HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-03-2009 - 5b 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 3, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. 5
SUBJECT: Review of Zoning Atlas Amendment Petition for Property Located at the
Intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Map of Property and Node Boundaries
2. Letter from Mr. Davis' Attorney Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592
Requesting the Item be Tabled Michael D. Harvey 245-2607
3. November 24, 2008 QPH Draft Minutes
4. January 14, 2009 Planning Board Draft
Minutes
PURPOSE: To request action on a Planning Board recommendation concerning the review of a
rezoning petition submitted by Mr. Vernon Davis to rezone a portion of 4.7 acre parcel of
property located at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M / PIN
9749-40-0293) from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2).
BACKGROUND: This item was presented by staff at the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public
Hearing. On January 14, 2009 the Planning Board began its review of the petition as well as the
comments made during the Quarterly Public Hearing.
The property in question is located within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. A Node,
as detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, is an area of the County that has been
identified as appropriate for the location for non-residential development. These areas are typically
designated near road intersections and were created in an effort to allow for non-residential
development providing local residents with essential services. The primary purpose was to reduce
the need to have rural residents drive into urban areas to satisfy basic needs. There are various
Nodes throughout the County, including:
1. Commercial Transition Activity Node,
2. Commercial-industrial Transition Activity Node,
3. Economic Development Activity Node,
4. Rural Community Activity Node,
5. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node., and
6. Rural Industrial Activity Node.
2
With respect to Mr. Davis' request, staff recommended the item be tabled pending further review and
assessment of the existing zoning regulations limiting the overall amount of land area that is allowed
to support non-residential development within the Node. Staff supplied the Planning Board members
with a letter from the applicant's attorney requesting the item be tabled until this review is complete
(please refer to Attachment Two (2) of this abstract).
During the review of the application and staffs recommendation, Planning Board members
expressed the following:
1. Board members concurred with comments made by Commissioners Jacobs and Gordon that
existing acreage limitations, as contained within Section 4.2.9 of the Ordinance, may need to
be re-assessed based on the length of time since this threshold provision was adopted;.
2. Board members indicated that non-residential development within the Nodes ought to be.
encouraged in an effort to bolster rural economic activities and eliminate the need for
residents to travel long distances to take advantage of various commercial services;
3. Board members felt the regulations need an update and expressed concern there had been
no attempt made to modify the aforementioned regulations consistent with the Planning
Board's previous comments made during the review of a similar rezoning request in 1995.
(Note: Planning staff in the mid to late 1990's attempted to begin a White Cross node
evaluation but was redirected to work on the overall plan update).
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Board voted unanimously to recommend:
1. The application be tabled consistent with staffs and the applicant's request,
2. Request the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to commence a comprehensive
re-assessment of the regulations governing development within the various Nodes,
3. Staff present various options to address the Planning Board and BOCC concerns at the
February 4, 2009 Planning Board meeting for further review and deliberation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The review of options relating to addressing development issues within
the Nodes can be handled by existing staff but must be evaluated and prioritized within the
context of other projects the BOCC is considering as part of its goals for 2009.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Close the Public Hearing,
2. Table the application, as requested by the applicant, allowing for a review of the various
zoning and development issues within the White Cross Node, and
3. Direct staff to identify various options for resolving the identified issues, including
estimated timelines for completion, for review and discussion by the BOCC as part of its
identification of goals for 2009.
Mttacnrnent vne i j; rrvperty iviap
NC•54 W 3
i
E is r` �, ' r;"€ ,b !
,su f
=s C'Ml,a- a # y S•
+ `..`'Y«k '� .A e a . '.
td
b 'dot 1 �' �'.,'', ,,,,..:,'i ' A ''s ,-.t/'.'.714 ,,, ,,. . *. tk
Property subject to rezoning petition .
3010 White Cross Road �' r
6.30..7M 9749-40-0293) ., ,,_ . ;
x '' ', ' ." .
F
° -r
xr, .} *4\ ,,,o,„
i
s
it
Unprotecte W
d atersh
:' °„� 'r ��� `
#.,.%c'll, .f"4.—:'' ;,-.7 tc,'..”: 7.,,c -,17.c 3.,C* +.
p
tArea o be rezoned'
� "der • 1.-4, .'. i- ,
x�
:';' f `,.'#'; '40.. t".'„-,,,: ' - ..! , ''..7-2 I, t.,. ..-„,..,-41„,0*,4t...-s,,,-,t, -...,. .,,-..-- ,,,.. ifr t„.,,,,kk , ,
.',A.".,voi ;-,.. :-.,:14#44, ,',, , ''... '" 14--iff":7 . t r'''''' '',,-.tv- J!!' '' - :*%, 7140 :
jp Y:.'.. . , ....„ ..____ , 7::,,,:wzri,.., .1.7, i ..,44.
.1,,,,. _ .. V;{r E :. ry .
.,
erg ! ,
lk
itS .t a f
ii ' 411111 qy % '
��'�- °;� r 4 Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County
'� '( �.� = GIS and is for reference only.
« ' ,yi Exact Iocatwns and boundaries should bne field verified
�a ; ; ± 4*i a '_ Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections.
•
, ii 0 50 100
* USGS Water Feature n Parcel Zoning 100 YR Floodplain(Effective 07102/07) Feet
•/�•Soils Survey Water Feature Township e1 City Limits Floodway(Effective 07102/07) 1 inch=67.98 feet
r,
OC Updated Water Feature School System Boundary -.I- ETJ ir _'J 500 YR Floodplain(Efective 02102/07)
Water Body Contours Conservation Easements Buildings
— Held by Others G�
River Basins
-----County orange County PIN: 9749-40-0293
CS Watershed Soils Conservation Easements a.A '
TMBL: 6.30..7M JJJ
�4 Cn,e"Te
•
�►ttacnment une ('1): vvnite cross Noae tsounaary
• a
.y
w
White Cross Node: Commercial TAcerage Breakdown....,...=,.
'Local Commercial One (LC-1) Existing'Acerage '`_4 4 acres; �� .w ' 43
�.". .. .,� ,� �; , �� , .�►a. � � 8 pia
Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC 2) ExistingTAcerage 4 4 acres
� Ell ��.
k ''''''0,,,,`,,,,;'' ( . +f +' '+ '°
e: k" v
�. 'A t•`' ,t, b 1,,...',..
,1' " s x * 1, '
' t' . River..-„,- .-t ., -" i,4 11,',.
,, - , �, �� ed'Wtershed; ; 3 {` ,
� '';; °1 , : Node Boundary c iie
� 01,-.. n
'-'i:
t "4" *,„
q ,r .§ ,5 3 B' )r `t' {g* } .p a ; 'rR .f�*�...+ Tip ;Q rv1T'l'I.'
._
` `� fir" '�
w
ty:\ 04, ,, . . -- ,. ad; . !lir - ; lilt .., y . -E Q
``, K }
vor
¢ tX ; ,--, , .:%;:,'''
, s --.4. a,._.:.....---- l' a t. t Q
jtvl
�, s r !
` g .+ `Y `� M'+ � ' +m �
1. w *fir ''".+k # ,t w` . M: "y �' i I ;R
� ,.'}" l ' rv. t�..; F S#fr} n ,,f;:::,..:., a6 .," .�^i f�� ,
fit} * +#< t a' t' `° Y' 1t.-;
; .,::;.,, , , , \,,iv...,,,, �'`��. *.`� yl' � �5,. Arr.trit it . ;;;,,2;;;-.14;;:.;-.- . ;
.x ..-.lk.;;;;,,,-.1,t4.,.1 ..;,_:;:;;;;;;;,;?:.,;;;, -,--;;, :;,..;::,.... .
%. "` ,, ,3 z 4_, it e= I
,,,. .:- .,,,„,,,. •• • �YYf .,- .,,.... §f
. ..,. ... ,.
s
' / '' sir*.-:------' ''''''''., '-: . r1",clipt ",4:t r r i •Zr ..'' .,
v.i,,-.,,,- .,::1,1„),,:-,..\. ,-,ti*"., .,,,c) I) ...-..-. . ‘‘'., '�,�s.j 'r, • t Q' . Ati^ . ;� �. # �'6�i r.`�,ii"1�".i•p-;;;-;:=4"f•
ti U. # `, s Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County
t /: GIS and is for reference only
, °' .'; ��. t , ' '` + %+.;,, - Exact locations and boundanes should be field verified tit,.,
�»�P ,, . Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections.
/Ja
USGS Water Feature n Parcel Zoning 100 YR Floodplain(Etfectve 07102/07) 750 1,500
-Soils Survey Water Feature Township
til City Limits Floodway(Effective 02/0210 Feet
1 inch=941 feet
^+'s.-^»OC Updated Water Feature School System Boundary fti j ETJ -- 500 YR Floodplain(Effective 02102/07)
Water Body Contours Conservation Easements Buildings
Held by Others e"s`■'den,
(�3 River Basins -----County s`
Orange County I n I
Watershed Sails -a-% Conservation Easements
• 'I
i
5
The Law Office of
Steve F. Yuhasz, PLLC
226 South Churton Street
Hillsborough,NC 27278
(919)644-0123 Fax (919)644-1177
VIA EMAIL
January 8,2009
Michael D.Harvey
Orange County Planning
Revere Road
Hillsborough,NC
RE:Vernon Davis NC 54 rezoning request
Dear Michael:
This shall serve to notify you of Mr.Davis' assent to the schedule for reviewing this
rezoning application as proposed in the Agenda Abstract,Item 12 for the Planning
Board's January 14,2009 meeting.
Mr. Davis is,of course,interested in reaching a positive resolution to his septic system
dilemma as soon as possible. He also recognizes the need to arrive at a comprehensive
solution that will best serve other properties in similar situations without compromising
the core concept of the"node" approach to rural non-residential zoning.
Please keep me informed about the staff proposals for modifications and the Planning
Board's progress towards recommendations to the BOCC for adoption.
Very truly yours,
6t,
Steve F.Yuhasz
cc:Vernon Davis
(D
ATTACHMENT THREE (3) - EXCERPT of DRAFT NOVEMBER 24, 2008 QUARTERLY
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 24, 2008
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:30
p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie
Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Brian Ferrell
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Clerk to the
Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Samantha Cabe, Nathan
Chambers, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mary Bobbitt Cooke, Larry Wright, Jeffrey Schmitt, and
Tommy McNeill
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Jay Bryan, Brian Crawford, and Joel
Knight
3. REZONING of a parcel of property at 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL 5.26.40 / PIN 9893-00-
8606) from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1).
Michael Harvey made this presentation.
Review of a petition to REZONE a parcel of property at 4115 Old NC 10 from:
Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)to
Rural Residential One (R-1)
Property Vicinity Map (picture)
APPLICATION SPECIFICS:
• Applicant: Planning Staff/Dennis and Tracy Jones
• Address: 4115 Old NC 10
• TMBL/ PIN: 5.26..40/9893-00-8606
• Size of Parcel: 2.8 acres
• Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) Lower Eno Protected Watershed,
• Township: ENO
• Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Rural Residential
• Proposed Zoning: Rural Residential One (R-1)—entire parcel
Surrounding Land Uses:
NORTH:
Across Old NC 10 there are several properties zoned R-1 with one (1) parcel zoned EC-5.
SOUTH/EAST/WEST:
Properties are zoned R-1. There are several single-family residences surrounding the property.
Request:
• Rezone property from EC-5 to R-1,
• The property owner has indicated that they are unsure why the property was zoned
EC-5,
• They are currently utilizing the property for residential purposes,
• They have no interest in maintaining the commercial zoning designation on the
property
Zoning Officer Analysis:
• The application is deemed to be complete in accordance with the provisions of
Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2,
• The applicants have no interest, or intent, in developing/operating a commercial
land use from the property. This represents a changing condition that makes the
rezoning request reasonable as required under Section 20.3.2 (d) of the
Ordinance,
• The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which has the area designated as Rural
Residential, as required under Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance.
Staff Recommendations:
• Receive the rezoning petition,
• Conduct the public hearing to hear and consider public comment,
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
County Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009, and
• Adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept
the Planning Board's recommendation
Commissioner Gordon said that the Statement of Consistency should be Statement of
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Jacobs said that, as part of the Land Use Plan Update/Implementation, there
should be a systemic review and approach to everyone with an EC designation to see if they
are still valid. Staff answered that this is currently ongoing. There are 20 properties now under
study.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Dennis Jones said that he had no idea when he bought the property that it had an EC-5
zoning. He wants it to go back to residential zoning.
Jeffrey Schmitt asked if there was any way that these 20 some properties could be
wrapped together and Michael Harvey said that they would each need their own rezoning
petition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
receive the rezoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public
hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Attachment 4
Excerpt of DRAFT Minutes
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 14,2009
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Vice-
7 Chair); Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Tommy
8 McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Larry Wright, Cedar
9 Grove Township At-Large;Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large;
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large;
12 Bingham Township;Vacant;At-Large,Vacant
13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey,
15 Planner II; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner, Tina Love,
16 Administrative Assistant II
17
18 OTHERS PRESENT: Margo Pinkerton,Citizen;Jo Soulier, Citizen
19
20 (Document with subject line "Vernon Davis NC 54 rezoning request" was passed out by staff from Steve Yuhasz,
21 Attorney for Vernon Davis)
22
23 (Due to recorder malfunction there are no recorded minutes. The following is a summary of meeting from written
24 notes and staff)
25
26
27 AGENDA ITEM 12: REZONING OF A PARCEL OF PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF NC 54 AND WHITE CROSS
28 ROAD (TMBL 6.30..7M I PIN 9749-40-0293) FROM AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (AR) TO
29 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Two(NC-2).
30 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the rezoning request heard at the
31 November 24,QPH.
32
33 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner II
34
35 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract for this item as follows:
36
37 PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation on a petition submitted by Mr. Vernon Davis to rezone a
38 portion of his four point seven (4.7) acre parcel of property located at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross
39 Road (TMBL 6.30..7M / PIN 9749-40-0293) from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two
40 (NC-2).
41
42 Specifically, Mr. Davis is seeking to rezone an approximately one point zero four(1.04)acre portion of his four point seven
43 (4.7)acre parcel of property located at 3010 White Cross Road to NC-2. (For the legal description of the portion of property
44 intended to be rezoned,please refer to Attachment Three(3)of this abstract)
45
46 BACKGROUND: As staff indicated during the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, the applicant owns two (2)
47 parcels of property at the aforementioned road intersection. The second parcel is an eighty four hundred(8,400)square foot
48 parcel zoned NC-2. The septic system supporting this property is located on the four point seven (4.7) acre AR zoned
49 parcel. The septic system and required repair area encumber approximately one(1)acre of the subject property.
50
51 According to the applicant,the overall purpose of the request is to rezone the portion of the subject parcel encumbered by
52 the existing septic system and repair area, to NC-2 and then recombine this portion of property with the adjacent, existing,
53 commercially zoned property. The result would be that the septic system supporting the existing commercial operation
54 would then be located on the same parcel of property.
1
Excerpt of DRAFT Minutes 10
55
56 PUBLIC HEARING: During the Public Hearing Mr. Davis'Attorney, Mr. Steve Yuhasz,testified the central issue generating
57 the need for the request was over his clients continued ability to have the septic system supporting the existing commercial
58 operation on an AR zoned parcel of property. Planning staff has maintained that a septic system supporting a non-
59 residential land use,located/operating on a residentially zoned parcel of property is not permitted.
60
61 It should be noted that the aforementioned septic system was installed prior to the development of this interpretation by staff.
62
63 Mr. Yuhasz indicated his client is worried that if/when the existing septic system fails, Mr. Davis would be prohibited from
64 making the necessary improvements to maintain the use of the NC-2 zoned parcel as there is insufficient land area to install
65 a new septic system on the property.
66
67 During the hearing, staff provided the following analysis of the request in accordance with section 20.3.3 of the
68 Orange County zoning ordinance:
69 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Article Twenty (20) of
70 the Zoning Ordinance.
71 2. The properties in question are located within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node as denoted on
72 the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map.
73 3. According to Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum amount of land zoned
74 NC-2: ' ... at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population
75 density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas.' There is a similar prohibition on
76 the amount of Local Commercial One (LC-1) zoned property within an established Node contained within
77 Article Four(4)of the Ordinance.
78 Staff asserted during the hearing that the population density within the Node is 'lower and distributed more
79 widely than in the Transition areas' and,as a result,the Node is limited to a total of five(5)acres of property
80 zoned NC-2,
81 4. In completing an assessment of the existing non-residentially zoned property within the White Cross Rural
82 Community Activity Node,the Zoning Officer has determined:
83 a. There is approximately four point four(4.4)acres of existing property zoned Local Commercial One
84 (LC-1)within the Node, and
85 b. There is approximately four point four (4.4) acres of existing property zoned Neighborhood
86 Commercial Two(NC-2)within the Node.
87
88 At the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, staff recommended that the request be denied as approval of the
89 request would result in there being more than five (5) acres of NC-2 zoned property within the Node, representing a
90 violation of Section 4.2.9 of the Ordinance
91
92 During the hearing, several comments were made by BOCC members and staff indicating that there ought to be a
93 comprehensive re-assessment of the existing rural community activity nodes and the allowable levels of non-
94 residential development permitted within them.
95
96 RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board table the application, subject to the
97 applicant's agreement, and the Board recommend to the BOCC that staff be directed to conduct an assessment of
98 the Node to identify possible modifications to address the problem for presentation to the Planning Board at their
99 February 2009 regular meeting.
100
101 Michael Harvey informed the Planning Board Mr. Davis had submitted a letter indicating he was willing to have his
102 application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment tabled to allow for a comprehensive review of development constraints
103 within the existing County Nodes to take place. Michael Harvey indicated Mr. Davis' sole concern was that this
104 review should occur within a timely fashion.
105
2
Excerpt of DRAFT Minutes
106 Brian Crawford thanked Michael Harvey for his presentation and asked if there was anyone in the audience that
107 would like to comment on the proposal. Michael Harvey informed the Board that neither Mr. Davis nor his Attorney,
108 Mr. Yuhasz,were present this evening as staff had recommended the application be tabled.
109
110 Brian Crawford asked if the Board had any comments. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said that from her reading of the
111 Quarterly Public Hearing packet there have been issues concerning development within the White Cross Node dating
112 back to the 1990's and that it was determined that there needed to be a re-assessment of the Nodes. Mary Bobbitt-
113 Cooke asked Michael Harvey if staff had ever completed the analysis of the Nodes that was suggested back in the
114 1990's. Michael Harvey said there was no documentation of any study or other similar analysis of the various Nodes
115 to determine the viability of the existing development limitation contained within the Zoning Ordinance.
116
117 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke asked Michael Harvey is the original zoning petition, filed by Mr. Davis in the 1990's, was
118 withdrawn over concerns that it would be denied. Michael Harvey indicated that within their public hearing packets
119 there was a letter authored by Mr. Davis in January of 1996 requesting that his petition be tabled allow for a review of
120 the development constraints within the Nodes as staff had recommended the 1995 rezoning petition be denied for
121 similar reasons.
122
123 Jeff Schmitt said he believed there ought to be a re-assessment of the development constraints within the Nodes.
124 Jeff Schmitt said he recalled several County Commissioners had indicated during the public hearing that the location
125 of the Nodes had been a labor-intensive process and that there should not be artificial limitations on the amount of
126 non-residential development that is allowed to develop within them. Jeff Schmitt suggested staff should complete an
127 assessment of the existing regulations in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary delay and allow Mr. Davis to move
128 forward with his application.
129
130 Samantha Cabe said she agreed with Jeff Schmitt and was concerned that something was not done back in the
131 1990's as suggested to address this matter. Samantha Cabe said there were a number of possible solutions,
132 including revising the existing language, to address what she felt was an arbitrary limitation on the amount of
133 commercial development within the existing Nodes. Samantha Cabe suggested staff might want to consider adding
134 language within the Ordinance that indicated the acreage limitations might only impact building and parking areas but
135 did not impact active septic or repair fields. Samantha Cabe suggested that such a quick fix would allow Mr. Davis to
136 move forward and allow for more development within the Nodes.
137
138 There was general discussion among the Board members on possible solutions to this problem.
139
140 Samantha Cabe asked Michael Harvey is staff had any suggestions on how to address this matter. Michael Harvey
141 indicated staff had been working on possible solutions to the problem but was unprepared to make formal
142 recommendations at this time. Michael Harvey said staff had recommended that the application be tabled to afford
143 staff the necessary time to develop alternatives on how to address the problem for review and consideration. Jeff
144 Schmitt said that this work needed to be expedited to avoid unnecessary delay.
145
146 Samantha Cabe asked when staff would be ready to present options for review by the Planning Board. Michael
147 Harvey suggested staff could develop a list of alternatives for review and comment by the Board at their February
148 regular meeting. Craig Benedict added that if the Board wanted to table this item tonight, as suggested by staff, the
149 Planning Board recommend to the County Commissioners that the application be tabled and staff directed to begin
150 working on various options on how to address the five(5)acre development limitation within the Zoning Ordinance.
151
152 There was additional discussion among the Board members.
153
154 Larry Wright asked staff to clarify what could be completed and presented for review at the February regular meeting.
155 Michael Harvey said staff could be prepared to present several possible solutions to the acreage problem and solicit
156 Board member input at the February meeting. Michael Harvey said the Board would then have to make some
157 recommendation to the County Commissioners on how to proceed with whatever option you suggest. Brian
158 Crawford asked when the first opportunity would be for such an amendment to be brought before the County
159 Commissioners. Michael Harvey indicated the May 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing.
3
Excerpt of DRAFT Minutes
160
161 MOTION by Larry Wright to recommend that the application be tabled and that the County Commissioners direct staff
162 to present various options on addressing the existing development limitations within the Nodes for review by the
163 Planning Board at their February 2009 regular meeting. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
164
165 Brian Crawford asked if there was any further discussion. Samantha Cabe made a motion to make a friendly
166 amendment indicating the Board would like to recommend that any identified solution to this problem be presented to
167 the County Commissioners at the May 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. Samantha Cabe said she does not want this
168 issue to fester any longer and that this should give staff and the Planning Board sufficient time to develop a
169 reasonable solution. Larry Wright said he felt this was appropriate and indicated he would support the amendment.
170 Jeff Schmitt also indicated his support for the amendment.
171
172 Brian Crawford asked if there were any further comments. As there were none, Brian Crawford called for a vote on
173 the motion to:
174
175 1. Table the rezoning petition,
176 2. Request that the County Commissioners direct staff to begin identifying possible solutions to the
177 acreage limitations within the Nodes,
178 3. That these alternative be brought back for review by the Planning Board at their February 2009 regular
179 meeting, and
180 4. That any selected alternative be made ready for presentation at the May 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing.
181
182 VOTE: Unanimous
183
184
185
•
4