Supervisors' notebook

The following notes are from the Jan. 24 Orange County Board of Supervisors’ regularly scheduled meeting.

Meeting time change

The board of supervisors revisited the topic of altering its meeting time, agreeing this time to begin all meetings at 4 p.m. At the Jan. 10 meeting, the board was divided over a proposed change from 7 p.m. to 4 p.m. for each month’s second meeting, ultimately compromising to a 6 p.m.  change.

District 5 Supervisor Lee Frame initiated the discussion, stating that if citizens could have the opportunity to request that certain action items taken up earlier in meetings be delayed until after 7 p.m., he would rescind his objection to the 4 p.m. meeting change.

“My objection to 4 p.m. was that I wanted people to have every opportunity to speak about issues that affect them and many people can’t make it to 4 p.m. meetings,” said Frame. “I want people to feel like they have the opportunity to comment on the decisions we make. It’s only fair to the public.”

District 1 Supervisor Shannon Abbs said that holding certain items over until later in the meeting could potentially be unfair to citizens who show up at the scheduled time expecting a matter to be taken up by the board. She suggested adding another public comment session earlier in the meeting, which received full board support.

All board meetings will begin at 4 p.m. with public hearings still scheduled at 7:30 p.m.

Proposed zoning ordinance change

Last fall, the board held a special meeting to discuss possible changes to the subdivision ordinance, but waited until last Tuesday night to release a draft of those changes. In the draft, the board proposes repealing the county’s controversial one-in-four phased dividing rights provision, which restricted landowners to one division right every four years.

The board now proposes new division guidelines to be included in the county’s zoning ordinance. In the draft, lots in the agricultural zoning district must be at least two acres in size and no more than five divisions can be made. There is no timed phasing provision in the draft.

District 5 Supervisor Lee Frame objected to the two-acre minimum for a parcel’s size, arguing the size benefited developers more than the county and suggested increasing the limit to four-acres.

“With smaller lots sizes, there’s the potential for more homes, but since developers can do this by-right, the county won’t benefit from proffers through a rezoning,” said Frame. “There will be the need for greater infrastructure and all of the county will have to pay. So we’re creating a benefit for a few hundred people and making everyone pay for it. “

District 2 Supervisor Jim White and District 3 Supervisor Teel Goodwin disagreed with Frame, believing that doubling the minimum lot size would put homeownership beyond the grasp of some citizens.

“The biggest thing you’re talking about is home valuation,” said Goodwin. “[Increasing the minimum lot size to four-acres] takes the realm of homeownership away from some people.”

Despite his objection to the minimum lot size, Frame voted along with the rest of the board in its decision to send the draft language to the planning commission for a Feb. 16 public hearing.