karen Barrows and Bruce Peters
expressed concern about damage to wells from blasting, noise and traffic impacts, impacts of
additional development, rights of property owners, and increased air pollution from non-
residential uses in the area. Melvin Stanley spoke on behalf of Orange County Speedway
emphasizing they were a legal non-conforming operation. He expressed concern about
representation of speedway representatives on the committee early in the process and the
impacts of potential regulatory changes discussed by the committee. He closed by asking if
there would be a list of potentially permissible uses. Commissioner Jacobs suggested a word
change on goal #5 on page 28. He suggested "Air quality issues shall be an integral part of any
future permit reviewed within the Study Area."
The BOCC referred the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan to the Economic
Development Commission and Planning Board and for review and recommendation.
The Economic Development Commission considered the Small Area Plan at their meeting on
June 14, 2007 and voted unanimously "to recommend the Plan be forwarded for approval by the
Board of County Commissioners."
The Planning Board discussed the Small Area Plan on July 11. There were questions about
support for the plan by residents (staff indicated general acceptance of the Task Force Report)
and whether the speedway owner could continue in non-conforming status if he chose (he
could); also the impact of this on possible future owners of the property (they would have same
options as current owner). There was also discussion as to whether or not REDA was specific
to the Highway 57 area or might be applied countywide (staff indicated that the Task Force was
recommending the use of REDA for this plan; however, before it could be used anywhere it
would have to go through the normal zoning and land use text amendment process).
The Planning Board voted 7-2 to recommend approval of the plan with the understanding that
residents have agreed to it and that REDA will not be adopted countywide.
It is acknowledged that the uses in this Small Area Plan are unique and no public sewer
and water service is proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time; existing County staff will be
utilized in the small area planning process.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the BOCC adopt the NC Highway
57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT-NOT APPROVED ~'ET
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (Item A.1)
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
May 21, 2007
7:30 p.m.
4
The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Hillsborough Town Board, and the
Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, May 21, 2007 at
7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Brian
Crawford, Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Renee Price-Saunders, Sandra Johnson-Quinn,
Judith Wegner, and Jeffrey Schmitt
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Kempinski, Joel Knight, and
Bernadette Pelissier
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Members
Evelyn Lloyd, Brian Lowen, Michael Gering, and Eric Hallman
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Frances Dancy
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
The meeting was called to order by Chair Carey at 7:37 pm. He noted that this is the first
time that a meeting has been held with these three boards in a very long time.
Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan welcomed everyone.
Mayor Tom Stevens said that he and his board were delighted to be at the table.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan: A citizen task force, Durham and
Person County representatives, and two Orange County Commissioners have spent the
past 10 months addressing planning issues fora 900+ acre area in the northeast corner
of Orange County. Issues include non-conforming, non-residential land uses,
traffic/access management, water quality and quantity, noise and noxious odors, and an
appropriate level of residential and non-residential development. The Task Force
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DRAFT-NOT APPROVED YET
suggests a zoning overlay entitled Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) be
created to facilitate bringing non-conforming activities into compliance.
Planning Director Craig Benedict made this PowerPoint presentation.
NC HIGHWAY 57 SPEEDWAY AREA
SMALL AREA PLAN
TASK FORCE REPORT
A collaborative effort between the Economic Development Department, Planning and
Inspections Department,
and Durham County
May 21, 2007
Orange County, North Carolina
Task Force Members County Commissioners
Anita Badrock Moses Carey, Chair
Karen Barrows Barry Jacobs, Vice Chair
Moses Carey Valerie Foushee
Darrell Chandler Alice Gordon
Jonathan E. Ruppert Mike Nelson
Barry Jacobs
Debra Logner Dianne Reid, Economic Development
Mac Miller Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director
Bruce Peters
Kevin D. Peters
James Walker
Helen Youngblood, Durham County Planning
Staff
Glenn R. Bowles, Jr.
Michael Harvey
Presentation Outline
• Background Map
• Plan Development
• Task Force Charge
• Planning Principles
• Goal Statements
• Standards
• REDA (Rural Economic Development Area)
• Plan Adoption Timeline
Map:
• 38 parcels
• 930 acres
• Bisected by NC 57
• Little River Township
• AR zoning with 2 small EC-5 zones
• Flat and Little River Watershed
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DRAFT-l~TOT APPROVED YET
Plan Development
° Inventory and assessment,
° Identification of issues and concerns,
• Public Feedback through Task Force meetings, and
• Process to Review Plan Drafts.
Task Force Charge
• Issues, concerns, and opportunities and constraints
• Focus on
/ New development
/ Safety hazards
/ Outdoor activities
/ Soils & groundwater
/ Traffic
/ Rural character
/ Nuisances
Planning Principles
^ Preservation and protection of area rural character.
Minimization of impacts to natural systems and environmentally sensitive areas.
^ Growth/development complement rural character and lifestyle.
Maintenance of present service levels.
Goal Statements
• Augment or enhance the area's rural character.
• Aesthetically enhance NC 57 entranceway.
• No adverse impact to existing groundwater supplies.
• Stormwater runoff shall be maintained on site.
• Air quality issues are intricate to any future permit.
Non-conforming uses to be brought into compliance.
• The quarry needs SUP to renew NC permits.
Non-residential uses held to specific criteria.
• No negative impact to existing infrastructure.
Site-Specific Design Standards for:
Stone Quarry properties
And
General Suggested Conditions for:
Orange County Speedway and
Go-Kart property
REDA (Rural Economic Development Area)
• 2-Step Process
o LU Map/Text Amendments
6
DRAFT-l~TOT APPROVED YET 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
o Rezoning Application
• Only with approved SAP
• Conditional Use Zoning
• With Review Criteria
• Public Review
The Plan Adoption Timeline is incorporated by reference. The Small Area Plan could be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners by August 2007 and the Zoning Atlas Map
Amendment could be approved by the Board of County Commissioners by October 2007.
Staff recommends the Board accept public comment on a Small Area Plan and then
forward comments to the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission.
Chair Carey recognized the members of the task force.
Renee Price-Saunders asked for more specificity on the non-conforming use. Craig
Benedict said that presently this section of the County is agricultural-residential on the land use
map. Non-residential uses are not allowed in this part of the County. Since the speedway was
in existence at the time the zoning went into effect, it was given a legal non-conforming status.
In order for it to operate in a different status, the land use and zoning maps must be changed to
allow uses of this nature.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the differences between the original and
amended/revised document and Glen Bowles explained the differences. The changes were on
pages 31, 34-37. The specificity was taken out. The taskforce voted to make the changes.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the plan for the August public hearing. Craig Benedict
said that, concerning the conditional use rezoning planning device that Orange County does not
have, this will be brought forward for the August Quarterly Public Hearing. This can be used in a
lot of other cases throughout the County and not just this project.
Craig Benedict answered several clarifying questions of Commissioner Gordon.
Commissioner Gordon said that the hardest thing about economic development is to get it
in areas that will support it.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the very last page in the new package, page 51,
which was an appendix. This was pulled out by the task force. He said that these might be the
kinds of requirements that anon-conforming use would have to meet when it applied for a
conditional use permit. He said that the specifics in the first packet became the appendix on
pages 51-52.
Jeff Schmitt said that he was present when the citizens brought their concerns to the
Board. He asked if this plan met the requests that some of the citizens had that would allow them
to proceed with the development of the small businesses.
Craig Benedict said that the business community has participated in every meeting, and
this creates a mechanism by which an expanded business or different uses can be pursued. The
neighborhood is concerned that some of the adverse impacts that exist now do not get worse.
The County is trying to strike a balance. The conditional use approval process would allow for
those concerns to come out through a public hearing process.
Public Comment:
Karen Barrows thanked the County Commissioners and the Planning staff that worked
with the citizens. She said that there are a lot of conflicting interests in the area. A lot of the
neighbors are concerned about damage to their wells from the blasting of the quarry, etc. The
noise and increased traffic are also issues related to the quarry and the speedway. Some people
do not want any more development in the area. She agrees. She does understand that other
people have bought land with the intent to develop it, and those needs should be addressed also.
DRAFT-l~OT APPROVED YET 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
She said that the REDA is a pretty good vehicle to strike a balance. She hopes that it will be
adopted. She said that this has to be done properly.
Bruce Peters said that he represents some neighbors. He was asked to speak to the
speedway, go-cart/motocross facilities, and the potential reopening of the asphalt plant. This is a
big concern for people that live within a quarter of a mile. He said that if these commercial
establishments are allowed to operate without any constraint, mainly noise buffers, the rural
residential area will be equivalent to a heavy industrial zone because of the excessive pollution of
the air from motors without exhaust systems and the burning of oil and other agents in the
production of asphalt. There is also excessive noise pollution. He said that Durham recently
adopted a new noise ordinance, in which no construction can take place on Sunday or on
weekdays after 6:00 p.m. He said that many neighbors see no reason to change from the present
limited use if these operations do not care about giving the air relief from the overwhelming
pollution, especially noise. lastly, the neighbors do not have a great deal of concern about some
of the County's requirements in detail (i.e., landscaping, signage, parking entrances, etc.)
because they do not affect the quality of life or the value of the property.
Melvin Stanley was representing Orange County Speedway, but as an interested party
and not as legal counsel. He said that the speedway property has been operating as a legal non-
conforming operation since 1994 when "blanket" zoning was done. He said that he understood
that the County would have a rezoning to make the property more consistent with the existing
uses. He said that the interested parties proceeded with the understanding that this was a legal
non-conforming use and that it would not be permitted to expand, such has more seats or
expanded racetrack. He said that somewhere in this process, they fell through a crack. There
was a discussion about the committee that was put together and two of the meetings were held
before the speedway representatives knew there was a committee. He said that an application
was made to put one member of the speedway staff on the committee, and this was not acted
upon. He said that he had proceeded expecting to see some kind of a commercial zoning that
would apply that would cover the racetrack. He said that at the last committee meeting, he
expressed some fairly strong concerns, in that the specifics that were listed would require that the
speedway give up some 70% of the land so that nothing could be done on it. It would also require
rebuilding some roads and relighting the facility. He said that this is not economically feasible for
the speedway. He asked what would happen if the speedway did not participate in this plan. He
said that they do not know what they can and cannot do. He asked for a list of what is permissible
and presumed to be permissible with reasonable conditions. He asked if they would be forced to
be a part of this plan, or if they could opt out.
Craig Benedict said that the new zoning overlay and the conditional use rezoning would be
available for someone to voluntarily ask to be included. If an entity wants to remain in its present
status with no expansion, then it can do that. He said that the County was not forcing anyone to
ask for a conditional use rezoning and be subject to the process.
Melvin Stanley asked if there would be a list of potentially permissible uses. He
specifically referred to concerts, car shows, and animal shows. He encouraged staff to bring a list
that would be sensibly usable, provided that reasonable guidelines are followed.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested a word change on goal #5 on page 28. He suggested,
"Air quality issues shall be an integral part of any future permit reviewed within the Study Area."
He said that, as far as participation in the task force meetings, no one was precluded from
speaking. He said that everyone that attended felt quite free to speak.
Melvin Stanley said that he did not mean to imply this.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer
this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than
August 21, 2007.
VOTE: UNAr]IMOUS
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JULY 11, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large;
Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar
Grove Township At Large, Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At
Large (Vice-Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at
Large;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township
Representative (Resigned); Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large,
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri,
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant
II, Perdita Holtz, Michael Harvey, Gene Bell, Jennifer Leaf
OTHERS: Steve Yuhasz
Agenda Item 11: QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING REFERRALS
NC HIGHWAY 57 SPEEDWAY AREA SMALL AREA PLAN
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Jeffrey Schmitt: Were the managements of the quarry, race track and go-kart tracks present?
Glenn Bowles: The go-kart management and speedway management were always there. The quarry
management was invited and came to one meeting to make a presentation. They have a copy of the draft
plan and know all the details of the Task Force's work.
Renee Price: Have the residents of the adjoining neighborhoods feel comfortable about the development?
Glenn Bowles: Are they comfortable with a go-kart track or speedway? No.
Jeffrey Schmitt: What are the issues?
Glenn Bowles: The surrounding neighbors. The go-kart track is noise, the speedway is the noise and trash
and traffic. The quarry wasn't too much of a problem, but the neighbors do feel the vibration of the blasting
and hear the sounds of the vehicles. The quarry has a wide buffer.
Renee Price: But the meetings have not caused concerns.
Glenn Bowles: Yes, we had a lot of discussion about issues.
Renee Price: Are they mellowing out?
Glenn Bowles: They are. The neighbors generally accept the task force report. They are not happy with
the uses. It was a balancing act.
f~
Jay Bryan: Are we being asked to approve this small area plan? Does that plan include a recommendation
for implementation? This whole proposal is not what we are voting on tonight.
Jeffrey Schmitt: What are we voting on tonight?
Jay Bryan: The small area plan on pages 79-127 up to but not including the appendices. It includes the
REDA section?
Glenn Bowles: It introduces the REDA.
Jay Bryan: Does anyone need any more information about the plan?
Jeffrey Schmitt: On page 135, how does the information listed about the speedway relate to what is in the
plan?
Glenn Bowles: Everything listed about the speedway and/or the go-kart track was derived from the listing of
issues, constraints, liabilities and opportunities that was early in the report.
Jeffrey Schmitt: The ownership of the speedway, not having a concept of this may or may not be coming
forward, has what type of comments to this list?
Glenn Bowles: He thinks it is a constraint on him. If the speedway isn't going to make it, he wants a list of
acceptable uses for that site. We are not prepared to do that.
Craufurtl Goodwin: Referring to planning principals; Preservation of projection of area rural, we were told
there is a lot of noise. Impacts to the natural systems, there seem to be nothing but impacts. Growth
development to compliment rural character and lifestyle, the whole thing seems to bean impact.
Glenn Bowles: If you go back to look at the planning principals, they are complimentary of the goals you are
being ask to look at.
Craufurd Goodwin: Will these help get a resolution of the problem?
Glenn Bowles: They organize the objectives.
Brian Crawford: I'm not sure how long the speedway has been there. It would seem that this situation is
that no matter how many environmental issues are attended with its use to come in on a retroactive basis
and impose economic conditions which are so substantive in nature they cannot afford to do them.
Glenn Bowles: We are not imposing those on them unless they step forward to become conforming. If they
want to stay non-conforming, they can do that but if they would like to become conforming then it would also
be a negotiation. In the end, they may be stated differently or some may fall off.
Jay Bryan: They can continue to use the site in that manner.
Brian Crawford: We can't do anything unless they want a change.
Jeffrey Schmitt: I think that is a trap because I am not sure what a change is.
Glenn Bowles: If they want to expand; for example parking.
Sandra Quinn: If we pass this, and the property is sold, will this be a change or will the new owner still be
non-conforming.
Glenn Bowles: He still has the same options.
MOTION made by Renee Price to approve the plan with the understanding that the residents have agreed to
the plan. Brian Crawford seconded.
VOTE: (9 Ayes, 2 opposed (Jeffrey Schmitt, Joel Knight)
Jay Bryan: I would like to make it clear that I am not supportive of the REDA section.
Glenn Bowles: You want to remove the Section 5 in its entirety?
Jay Bryan: No. It is not something we approve with this motion.
Brian Crawford: Is Section 5 part of the SAP?
Glenn Bowles: Yes, It is. The plan goes up to but does not include the appendices.
Brian Crawford: I don't accept that.
Renee Price: My understanding is that it would not include REDA?
Glenn Bowles: REDA as the implementation tool.
Brian Crawford: What section is the Small Area Plan?
Glenn Bowles: Everything up to Section 6. The concept of the REDA, the conditional zoning with the
approval of the Small Area Plan, it introduces the concept but it does not deal specifically with how the
REDA will be worded.
Renee Price: Would the REDA have to be used?
Glenn Bowles: Planning staff is only suggesting that it be used.
Michael Harvey: You have the SAP that makes a list of recommendations. The SAP identifies the public
participation with the process a recommended course of action or recommended course of action. This
Task Force, with staff's input and assistance, has developed a process which includes a Section 5 which
they have recommended as the Rural Economic Development Area. Their recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners is that in order to implement the standards and policies identified within this
document, you follow a Rural Economic Development Process. The Board, in accepting this document, is
not bound by that recommendation. You are recommending approval for is that you are accepting the Task
Force SAP including the recommendation, which you will get back to take formal action on implementation
measures. This will go for the normal approval and process as usual.
Brian Crawford: What is your concern about the REDA?
Jay Bryan: I am okay with it being used for this plan but not being adopted as a broad County wide
approach. This is implied to be a County wide approach and I don't agree with that.
~~
Michael Harvey: The task force is making a recommendation, whether it is accepted or not, to use REDA in
this plan. By adopting this plan, it does not establish the REDA. It still has to go through the normal zoning
and land use text process amendments to bring it to fruition.
Brian Crawford: I think we want to recommend the SAP but we have reservations about REDA being
adopted County wide. I think it is fair to state that in the motion.
MOTION made by Renee Price to approve the plan with the understanding that the residents have agreed to
the plan and REDA will not be adopted County wide. Brian Crawford seconded.
VOTE: (2 opposed (Jeffrey Schmitt, Joel Knight)
(~
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
June 14, 2007
Present: Anita Badrock, Bryant Colson, Dan Coleman, Keith Cook, Mark Crowell, Jim Evans, Lilyn
Hester, Chris Hogan, Eric Hallman, Barry Jacobs, Anne Loeb, Tony McKnight, Lauri
Michel, Bob Ward
Staff: Willie Best, Yvonne Scarlett, Craig Benedict, Tom Alteri
Guest: Dianne Reid
Absent: Mike Nelson, Alois Callemyn
Highway 571Speedway Area -Anita Badrock and Dianne Reid
Badrock briefly explained that this was a small area plan that about 968 acres in the northeastern part of
Orange County, bordered to the north by Person and to the east by Durham County. This area was picked
because right now it primarily zoned rural agricultural, but there are a number of nonconforming uses there -
Orange County Speedway, a rock quarry, and go-cart track. There has also been some interest from
property owners up there about other things that they might be able to do with their property. Two community
meetings and six meetings of the Task Force were held with good attendance with one of the goals being to
collaborate with those nonconforming uses property owners to bring them into conforming use. Another thing
was to think about whether there was ways that people could do some things on their property that were a
little more expansive than just the rural agricultural. Basically the outcome was to charge the community with
trying to reconcile some commercial aspirations with the property with neighborhood values and goals. The
Task Force recommended that the Commissioners consider an establishment of a permitted use - a
conditional use permit. Which would be specific to the property, it would go through the kind of review that
conditional use permitting has (the County currently does not have conditional use permitting) and that we
would better define and promote a rural economic development district -which would be to allow some
increased commercial use of what has been historically rural agricultural property. This Task Force Report
has now been given to the BOCC, went to Public Hearing on May 21St, and referred to this Board for
approval.
Craig Benedict -Again, this is a small area-planning document and it has embedded recommendations. If
the small area plan is approved by the Commissioners, that is a go ahead to proceed with developing new
ordinances - what is conditional use district, consider new over-lay districts which is to be entitled rural
economic development area, so this would be the go ahead. Some people think the document makes
everything start working -this is actually (if approved) the go ahead to start preparing zoning ordnance
changes -new zoning constructs and it also would not infer rights to Raceway immediately. They would
have to petition afterwards to use these new rules to make them go from a nonconforming to a conditional
use conforming status.
A motion was made by Keith Cook, and seconded by Mark Crowell to recommend the Plan_be
forwarded for aaaroval by the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Craig Benedict - a lot of these small area plans that are tracking through both the Planning Board and EDC
and these are the plans that have recommendations and all of a sudden coming down the pike you will see
the zoning amendment, you'll see a permitted use change possibly. So we're trying to put together a mid-
range plan to let you know in advance when these things will be coming your way, so in about a month, we
hope to work with EDC staff and work with Willie to plot out the course of these implementation strategies of
these plans. We'll try to get a master plan for you and whatever meetings these things hit, you'll see where
you are in the process of these five or six different small area plan processes and moving into the
implementation phase.