HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-19-2009 - 5-2-aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 19, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. ~- a-q
_ SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) - 214 Phelps Road
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Map of Subject Property
2. April 1, 2009 Planning Board Minutes
Excerpt
3. Statement of Consistency with
Comprehensive Plan
4. Resolution of Rezoning Petition
Approval
5. Statement of Inconsistency with
Comprehensive Plan
6. Resolution of Rezoning Petition Denial
7. February 23, 2009 QPH Minutes
Excerpt
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607
Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation on, and consider approval of, a
petition to rezone portions of a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road (TMBL 2.46..40H /
PIN 9866-58-5983). Specifically, the submitted request proposes to:
a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-
5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and
b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a
commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing
where staff stated that the purpose of the petition was to correct a mapping error, specifically
relocating an EC-5 zoning designation to the portion of the subject property that was actually
being utilized for non-residential purposes.
During the public hearing, local residents stated the following:
1. There was never a commercial operation on the properly prior to their moving to the area in
the late 1970's,
2. They did not understand how there could be commercial development allowed on the
property,
3. They thought it would be better to move the commercial operation to the rear of the property,
which was already zoned to allow for commercial development, rather than rezone the portion
on property along Phelps Road, and
4. They were not supportive of the proposed rezoning.
While staff understands their concerns, staff believes the proposed zoning atlas amendment is
consistent with the County's efforts to correct longstanding zoning atlas errors and will only
allow for the existing commercial operation to be properly zoned. 'Further, as staff testified
during the hearing, there were notes from previous staff members identifying the development of
a landscape operation on the subject property prior to the initial zoning of the Cedar Grove
Township in 1994. As a result the EC-5 zoning designation was recommended for this property
in order for the existing non-residential land use to be considered conforming.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its April 1, 2009_
regular meeting.
Planning Board members agreed with staff that the request represented an attempt to correct a
mapping error and would properly locate the EC-5 zoning designation over a portion of the
subject property that was actually utilized to support an existing landscape business.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition as presented by
staff (please refer to Attachment Two (2) of the abstract for the Planning Board minutes).
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. If necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
3. Close the public hearing, and
4. Approve the proposed zoning atlas amendment petition finding that:
a. The Zoning Atlas Petition is complete in accordance with the provisions of Article
Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance,
b. Per Section 20.3.2 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner have
identified the alleged error that would be corrected through the approval of the
petition.
Specifically, the EC-5 zoning designation would be re-configured to incorporate
the commercial operation located on the property.
c. 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 cause the reconfiguration of an EC-
5 zoning designation to include an existing non-residential land use. By approving
the petition, the existing non-residential land use would be properly zoned and,
therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment Three (3)) and Resolution of
Rezoning Approval (Attachment Four (4)).
1 s R~~d ^ v ~` a`'
a ~'~ 4 ~ ne P `~ ~ .{
} ~ C°~~ ~ P ~ ~~
- -
~~a~~mer~t "~n~ ~'~
sue--- „' ~ _~-~-~:a
,, ~r~.
.:
ur. f
~, ~,,,,
.,
~~~
• 'gip. ~ ~.:. ~~ {i' F
M.
r.-~ ~. E;y ~V q., ,-
y
Y . II
~ji- fi
##.. YiF . t~
°~ d.a.<
i
~.. €~ . a .
q 'Ic i _
~.~~ f ~ ~.
y~~ i
r
r
.~ ~. ~ ~ f r
.
. _
~, ~ bf k
r
E
... ,.
. T 5 F. ~ ::
,.._ - ~:
~~ .~. ~~~.- _ ~. ~'~ - ~ 'Rte
,~~~` ,~ -~~ + `'~.`~ ti f ` j'~. ~' M~..., 'S, ~' "~ " ~ !~ y:. '~ ~ ~ i ~ • F 6 ~ , ~~r',a it 1
W
w.
i
i ~ ~ ~ )~
w ~ •,~. ~
,;w,,
~ s ,,.
~. ... f
r ~
3l. , X17
u
~ ~ 1.A c
., ». y -,
{ ~' ~ p
~ ~ _ -
,V. - t k. .r.l
-7.; ~ - '~~°+ r ~ L.c~ `,s ' s 1 „µ ;N~ountY plarn~n9,G
'[ hx .: .Y ~. "'R' - ,~. '" i ~ '~. ~ Esa'# reed by p,xn9
~'
214 P~~~-~' tH, t1'~ 272• ,~ >oror2 cste`t'~e ~~"5~"983 +,,~\
~„u3 ~a ~Y~F~~an~
t,)$GSWStssF'a~cat8 ~._ Z,~.,n3~ s~Y ~S- t ~ resvr-.y.o ~.,._J "(~.-~ ._--
.l11~"" ~s ~+~ `~~ ceatire L" ..1 ~" SYS"'^> -,as' ~c ~ °~Y
.~,..~" ~ti~ F~:re G,n:~~"s ~ ~~eC'cx',-~n~Eas~t+`:~n~
P~°"" ~ ~~, _ ,
'~ Y~ gnCY "..- Ga-cY -
2.~-' "~
.; yes
~f ~~§
~WrS~d
F,X('F.RPT nF THF, APRIL 1.2009 PLANNTNr RnARD MTNTJTF,fi Attachment 2
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 APRIL 1, 2009
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks Township; Nathan Chambers,
7 Cheeks Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl
8 McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large;
9 Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large
10
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township
13
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer;
16 Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
17
18
19 OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Kim Callemyn, Charles Helgevold, Ethan Helgevold
20
21
22 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - 214 PHELPS ROAD
23
24 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the February 23, 2009
25 Quarterly Public Hearing.
26
27 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
28
29 Michael Harvey: Good evening, you have attached to your memorandum a map of the subject property. It is attachment one.
30 Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan is attachment two. The resolution of rezoning petition approval is
31 attachment three, attachment four is Statement of Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan, and finally is attachment five
32 resolution of rezoning petition denial. As the Board will recall this was presented at the February Quarterly Public Hearing, a
33 petition to rezone a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road. With respect to the current zoning of the property, as staff
34 testified during the public hearing there is approximately a 46,500 sq. ft. portion of the property zoned EC-5, which stands for
35 Existing Commercial Five, and the remaining acreage of the property is zoned AR, Agricultural Residential. The property is also
36 zoned Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District. The petition proposes, calling your attention to attachment one which is
37 the map, to rezone a 46, 500 sq. ft. portion of the property to Existing Commercial 5. This is the area of the property currently
38 utilized to support an existing commercial landscape operation. Further, the petition call for the rezoning of the existing portion of
39 property zoned Existing Commercial 5 back to Agricultural Residential as there is no non-residential land use on that portion of
40 the property. As we testified to you at the Quarterly Public Hearing this is an attempt by staff and the property owner to correct a
41 mapping error. Existing Commercial Five is a zoning designation that was imposed on properties during initial zoning of
42 townships to ensure that existing non-residential operations were not made non-conforming and to ensure consistency with the
43 Comprehensive Plan. For some unknown reason, the property was not properly designated on the official zoning atlas that we
44 currently utilize today. What is shown and reflected on attachment one is a 46,500 sq. ft. portion of property that is zoned EC-5
45 where there is no commercial activity and the portion of the property that there is commercial activity is zoned residential making
46 it technically illegal land use. As we discussed during the Quarterly Public Hearing, the original official zoning atlas for the
47 township as approved by the County show their entire parcel zoned EC-5. As denoted on the official zoning atlas utilized in
48 1994, the entire property was zoned Existing Commercial Five. You will also note on the old zoning atlas references to an
49 amendment that was done in 2001, to correct a map error that resulted from a subdivision of property that was approved in 1993.
50 Somehow this designation was not properly shown on the current, legally utilized zoning atlas that staff digitized and produced
51 several years ago. What we're trying to do is correct that mistake. As the Board may remember during the Public Hearing, local
52 residents commented that there was not a commercial operation on the property prior to them moving there in the late 1970s.
53 They expressed concern they did not understand how there could be commercial zoning allowed in this area. They suggested
54 that it would be better to move the commercial operation to the rear of the property where there is Existing Commercial zoning
55 and they expressed that they were not supportive of the proposal. As staff had testified to at a Quarterly Public Hearing, all we
56 can indicate is that in the Minutes, as well as the official zoning map adopted during that time, there was a landscape operation
57 in existence, which is why the property was zoned as such. As we testified during the Public Hearing there was correspondence
58 from Mary Willis, who was the current planning supervisor at the time, indicating that this is one of the EC-5 properties that was
59 going to be zoned as such when this township went under initial zoning back in 1994. We don't contest the fact that wasn't a
0
60 commercial operation in existence in the 70s, we just say there was a commercial operation prior the initial zoning of the
61 township in 1994. With respect to moving the commercial operation, as this Board is already aware, we're dealing with a similar
62 problem about the commercial use of residentially zoned property now, which is something that is prohibited by zoning
63 ordinance. If we require Mr. Helgevold to move his operation to the rear of the property that would mean that the entrance and
64 the main drive access to the commercial land use would be on residentially zoned property. That's not consistent with the zoning
65 ordinance and is currently not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In our estimation the best and most prudent course of
66 action is to amend the existing ordinance so it reflects what was supposed to exist on the ground, what was identified as existing
67 on the ground, with the zoning atlas and correct the problem. We have recommended that this Board, after deliberation, approve
68 rezoning petition and through attachment two approve the Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with
69 attachment three approve the resolution of rezoning petition of approval and forward your recommendation back to the County
70 Commissioners. I'll answer any question you may have at this time.
71
72 Jeff Schmitt: How long has this existing operation been in effect that's there currently?
73
74 Michael Harvey: We have documentation that staff completed inspections in 1998, 2001, and 2003 and identified that the
75 operation was in existence at that time. There is testimony saying that the landscape operation was in existence prior to the
76 comprehensive zoning of the township back in 1994 so it's been a continuous operation at least since 1994, we have done
77 inspections to prove that it has been a continuous operation.
78
79 Jeff Schmitt: Is it the same property owner?
80
81 Michael Harvey: Yes.
82
83 Jeff Schmitt: So he's had this since the 70s.
84
85 Michael Harvey: No, he's had it since 1994. He purchased the property in 1991. He began the business in 1993.
86 There was no zoning of this property until 1994. He purchased it and began the business prior to our zoning of the township.
87
88 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Does he own all the land outlined in red?
89
90 Michael Harvey: Looking to attachment one, yes he does. He also owns the property to the west which shows the residential
91 house.
92
93 Larry Wright: Do buffers apply to this.
94
95 Michael Harvey: In most normal circumstances, the direct answer to your question is yes buffers do apply. The problem in this
96 case is since this area was technically already zoned EC-5, what was there is there. By moving the zoning designation, he
97 actually brings the rear of his property in further compliance with existing buffer regulations because that whole area is going to
98 be left in a natural state. Has to be buffered. Mr. Helgevold has already been working with staff to work on buffering issues on
99 the front of the property running along Phelps Road and around an existing mulch pile. It's something we're going to be pursuing
100 with him but the problem Mr. Helgevold is going to have is that technically he can't do anything until we resolve the zoning issue.
101
102 Larry Wright: Right, I was just wondering if the buffers were there. It wouldn't leave him much room to do much.
103
104 Michael Harvey: It doesn't but he is going to be establishing some buffers to address some concerns his neighbors have
105 expressed at the Quarterly Public Hearing but he voluntarily suggest some buffering to address some of our concerns.
106
107 Larry Wright: So the County would work with him on that?
108
109 Michael Harvey: Yes, the County is not going to get the 100 ft. buffer normally required for this type of development. We're not
110 going to try to oppose it on him but we are going to require buffering.
lll
112 MorioN made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to approve rezoning consistent with staffs recommendation as detailed on page 24 and 25
113 of the abstract including recommending approval of attachment two and attachment three, the Statement of Consistency and the
114 Statement of rezoning approval. Seconded by Larry Wright.
115 Vole: Unanimous
116
117 Michael Harvey: The applicant is here, I just wanted to make the Board knew they were here.
118
2
0
119 Brian Crawford: Thank you sir for coming.
120
121 Mr. Helgevold: Thank you for the approval.
122
ATTACHMENT THREE (3) -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
CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD
Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Charles and Nancy
Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a portion of their
property located at 214 Phelps Road in the following manner:
1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to
Agricultural Residential (AR), and
2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial
landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
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 anon-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,
b. The proposed Amendment will rezone a portion of an existing parcel of real property
to an appropriate non-residential zoning designation consistent with the policies and
goals of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
c. 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 FOUR (4) -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
CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD
Date:
Applicant/Owner: Charles and Nancy Helgevold
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 Charles and Nancy Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to
amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described
more fully below:
1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and
2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a
commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
The property is further identified by the following legal description:
Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR):
BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of the
subject property and also a control corner of the subject property per PB
54/178 running west to an iron stake 270.23 feet thence continuing south
05'46'04 West 100.69 to a point thence running west 341.50 feet to an
iron stake thence continuing north 01'06'32 east 100.75 feet and
incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently
depicted on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned
Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)
0
Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR)
to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5):
-I
~EG!~',i~~,'~"~~ at a slake, sc~a sfa~e be~~y 're ~',iar:keasf carver at ~~cr~e~ ~~e~ge~~o!o'~ ~~-5 ~C~4«1 c,~
a~SC ih° CC~I~O! CG~~^e( rE~ r~ ~~/j~~, !L~~.~!'iy i~;erC~ ~a~!~' L~~t7E~,~~~ Y~~Si ~7~.~~ fC a!i !!Ci S!aKe,
the ~~~~~flhWeS~ CDt'ie~ of !j10!I ,~C~~eE, i.hw~,re ca~~^r1'~na ~G~~h ~'li'~~F~,~l ~'rESi ~~F.1~ iD a~ ~~Cfi Slake,
5'.4Ke be!'iG Gr -he ^vr:~'ef~h (iqr--pl-WGj~ pr rl;e~NS r(L~,, GOr,ri,J'~n~ i0 '.re CS~~i°r G` [she (~Qrl-G1-'NGy
SOUi~i ~~i~b~~1~ r~e5t 33,02' tU 0 ~iU!~i'i irOfi G ",. ~~ ~~~~ ~~n Y~w5l' ~t~~,~J~ .i.,~ fh° ~« f ry'"~OS
e ,tivrf 8~~ ~ ~~ ~iJ~ ~ ~ cer.er a~ r,l~~
~~~, iU 0 ~Ul~it, :hence No~~~ vJ~3~1iG~ 0051 3~,~'~~ iU ipe f,'U'i!ietn r!y~i'-U.'-wOj+ 0` r~,~oi~15 ,~'~~ i0 G
s-.oke, ;hence ~h'ort~ O6'03'21~ ~o5t ~9~.96' +o a opit~~, fherce ~'Vp~,h Di~1'3b~ pest ~~2,~8' to a yoke,
Sold yoke being ~,he ,h'orf~eo5t cover c• Chorie5 & ~uory 8efh ke!gevo,o, (hence ~Vo~,h ui'U~'32~ EoSt
'OD.7~' ~p o pin[, t~henee Norih 88'~3'Q6" EoSt ?(1,89' to the ppini anr~ p!pce of B~GI~h'h'lNG.
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 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner
allege a mapping error making the Zoning Atlas Petition reasonable necessary in
promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Specifically, the existing non-residential zoning designation is not located in
accordance with the existing non-residential operation that was in existence in
1994. The approval of the petition will correct for this error and properly reflect
the exact location of the non-residential zoning designation on the property.
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 properly designate an EC-5 zoning
designation on a parcel of property where there is an existing non-residential
land use in operation.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
2009.
Ayes:
1~
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT FIVE (5) -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
CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD
Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Charles and
Nancy Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a
portion of their property located at 214 Phelps Road in the following manner:
1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)
to Agricultural Residential (AR), and
2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a
commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
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:
n
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT SIX (6) -Resolution of Rezoning Denial:
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY
CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD
Date:
Applicant/Owner: Charles and Nancy Helgevold
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 Charles and Nancy Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to
amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described
more fully below:
1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and
2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a
commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
The property is further identified by the following legal description:
Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR):
BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of the
subject property and also a control corner of the subject property per PB
54/178 running west to an iron stake 270.23 feet thence continuing south
05'46'04 West 100.69 to a point thence running west 341.50 feet to an
iron stake thence continuing north 01'06'32 east 100.75 feet and
incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently
depicted on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned
Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)
~a
Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR)
to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5):
13
~F+~;~~1'~'~~"r,~r ~l 0 S~CIt°, SCItl S'Q+(eJe~-iy^ '.fie 1~>'Gr~~PO:;i CO-Cef U` U!iwf!~s ~~p!9e'/0'0~ ~t`',-5 tiRCIA Cfl~
~r the r r l r h rc~ f'~ i r r,r~irr ~~ c ~ 1 rl"~ 7 ~~ cc ~ ~~~~ t n r 1
a~~c .. c~i~a, ~c~er ~~ ., 54/79, .L, .1~ ~,e~C So~,h ~~~E',~? ~Y.Jr ~15.~~ .c a,~ ..o. s:oKe,
fihC' ~`V~f~~h~VeSr CDf e! Cj ! ~4!Oll ~~C!~E'E, i.hF~Cf Cza!~r;~'~iJ~~'~Q ~G!ifh ~1i',~Fi~ln 1~'j~:ii J~E.16 ?0 4~, i~CC Sli{E',
S:eKe ~ie'n~ a"r, the ('U~}~'Uf~'1 (~~"-U1-wsy Uf ~~e~INS n~,, ~0"~r' ~;1'~'?J i0 '.rC ~°RiAr vi Ghe f~Qri-U~-'MCy
So~C~ G~'Ob'~2~ rJE~st 33,CZ' ;a e jiU!fi!, ~~~er;eo ,~'orfh $~;;~'37" iVost '„ 2,3~' si;inq f~~e ~er'or ;~f ~r~e~os
~~~, i0 U ~Uiti1, ,ht~CS !~IU'iri u~'3~~i~" tOSt 3~.~~ i0 ~~~ rUr~re~n +~yh`-or-wey 04 +~!1°ip5 ,!~~~ .D ,?
s~oKe, ;r,orrce ~h'orl,n ~6'a3'2?p Felt ~yy.9~''0 o po~n~, f~~e~ce I~c~~ ~i2'39" Fost ~~2,~8' to ~ spoke,
soil stoke ~ein~ trhe h'orl~~eost cornea e; ~hor~es ~ IUory 9'efh N'e?gevole, ;henee ~'or~h G~1'0~'~~" Fost
~fl4.75' ~o o pcin~, ~henee Norih 88'S~'06" Eosi ?i1.89' fo ~,he poin( o~~d ploee of B~G~~h'~'iNG.
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 7
EXCERPT -FEBRUARY 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
0
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
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 23, 2009
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, February 23, 2009 at 7:30
p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to
the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary
Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner,. Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Joel Forrest
Knight, II, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers
3. Zoning Atlas Amendment - 214 Phelps Road. To receive public comment on the
proposed following actions:
a. Rezone a portion of the property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing
Commercial Five (EC-5), specifically the area of the property currently utilized to support
a commercial landscape operation, and
b. Rezone the existing EC-5 zoned portion of the subject property to AR.
Michael Harvey made this presentation.
AGENDA ITEM: C3
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
Review of a Zoning Atlas Petition
for a parcel of property at 214 Phelps Road
(TMBL 2.46..40H /PIN 9866-58-5983).
Property Vicinity Map:
APPLICATION SPECIFICS:
•Applicant: Planning Staff/Charles and Mary Beth Helgevold
•Address: 214 Phelps Road
•TMBL /PIN: 2.46..40H / 9866-58-5983
•Size of Parcel: 4'/2 acres
•Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Agricultural Residential, Little River Protected
Watershed,
i~
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
•Township: CEDAR GROVE
•Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Agricultural Residential
Rezoning request:
Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to
Agricultural Residential (AR), and
Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial
landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
Surrounding Land Uses:
•NORTH:
Single-family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR.
•SOUTH/EAST/WEST:
Single-family residential zoned AR. There are also several existing EC-5 and EI zoned
properties in the area.
Zoning Officer Analysis:
1. The application is deemed to be complete in accordance with the provisions of Article
Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance,
2. Staff alleges a mapping error, in accordance with Section 20.3.2 (c) of the Ordinance, as
the primary justification for the review of the application,
3. Staff believes that by re-configuring the existing EC-5 zoning lot on the property that the
mapping error can be corrected and the existing non-residential operation made
conforming with the Ordinance,
4. The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Recommendations:
1. Receive the Zoning Atlas amendment petition,
2. Conduct the public hearing to hear and consider public comment on the request to:
a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and
b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a
commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 19, 2009 BOCC meeting,
and
4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's. recommendation and any submitted written comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Charles Helgevold said that he moved to this property in 1990, started the business, and
found out that Cedar Grove was going to be zoned. He was available to answer questions.
Kim Callemyn said that she has been doing survey work for the Helgevold's, and she is
happy for the cooperation of the County. She was available to answer questions.
i~
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sue Browning lives across the road from the applicant. She said that she was not aware
that there was ever a rezoning for an EC section of 46,000 square feet. She said that the
existing business is at the front, which is zoned AR. She said that this is a business in the
middle of a residential section, and she never understood how this happened.
Michael Harvey said that the landscaping operation began prior to the adoption of the
comprehensive zoning of the Cedar Grove Township. In effect, the property was "unzoned."
The County created the EC-5 zoning designation in townships where initial zoning was taking
place in an effort to ensure that legal operations would not be made non-conforming during
initial zoning. Regarding why the business cannot be moved, he said that the business is where
it is and the EC-5 designation should have been located at the front portion of the property. If it
were moved it would create additional problems and an access issue. The cleanest way to fix
this problem is the recommendation.
Richard Browning said that before the Helgevold's came to this property, there was not a
business there. Michael Harvey explained the process again.
Richard Browning said that there is a huge pile of mulch there most of the time. He does
not see how the business was allowed to begin with because there has never been a business
there.
Kathryn Browning lives more than 500 feet away from the property and she can hear the
noise from the business and the heavy loading equipment. She asked about future traffic flow
as far as expansion of this with the rezoning.
Michael Harvey said that the County has an existing noise ordinance enforced by the
Sheriff's Department. Regarding expansion, once the area is rezoned, it will be limited to this
portion of the property. There is a prohibition on expansion of existing EC-5.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 19, 200 BOCC meeting, and adjourn the
public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
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
CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD
Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Charles and Nancy
Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a portion of their
property located at 214 Phelps Road in the following manner:
1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to
Agricultural Residential (AR), and
2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial
landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
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 anon-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,
b. The proposed Amendment will rezone a portion of an existing parcel of real property
to an appropriate non-residential zoning designation consistent with the policies and
goals of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
c. 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 19`h day of May, 2009.
Ayes: ~p C ~~`~ _ Q~~~)
Noes: (~
Donna Baker,
to BOCC
®~c°.~~
y~Q ~,~~v
P~~~~~~r
~ac~,~'~
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY
CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD
Date: May 19, 2009
Applicant/Owner: Charles and Nancy Helgevold
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 Charles and Nancy Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to
amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described
more fully below:
1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and
2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a
commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5
The property is further identified by the following legal description:
Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five
(EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR):
BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of the
subject property and also a control corner of the subject property per PB
54/178 running west to an iron stake 270.23 feet thence continuing south
05'46'04 West 100.69 to a point thence running west 341.50 feet to an
iron stake thence continuing north 01'06'32 east 100.75 feet and
incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently
depicted on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned
Existing Commercial Five (EC-5)
Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR)
to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5):
BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of
Charles Helgevold's EC-5 Area and also the control corner per PB 54/178
running thence South 01'06'32" West 175.03' to an iron stake, the
Northwest corner of Lillian McKee, thence continuing South 01'06'32"
West 316.26' to an iron stake, stake being on the northern right-of-way of
Phelps Road, continuing to the center of the right-of-way South 01'06'32"
West 33.02' to a point, thence North 85'38'37" West 132.39' along the
center of Phelps Road to a point, thence North 08'37'18" East 30.05 to the
northern right-of-way of Phelps Road to a stake, thence North 06'03'21"
East 199.96' to a point, thence North 01'21'38" East 182.58' to a stake,
said stake being the Northeast corner of Charles and Mary Beth
Helgevold, thence North 01'06'32" East 100.75' to a point, thence North
88'53'06" East 111.89' to the point and place of BEGINNING.
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 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner
allege a mapping error making the Zoning Atlas Petition reasonable necessary in
promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Specifically, the existing non-residential zoning designation is not located in
accordance with the existing non-residential operation that was in existence in
1994. The approval of the petition will correct for this error and properly reflect
the exact location of the non-residential zoning designation on the property.
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 properly designate an EC-5 zoning
designation on a parcel of property where there is an existing non-residential
land use in operation.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this 19th day of May, 2009.
re ~ C a
Noes:
Don Baker, erk to BOCC
®~~
-~- -r~:
~~c~=`~~