HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-17-2009 - 5b ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 17,2009
Action Agenda
Item No. j- b
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) —4115 Old NC 10 (Jones)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Map of the Subject Property Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607
2. Statement of Consistency with Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592
Comprehensive Plan
3. Resolution of Rezoning Approval
4. Statement of Inconsistency with
Comprehensive Plan
5. Resolution of Rezoning Denial
6. November 24, 2008 QPH Minutes
7. January 14, 2009 Planning Board
Minutes
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation on and consider approval of a
petition submitted to rezone a 2.8 acre parcel of property located 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).
BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the November 24, 2008 quarterly public hearing. Staff
testified the property was zoned General Commercial Four (GC-4) when the Eno Township was
initially zoned by the County on March 2, 1970 due to the operation of a garage/body shop. In
the 1980's the County rezoned the property to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) in an effort to
bring the property into compliance with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The body shop was closed sometime in the late 1990's. The property owner testified they were
unaware the property was zoned EC-5 and that they have no interest in or intention of
developing or operating a non-residential land use on the property.
Staff indicated during the hearing there had been no opposition to the zoning atlas petition and
recommended approval of the petition rezoning the subject property to Rural Residential One
(R-1).
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its January 14, 2009
regular meeting. During the meeting there was consensus among the Board members that staff
needed to continue to be proactive in identifying any similar zoning related problems and
working with the various property owners to address them.
2
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning petition finding
that:
a. The Zoning Atlas Petition was complete in accordance with the provisions of Article
Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner had
identified appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning
Atlas Petition reasonably necessary in promoting the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the
property to support a single-family residential development rather than allow for the
development of a non-residential land use.
c. Per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board found the approval of the
Zoning Atlas Petition would carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan.
Specifically, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation
on a parcel of property where there was not a non-residential land use in operation.
By approving the petition, the use of the property to support a single-family residence
would be consistent with surrounding land uses as well as the land use category for
the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan.
d. The Board recommended approval of the Statement of Consistency and Resolution of
Rezoning Approval as provided by staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined the approval of the request will not create the need for additional funding for
the provision of County services.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the BOCC take
the following actions:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. Deliberate further on the proposed zoning atlas petition,
3. Close the public hearing, and
4. Approve the zoning atlas petition by:
a. Approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment Two (2)), and
b. Approving the Resolution of Rezoning Approval (Attachment Three (3)).
Attachment One (1 ): Property Map O a.�` •r''. ..,,,,, ^mot,,-, a` r.,, ,:- c f r, I:�r t e ▪ c?" " �:q,
.# „,,4,4.... •"� 7'"�' 4 "' 'C •$-Y 9. Ir �.1.1 � {~ '.+ ii•"1 �'��yu + * f �., J 4
,,,t.e ,ti t � . ' .� g,.�y� _ ,Si e4"',,r` ,t4 l " ' `;.sj :' x' .�p� t „,,,'r3H rfR ,--, 4� �• "i`4=. (.0,- tR MV y J _ i rly gir”.f $,i_ .[ti t•t r �r n" a+� 1 Z: , t t ae l gc. '. ,�'it'' Cd:'';;, '_- .Iil fka� � i s H` g`. i f " ,x", ,r'.F '' . ...L. , , � �R ,y.
4 E . ♦t 1' '4f A, - x a"'Fy��g -w• ; ; ;*K'l'J•F ' - ''*?t, iii F " �IC "• . P , , -r= `.F•
r•. * ` it y" k w i�� yam.
r < yr f: . r y ,4X-,t:,, 4-..yy��t .3'� . 1r r� 1 1f.
n .;.:7-?;!.-:".:,-. y � 'kS fir V : ^a, u - � " :4,, � w: " ' `fig - ;ai +t i .T F.
a r r '• ,y �� Q--4 f t r 1i j':,. 1,3w..-... '-, -4 ;,: fir, - -n 3F r 4., -„• i4,.
I' a,
f,t M' f�$ 't`i '1 +dt:r .'9kt - { `r'-f t.� t • t ,'a+ra -p 7r-_ -"r .r
r
, N R� ( K .i 4 ,.-'t 1 x. Y t
�y � �,�. f bJ =`,. ` `.11.,C14_,.,' t L ' r - f 'f �` ::T:;i' 'A r c b; k ' < ^'g• ��;PPww.t w� "'<{,- t �r*' y, �3�' ',."'" . i'+? z' - t t '..,,,, • ,t7`�!Lw t R
- 1y F t r _ s d, .4.'-.,,, i �-.Y i',.h Y _'k'k'�ptbf' x•,;. . ';',_.,A,
F yY 9e. .3' C.+�`.j C y,IF 4g � Y,1,•' „ t. eat `' r t 1 • _ L .+.1'i 7�
yi •�,f. f My � 7 s-,14,,; ., 1 f _ s�� i d." (F y .t a F -- .,;,'-' `-4',•r--4,-� ; i,Q f� rfi"'E. "�` "t ,i 4 .;4 v.- d`.. . `..t,. ,� 46 i 't�' ,, 41.• m 4 f';
S".t!- 3 c`�r,� �r,� i�,t'•r"#yt t��� •,e� -'1'� ^���tdr "`''i" „�.�, :'�— 'ikt,� F 14 �T� � �l�' �.,w•M1;,�i ..'#
s",r fi'i a r �a, 3�e '� ' f �'' ',c °_ rp 't'+' t +�1!" *,b - 'fi '. blrl
.,� { "�}4`'r 4,r e, 33 C ��-'f�( .'. ..+[,S { , -- - JJ�tally,i� ` '''''''i '
13,-x -�- eta - Pt,, Y 'il' ';Y'i •s-6r�-4,5,-� 'ww m' �" M r"' YVe yt r . .. .* 'i,.. ',�t'. ^A` 4� r
K : 4s' y;. . n ' +t . ''' i:-I' M , Y' ',�, 't A ,, i a :: : ,a.::,
,2 "Safi -� '''',1"a ' ,5 x, ..s rir i a '4 'i pit l+5f, .Sr ;,,..e ' s '! , tL id,'...
,,..1i.4.,:''1`' � i+a. .4 a sar 23 t� }v c�S i S !Y'4�} x � t . t i iK�' V -. eYl 'ti` t,• .'*e• �y
'a�Sl rf .'_mayy '� P p },4.,B,2-1�S t i „t _., Su it.,:_.
i ,.- T j.R' r"°� �'`xr tM f., �m! `'h. G t"D<' �� °r"�d i �'.'+Y ?'� y+' ` . �: r},^1-.�_,. ," ' •4 it
'Y' , '"fit �i >'„a,p-x, '• ,,.' :M ,..14,..,„:',. xf d. ,.. in, '6.1,- t w• ' rr
i
f„,. ' it 6•S,. ra. 5.`. c4.,A..w �4! 'fi r � i t_ ".!> tr at .A }.,,,,;47. ..•'*,.H y, },
r'4Y# SA >.,,' 11 x' (4"V"-t 4`, ` r Y 4- ' 1 7+-,ay`1 g 7 li -*i't !.. F }` ...• l' 0 .. , .I•tr' F� w . * , "`♦R•.
€ fe' 'r� � 9 tr . 1 f x ' �, * 4 _ m. )i a
�, EC5• ntY >?. is .� ,t ,0 c A'?..b ;i,,�,,,f "r" " °.4 a0 ... a5^ r = W ,3 *t _?.
• m - - 7st u tr .d.f -4,,,, i1''4 r t '. 9F` s' p
er 44'''';,'",.? �'� y ''s a �� �, � g Is�yy ',
a:- '"7".•'.' ""' ,, a't r ''',,,'.'•-- fr '.7.4.,,,,. Ft :.2 4 p• tr' r a .7
'+ x 77 xi I - - --7— K4' i ,, -'F f - 4 M 0{�3n dl'.#a� - f, • *r y .:
:.:. ,N,:at•• ,�,,�„ N. �. rf ,4*-`� .:ht-4.4 f Q -4--1 €• -g,b" v,.
r S�? "
:t as 1;11'''''!. '
,,.4.'1,,,,,,,,,,:1_,..!<';',,,,i, t +, Sc ,sM 'rx'�,wc,.,, tf n t.. �y'-. , c"9; x x +. ,�,
yj t Y y li t>�
itoie
4 r N 4 a .x r 3 , •-74''i' �'r''' +e,t''''''3b.'*n,:; a �` y'I 'r
I • �,, , F J ,; \ ,.' R 'r Fes' F.1` ���4 ;=:: ,y. 'r, ',!--•'1";�
a. �. , OLD.
Y v^d -,°t tK�Mr•` it..-".....4.fi t �':` � :£kj _ i * t,. * :-.. • S s. '&10- NC 1p 1
:r ti .�,
*" •�' ?.a. r �# i''+ rot+�"� ", • a•
% F;ir t 2fia �., y f';,. { s'N r `" • I",t .-r"" w- " £r ws y .i '�' -+rsQ- 5.
a �Y `zt Ye ; .f:',,,.& fM '1 ; y { r ,� ` Sttr` t� s� �' tti� y r^ -1.- -,..-.I.,...,_..:::
�sr ,--#1-,,V;''2+ <,„f ..; i.. k y�• 3 - �, ai,N „ ,r• Out.
��x..� �� � „" t`'mar•'�.�- yF�F�,'w�.... r,,,..1,:....4..-,,'`� � � w $4:','W'4,144-',?J'.14,"„....."11."
x,`�'� -410"%•*,,* "., � . .�,
k w ,� 4 - s M14p u? v "`.7 r;''C"' •r k ♦ r„'1'1'W '4 r. t�flr ` 4 '.,Ismi,
, ; f:'
7.;r t t i.� ubject Property w k "�`' .r.i, --, o' tr L ,�!"7 1a. k y 4' �'j'e 11 y .Rr i� E ' i,.. ,.,,,,..
+r t �� ” t r .• . ; d .1.',,i,-;, k :!. ., t L.� ,t y ' y ° 'W N `. .f, Y "a ,
> �„` i, i �, ° *ryyr '' �i1t�' rr a �,ytD '" jet •. " '<.',�"-'... " .. ,
t b k t1 ..4..-e: f• 1 r7 nt R {w r.g1 x K
1= '`3t+ .J"r' „,,N...,-..1.,‘::,,,.:./..,.,,,f,,./..w-; , Y w.. tt�J"1 t a'S i 1 Pi,,, a' {ly� `If: .. r "i K fir'',, -. '' S`r wi
t 4 .s,. i 3 kt t {!.. r t 3 , $`v r , a >r - r` a� .. '„t
qy# ' $ t� . ++�� �q 11`*".. ♦' k a y -'�- r ,[� I c t di .4-f.
f ') -"7,:''..:::',4Y'a }. rT � .R'3a f'� f ',�'�k' j�j�.. .� R�.F,;:_ Jn ..� �'' �.'t�• t,4 v iT' ,�' i Yw' .Vr Y /,� ��
N'',4-c.,. " -+ .,* e & t 4.i 5s - Y .:'',-4,', yk �� �.,.j� ", f_ f +- .!y�t '":.':'.1 - y' �r •
- �- , - '^�d .-.. '�w y '• t rkt;j ' ag'it -1•. •y °', / t 7----. s- .
�., td . 'e 'i•, f,4'^ t,,, r r t! ':r ��prg -,( t' .k. ; s t ii
4?-4'''.":"1:'."1'.
��r> ,� �� „��•-:.�*��� i a "� � y r-"�` 't f'��? "'� •�'�• �� .,��a a�:,4-� t',......14.14;., 'y Data shown on this map Is obtained from Orange County
r , • j +�y t fy r GIS and is for rekre nce on
24, _ y,a,.g t .. -,,,,T,„1.- s, ,4' x,,'I,' ,1',` y r - fit, •Aa,•• Exad locations and boundaries shouts be field veriF'red.
'x►'j,"- .3,• r�-• a-t • .,r. ,L'‘' Q t • •-',• ,. •, 'f' 1,• r 4ck'' t Map prepared by Orange County Planning 8 Inspections.
0 160 320
USGS Water Feature n Parcel Zoning 100 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02/07) Fee•
Soils Survey Water Feature '�� Township {r: City Limits Floodway(Effective 02/02/07) 1 inch=197 13 feet
--'s----OC Updated Water Feature School System Boundary 1 ETJ 500 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02/07)
Contours
Conservation Easements Buildings
j_> Water Body Held by Others g o •,
e�rgf l
") River Basins change County
PIN:9893 00-8606 '
. .
Conservation Easements (`�
cg
Watershed
"". sale TMBL: 5.26..40 ,:`1
ATTACHMENT TWO (2) —Statement of Consistency:
0
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341
REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
ZONING ATLAS FOR
DENNIS AND TRACY JONES
Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Dennis and
Tracy Jones, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a two point
eight (2.8) acre parcel of real property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural
Residential One (R-1). The parcel is identified more particularly in the application for
amendment submitted by the Applicant.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that the amendment requested, if
approved, will be consistent with Orange County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Board
of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment applied for is reasonable and in the public
interest for the following reasons:
1) The proposed Amendment will allow for the development of a parcel of property
within the County consistent with existing overall policies and development strategies
embodied within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, specifically:
a. The proposed Amendment will eliminate a non-residential zoning designation
on a parcel of real property where there currently is no non-residential land
use in operation consistent with the policies and goals of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan, and
b. The proposed Amendment will allow for the continued use of the property
consistent with the land use category designation identified for the area within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT THREE (3)—Resolution of Rezoning Approval
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY
DENNIS AND TRACY JONES
Date:
Applicant/Owner: Dennis and Tracy Jones
The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC" or "Board")
herby approves an Application For Zoning Atlas Amendment (the "Application") to the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning
Atlas (the "Atlas"), submitted by Dennis and Tracy Jones, (the "Applicant") to amend
the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more
fully below:
FROM: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)
TO: Rural Residential One (R-1)
The property is further identified by the following legal description:
BEGINNING at a stake located at the intersection of the south side of the
Hillsborough University Road with the centerline of an abandoned road
known as the old Durham and Hillsborough Road (now Old NC 10 (SR
1710)) as shown on a plat and survey hereinafter referred to, and running
thence with the centerline of the said old Durham and Hillsboro Road
South 76° 10' West 747 feet to a stake in the center of said road; thence
North 17° 30' East 362 feet to the south side of Hillsboro-University Road;
thence with the south side of said Hillsborough-University Road South 74°
50' East 666 feet to the BEGINNING, containing 2.8 acres, more or less,
and being a portion of the property described in Deed Book 120 at page
369, Orange County Registry.
In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to
the appropriateness of the Application:
1. That the Application is complete in accordance with the submittal requirements
detailed within Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2;
2. That per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner
have identified appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the
Zoning Atlas Petition reasonable necessary in promoting the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to
utilize the property to support a single-family residential development rather than
allow for the development of a non-residential land use.
3. That per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of the Zoning
Atlas Petition would carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan.
Specifically, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning
designation on a parcel of property where there is no non-residential land use in
operation. By approving the petition, the use of the property to support a single-
family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses as well as the
land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
, 2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT FOUR(4) —Statement of Inconsistency:
STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341
REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
ZONING ATLAS FOR
DENNIS AND TRACY JONES
Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Dennis and
Tracy Jones, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a two point
eight (2.8) acre parcel of real property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural
Residential One (R-l). The parcel is identified more particularly in the application for
amendment submitted by the Applicant.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that the amendment requested if
approved will be inconsistent with Orange County's adopted comprehensive plan, and the Board
of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment applied for is not reasonable and not in the
public interest for the following reasons:
1) That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Board
finds that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment will not carry out the intent and purpose
of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof
2) That the Board finds that the proposed amendment will result in land uses that are not
similar to existing development as the existing land uses surrounding the project are
residential in nature.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT FIVE (5)—Resolution of Rezoning Denial:
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO DENY AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY
DENNIS AND TRACY JONES
Date:
Applicant/Owner: Dennis and Tracy Jones
The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC" or "Board")
herby approves an Application For Amendment (the "Application") to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning Atlas (the "Atlas"),
submitted by Dennis and Tracy Lee, (the "Applicant") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas
by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below:
FROM: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)
TO: Rural Residential One (R-1)
The property is further identified by the following legal description:
BEGINNING at a stake located at the intersection of the south side of the
Hillsborough University Road with the centerline of an abandoned road
known as the old Durham and Hillsborough Road (now Old NC 10 (SR
1710)) as shown on a plat and survey hereinafter referred to, and running
thence with the centerline of the said old Durham and Hillsboro Road
South 76° 10' West 747 feet to a stake in the center of said road; thence
North 17° 30' East 362 feet to the south side of Hillsboro-University Road;
thence with the south side of said Hillsborough-University Road South 74°
50' East 666 feet to the BEGINNING, containing 2.8 acres, more or less,
and being a portion of the property described in Deed Book 120 at page
369, Orange County Registry.
In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to
the denial of the Application:
1. That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the
Application will not carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan or part thereof.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
, 2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
Attachment 6
m
Excerpt From Approved 11/24/08 QPH Minutes
APPROVED 1/22/2009
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
I I
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.
ca
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 7
1 Excerpt From Approved 01/14/09 Planning Board Minutes 411)
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 JANUARY 14,2009
6 REGULAR MEETING
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Vice-
9 Chair); Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Tommy
10 McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Larry Wright, Cedar
11 Grove Township At-Large; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large;
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large;
14 Bingham Township;Vacant;At-Large,Vacant
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey,
17 Planner II; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner, Tina Love,
18 Administrative Assistant II
19
20 OTHERS PRESENT: Margo Pinkerton, Citizen; Jo Soulier, Citizen
21
22 (Document with subject line "Vernon Davis NC 54 rezoning request" was passed out by staff from Steve Yuhasz,
23 Attorney for Vernon Davis)
24
25 (Due to recorder malfunction there are no recorded minutes. The following is a summary of meeting from written
26 notes and staff)
27
28
29
30
31 AGENDA ITEM 11: REZONING OF A PARCEL OF PROPERTY AT 4115 OLD NC 10 (TMBL 5.26..40 / PIN 9893-00-
32 8606)FROM EXISTING COMMERCIAL FIVE(EC-5)TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE(R-1).
33 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the rezoning request heard at the
34 November 24, QPH.
35
36 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner II
37
38 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract for this item as follows:
39
40 PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation on a petition submitted by both Planning staff and the property
41 owner, Mr. and Mrs. Dennis and Tracy Jones, to rezone 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL 5.26..40/ PIN 9893-00-8606)from
42 Existing Commercial Five(EC-5)to Rural Residential One(R-1).
43
44 BACKGROUND: The property in question is approximately two point eight(2.8) acres in area, is located within the
45 Eno Township, is currently zoned EC-5 Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District, and is designated as being
46 within the Rural Residential land use category as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan.
47
48 As staff indicated during the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, the Eno Township was initially zoned on
49 March 2, 1970 and the subject property was zoned General Commercial Four (GC-4) at that time due to the
50 operation of a garage/body shop on the property.
51
52 In 1981, the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan that established various land use categories indicating where
53 acceptable types of development, residential versus non-residential, were permitted throughout the County. In 1982,
54 the County created the Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) zoning district. The purpose and intent of the district, as
55 detailed within Section 4.2.12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,was:
14
56 .... to provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to
57 previously unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in
58 zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located
59 in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
60 At the same time the County initiated a Zoning Atlas amendment of this, and other similar properties, to change their
61 zoning designation to EC-5 in order for them to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
62 Plan.
63
64 PUBLIC HEARING: During the public hearing staff testified the previously identified body shop had been closed
65 sometime in the late 1990's and currently there was not a non-residential land use operating from the property. The
66 property owner testified they were unaware the property was zoned EC-5 and that they have no interest or intention
67 in developing or operating a non-residential land use on their property.
68
69 Staff indicated during the hearing there had been no opposition to the zoning atlas petition and recommended
70 approval of the petition rezoning the subject property to Rural Residential One(R-1).
71
72 During the hearing, the County Commissioners encouraged staff to continue to identify those EC-5 zoned properties
73 without a corresponding non-residential land use and determine if a Zoning Atlas Amendment is warranted.
74
75 RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board:
76
77 1. Deliberate on the petition and review the various comments made during the public hearing,
78 2. Recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition finding that:
79 a. The Zoning Atlas Petition is complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of
80 the Zoning Ordinance,
81 b. Per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner have identified
82 appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning Atlas Petition
83 reasonable necessary in promoting the public health,safety,and general welfare.
84 Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the property to
85 support a single-family residential development rather than allow for the development of a non-
86 residential land use.
87 c. Per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition would
88 carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
89 Specifically, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation on a parcel of
90 property where there is no non-residential land use in operation. By approving the petition,the use
91 of the property to support a single-family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses
92 as well as the land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan.
93 3. Recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and Resolution of Rezoning Approval to the BOCC.
94
95 Brian Crawford thanked Michael Harvey for his presentation and asked if there was anyone in the audience that
96 would like to comment on the proposal. As there were none, Brian Crawford asked the Board members if they had
97 any questions.
98
99 Jeff Schmitt asked how this matter was brought to staffs and owner's attention. Michael Harvey indicated the
100 owners of the property had come to see him after attempting to refinance their residence when they were apparently
101 informed they would have to pay a commercial mortgage rate as the property had a commercial zoning designation.
102 Michael Harvey said the property owners were unaware that the property was zoned EC-5 and that they had no
103 interest in utilizing the property for commercial purposes.
104
105 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said she was concerned that this problem may be a County wide issue and hoped that staff was
106 being proactive is attempting to help property owners address it. There was general discussion on this point.
107
m
108 MOTION by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to recommend approval of the rezoning petition, in accordance with staffs
109 recommendation,finding that:
110
111 1. The Zoning Atlas Petition was complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty(20)of
112 the Zoning Ordinance,
113 2. Per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner had identified
114 appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning Atlas Petition
115 reasonable necessary in promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare.
116 Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the property to
117 support a single-family residential development rather than allow for the development of a non-
118 residential land use.
119 3. Per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition would
120 carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
121 Specifically,the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation on a parcel of
122 property where there is no non-residential land use in operation. By approving the petition,the use
123 of the property to support a single-family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses
124 as well as the land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan.
125 4. The Board recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as
126 contained within Attachment Two(2)of the abstract, and
127 5. The Board recommend approval of the Resolution of Rezoning Approval as contained within
128 Attachment Three(3)of the abstract.
129 Seconded by Larry Wright.
130
131 Brian Crawford asked if there was any further discussion. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if staff could comment on
132 how many other similar conflicts there might be throughout the County. Michael Harvey said he believed the number
133 was currently in the thirties (30's) and reminded the Board that he testified during the Public Hearing that staff was
134 working to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Rachel Phelps Hawkins said she hoped staff would continue
135 to try and identify these various issues in a timely manner and work with the property owners to resolve the problem.
136 The Board echoed the concerns and suggested that staff ought to move forward to identify these properties and work
137 expediently to resolve them.
138
139 Brian Crawford asked if there were any further comments. There was no further discussion.
140
141 MOTION by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to recommend approval of the rezoning petition, in accordance with staffs
142 recommendation. Seconded by Larry Wright
143
144 VOTE: Unanimous
145