HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-16-1999 - 9dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 16, 1999
Agenda Abstract
Item # _ q -d
SUBJECT: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Z -04 -98 James and Patricia LaTorre
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS:
Findings of Fact (included in abstract)
Application
General Information Memorandum
Agency comments
Draft Public Hearing Minutes
Draft Planning Board Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Lincoln, Extension 2583
PHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Mebane 227 -2031
Durham 688 -7331
Chapel Hill 967 -9251
1
PURPOSE: To consider amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from
Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic Development of a
19.96 acre lot located in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development
Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township, as parcel
2A.
BACKGROUND: The subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is
located on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 0.5 mile west of
Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25 miles east of
Buckhorn Road (SR 1114).
The applicants purchased the property in August, 1994, as an existing "U-
Pick" Berry Farm. The applicants' written statement, submitted as part of
the application, indicates that the applicants have tried to market the
subject property for commercial development and cannot find any
interested clients because of the lack of public infrastructure (water and
sewer) needed to attract large industrial or commercial enterprises. The
applicants are requesting Secondary Development Area designation for
the subject property.
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract
2
Secondary Development Areas are intended to provide a "step- down" or
land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially
zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office
uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential
development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four
dwelling units per acre are permitted.
Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the 1 -85 /Buckhorn
Road EDD; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R -1 Rural
Residential Zoning District; the entire area is within the U- ENO -PW Upper
Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from 1 -40 & I-
85 right -of -way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use
of land within the MTC Overlay District for single family and two- family
dwellings is not subject to the provisions, requirements and restrictions of
that overlay district.
There is one residential structure on the subject property. Adjacent
properties to the west, south and east also contain residential structures.
Areas along West Ten Road farther to the east are predominantly wooded;
areas farther to the west are wooded and interspersed with residential
uses; areas south of West Ten Road contain cleared and wooded land
interspersed with residential uses.
As documented in The Orange County Economic Development Districts
Design Manual (Part Two, 2.2 Permitted Uses) residential uses (single -
family, two- family, and multi - family dwellings in designated locations and
subject to design standards, and mobile homes for replacement of existing
mobile home and for temporary occupancy during construction of a
permanent residential unit) are the only uses allowed, subject to County
staff review and approval of development plans, within Secondary
Development Areas in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road EDD that are not allowed in
Primary Development Areas in that district. However, the 1 -85 /Buckhorn
Road EDD was approved as a Primary Area for economic development
and contains no Secondary Development Areas.
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted the 1 -85 and
Buckhorn Road Economic Development District north of 1 -85 in March,
1994. In August, 1996, the Board approved the expansion of that district,
as strictly a Primary Development Area, to include a 586 -acre area
bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the south, the
boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east, and 1 -85 to the north
excluding Clearview Subdivision and an adjacent mobile home park. Prior
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract -
3
to August, 1996, the subject property had been zoned R -1 Rural
Residential, U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed.
Prior to the expansion of the Buckhorn EDD, community meetings were
held to discuss the possible expansion of that district. Some of the citizens
supported the expansion of the EDD and the rezoning of their properties.
Some of the citizens did not want to see any change to the residential
character of the area. Others were not opposed to non - residential
development, but wanted some assurance that they would not lose the
potential to develop their properties for residential purposes if it would be a
long time before non - residential development would happen. Many
citizens expressed the belief that the County should extend water and
sewer services to the area in order to attract business (if the area were
rezoned for that purpose).
Minutes of the May 28, 1996, public hearing regarding the expansion of the
Buckhorn Road Economic Development District include the following
observations. Mary Willis, Planner III, responded that allowing residential
development of any large tract would defeat the purpose of the district.
Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director, stated that development
will probably not happen in this area for another ten years or more but the
proposed rezoning would safeguard the proposed expansion of the
Economic Development District by restricting subdivisions. Mr. Abernathy
also stated that during the comprehensive planning process, "it was
decided that some land needed to be set aside for non - residential uses"
and this area was chosen because of its location near an interstate and in
close proximity to water and sewer facilities. Planning Board member
S.A.M. Brooks commented that she supported comprehensive planning
and that the only reason there is not industrial growth in this area is
because water and sewer are not available and she urged the County to
pursue providing those services. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the
County has limited land designated for commercial and industrial purposes
and this is a strategic location along an interstate; that residential
development can preempt long -range planning because residential
development can go in without public water and sewer; that he supported
moving ahead with extending the Efland sewer line to this area. It was also
pointed out that extending the Efland sewer system would not be
economically feasible under the existing conditions because the fees would
not provide enough monies to expand the system. Two citizens spoke at
the public hearing. Owen Allison spoke in support of the expansion of the
Economic Development District. David Permar asked that the area where
his Amoco Station is located be excluded because of the impact the EDD
standards would have on any renovations or expansions to the existing
business. He supported an Economic Development District but not for
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract .
M
businesses like motels and restaurants and suggested that more area close
to the interchange be excluded from the EDD.
The County Engineer has verified that there are no specific plans at this
time for the construction or provision of water or sewer utilities to the EDD
and that such an extension is not likely to take place without the certainty
that some business enterprise(s) is /are going to locate in the EDD. He
commented that it is not clear, at this time, which utility provider would be
extending utilities to the area or how the costs of such an extension would
be paid.
The Orange County Sheriff's Department commented that the Sheriffs
Department presently provides patrol services to the area and that office
sees no need for an increase in personnel or equipment to continue that
service (if the property is rezoned).
On November 12, 1998, the Economic Development Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that the rezoning be denied. Members
expressed concern that allowing further residential development in the EDD
would erode the integrity of the area making it less desirable for industrial
and commercial development. One of the location criteria used in selecting
the expanded area was that there were relatively few residences within the
area (17 within the 586 acres). That commission also noted that it supports
extending utilities to the Buckhorn EDD to attract light industrial and
commercial development.
Public Hearing Summary
A joint public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and the
Planning Board was held on November 23, 1998. The applicants did not
appear to address their request. Mabel Allison, owner of property adjacent
to the subject property to the east and north, testified that she and her
husband oppose the proposed rezoning and increased residential
development in the 1- 85 /Buckhorn EDD.
Recommendation of the Orange County Planning Board
On January 6, 1999, the Orange County Planning Board reviewed the
application and voted to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit
application based on the following findings.
Orange County Board of County Commissioners 5
Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract
Orange County Planning Board Findings of Fact
The application must comply with all requirements specified in ARTICLE 20 -
SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING. Those requirements include:
( "YES" indicates compliance: "NO" indicates non - compliance)
REQUIRED FINDINGS
20.3.2a) Map showing affected
property at a scale of not less than
1"=1 00' nor more than 1"=20'.
PLANNING STAFF FINDING:
PLANNING STAFF FINDING:
YES
YES
20.3.2a) Legal description of
property.
PLANNING STAFF FINDING:
YES
PLANNING BOARD FINDING:
YES
20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged
error, if any, to be corrected by
proposed amendment.
PLANNING STAFF FINDING: NO
PLANNING BOARD FINDING: NO
20.3.2d) Changed conditions, if
any, which make amendment
reasonably necessary to promote
public health, safety and general
welfare.
PLANNING STAFF FINDING:
PLANNING BOARD FINDING:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
As part of the application, the applicants
have submitted a plat of the subject
property at 1"=100' scale.
As part of the application, the applicants
have submitted a legal description of the
subject property.
The Planning Board finds no error in the
1996 expansion of the 1 -85 / Buckhorn
Road EDD or in limiting that EDD to
Primary Development Areas. The area
zoned for the EDD meets all criteria
as given in Article IV, Section 4.2.11.
Allowing residential development of
any large tract would defeat the
purpose of the district; the County
has limited land designated for
commercial and industrial purposes
and this is a strategic location for
those uses. The application does not
allege that there is an error in the
Zoning Atlas. (The application does
state that the 1996 Zoning Atlas
Amendment was "too harsh without a
plan for city water & sewage.)
The EDD safeguards the area for the
long range plan for light industrial
and commercial uses that will
probably not happen in this area for
another ten years. There has been
NO no pressure for residential
NO development in this area. The
application makes no mention of
changing conditions within the area.
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract
Orange County Planning Department Findings of Fact (continued)
REQUIRED FINDINGS
20.3.2e) Manner in which
proposed amendment will carry
out purpose and intent of adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING STAFF FINDING: NO
PLANNING BOARD FINDING: NO
RECOMMENDATION: Administration Recommendation
0
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The intent of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan is to create an
industrial park setting at this location
to accommodate a full range of light
industrial, distribution, retail, office
and service uses.
The Administration recommends denial of the application to rezone 19.96
acres in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development District to
Secondary Development per the Planning Board's recommendation to deny
the request based on the following: 1) uses allowed in Secondary
Development Areas (that are not allowed in Primary Development Areas)
would decrease the desirability for the intended Primary Economic
Development uses supported by the Land Use Element of the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan, 2) The Land Use Plan, as amended August,
1996, provides for only Primary Development Areas within the Buckhorn
Road Economic Development District.
JRANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROL IA 7
AP- PLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT
Date: _ 5cp* ZAP 199$'
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of
Orange County as hereinafter requested. /'
1. The property is located on the Or +h side of S.R.# llgq
( CST /O Street /Road) between S.R.# /1.37 and
S.A.# / It is n wn as Lot(s) Q P' , Block , of
Ora gs' County.Tax Map - C,hee 5 Township. It has a frontage
of /. feet and a dept of feet, and contains
square feet or Ci ' acres.
2. �t is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned
f rom �c. 'tr9A to
TJ
3.= The ...following information has been _attached ..in - -_ support of the
app L i cation for changing the Zoning Atlas ( * - required on a L L
applications) .
*a. A fully dimensioned sap at s 'seals of not Lass than one (1) inch
squats one—hundred (1013) feet nor more then one (1) inch equals
— twenty • t201 Teet--showiWg• --- the Lend which is proposed to be
rezoned.
*b. A LegaL description of the Land proposed to be rezoned.
*c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more of the
fo L Lowi ng :
(1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which
would be.corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
explanation of such error in the Zoning At Las and detailed
reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment
reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health,
aafety and generaL weLfers.
*(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment wiLL carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part
thereof.
*(4) ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not Limited to, documentation from service
@Concise (e.g. fire, patios, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision capability to the development.
d. A List of alt individuals, firms or corporations owning property
adjoining or within five hundred (3001 feet of the property
so ht for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of
as
(DatiI
-I certify that+all information furnished in this app ation is accurate
to the b -est of my knowledge. `
A p p l i'c a n t (s) :_ I" AA.ua Q pC6t,O At,.. °
Address
el �n Ci -4loed TRu.%/
747 --
Phone: 91 -sb3 - / / /.3 -
..
REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST
OWNER'S NAME C-% �D�l`e- ADDRESS We
Current zoning �(,- 4ftAte00tC,lC,L Total number of acres Current land use
Type of rezoning requested dYX- Proposed land use
Tax map #3'L -Block # ` LI Number of lots y I k1roposed Water Supply:
1-0*4
Public Community
Individual Jl Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank
Access onto state "road it e lAverage daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing
critical areas: Flood prone areas
Streams
Other sensitive areas
Describe land uses in: General Area
Adjacent parcels of land�'�`.� /G�L��i%C����
Poorly drained areas
1�C)a.,Xd ell F 0Aa� ( CC) d� cc) `h'.
I
Z-C, ne PC-, fftzc,,,r4 It("
3G -5536-
4e Cl , 4, C ke e' /C- S
ec o &-6�clvxf7 -P le e L,-,r- C-7
7 ?�
y� 4
C114,L 1 Zc,'0
Cl 17a a"17 /*
Ae4, C- -C i0 Lo( Co'o�p r te z
67A A Y lcl-1 J 0', -u
le-e jwl�L C-Vc�---t (w r/,
CIL
CC) C�l�hL �C�Ca ✓c"laAl �� t �51r[ �/f ci /( °
�>' l
d
10/02/1998 13:32 9196443018 REGISTER OF DEEDS PAGE 02
y
2F. P a x350
- weraece ev: Dalton !L. Loftin, Attorney At , Hillsborough. N.C. 27278
Vern. CARO6IN6, aaAMa9 cnuRTV
TTNts MCM wee AND ww"MaD sure ruff TN9 ear or
3411
to . pars aeTTTe9n
L. J. Bausar and wife, Honig Let 1. Hauser, Rt. 1, Efland, N.C. 27245
rs.ery Or Twa reel rap awe
Joseph f. Brooks and wife, Barbara X. Brooks. 426 lleasaats Ave. Cu7. N,C. 27511
rarTr o► VMS INCONe 76.77. VWTIee4S9T1M
TWAT -N9 4AIe rAafl ar TFe fleet raer. in CON21O9Oa TIOM off rue SUN OF TEN OOLLAITe AND 07.92 OOOa vALI.ADl,9
a19Nr CONrrat11ATIONe. r01e K Vka aaro ►ae v er rug 11"ONe "Mr. 7Ne esasrAT OF Trwlalt la N9e9ar aCRN09ILCOt=e I.I.e ti�Wh,
ANO SMD AND ev Twe141 Oe41faNTt 249410 OAweA/w. 110.6 awe e"V97 "" T.9 4A1e re, Or TNr MDO.e ► are Nff rpcl �
ASSIGPIS rOw9 M A9.1- TWAT a9aewlO9e A OR rrOL►� Of ewe IM Cheeks TOwrltuM *&ARIA CDUW T. NO OAa«,INA. w
ADJOINDfC the leads of Vildes an the :fret, Old 1bute ?to. 10 (Old Greeasbeca Road), sad Jade
Hauser on the South. Alderson on the North; sod
BECDMINC at an old iron. the Northeast comer of Jack Unuser, which iron is located S fete
South of the North righc -of -way of the said Old Route No. 10; thence, North S' Wesc
slang a hedge row 1.405 feat to a stake. a new corner; thence a now line South 85' West 610
feet to a stake. A new comer with Wilder; thanes with 6liider's Rapt Tina sad along a hedte
tow South 5' last 1.223 feat to a stake. the Northwest comer of said Rouser, which stake
is located 5 fat South of the North right- of-way of she said Old Routs No. 10; chance With
the North property line of said Ususar and is the general course of the North right- of-way
of the said Old Race No. iO South 604 30' Lass 691 feet to the place or point of begianinR.
and containing 19.50 tests. acre or less. according to survey and plat of E. L. Culbreth,
Eagiasar. dated Jugs 2. 1960, entitled "PRMEM DY D. B. AUZ MM'.
This caeveyanca is ss& subject to the 30 -foot vide right -of -way slang the lase side
of said 19.50 -acre Tract, said tight -of -way laving been reserved is Warrant, Deed dared
June 20. 1960 frog D. B. Aldersan and rife. to L. J. Nausar and rife, duly retorted in
Deed Book 176, pap 6.26, Orange County RagiAty
Tax
-w -A* .% NOler Nla,urr r-a twww e A Muaa►ea or wo, 4460ta{0 I„ SIN, ..,. Tra-
TO
TO
aw0 T.9O9VNTe euarpry
t I - U A 127 ►O9T.r AaerL
IN nr 1rNr.2 awe wA Tr9 awn TD 00-rAD
R. ADOrei awn rwar NO; wt4 waa.arr AIIa
rug e1NCU./u. AND INS use N ANr """
IN Tw"wmlr WwraCOr Twa "In V"" or rut now 0",r uAa Rpew rft err am "Are are 47a4.T a Mr awe Tee Weer AeeT11
rw
-1 14eA64 .l _ AlrMfldiA• /11eAL.
( L. J. gauger) C Meade Les L. Mae r )
IsrwL, 14ea61
;
srATi o�/fiV TW CA!; A "eDDRV 0/ -
Y
.. r. . a rOTatr rwe,Aa ei emu ae,IMTr. op Tretw'/ ain7rrlr +was
L- J. 5auser aad�vife. HAML4 Lee I. Hauser
deMROR. rteeaw -Ltr um$Aw" 90 0 9 49 T.10 OAT AND cENNOM1Lesaae Tun Due ceteoTToR of Tw9 4OOt"'101
` qua.
• , I • • , wr tne" uV raw. aNe we/M.a6 se,&- Tuff Trr9 1 r w • .7 /
e1Ub 7400, or comet" oft CIM" , 7
Z
6
QwC
i
?rATZ a 9ou," --
J. . A NOVA" "Owe ar MID oauat", no IraRwr eserurf +AAT
aeANTOR. POUNNIA4.6V "WAap 040`e49 ..t TWO ear AND aawtowumeas rug offs t WAMON a T.r roa94er"
ase1
wNrwrrD Wr rraNO A,IS NOM& NA6 41106. TTwa TM9 M/ M . IV
I. MML urlq ! uT, raNNUrgN wouY.
*TATS OT NORTTN CA00WN1+6ouft" or veaRat -. -
Twe Fooseaule awTTncatil1T a. Cornelia 0- Henderson
a NerAar rY3009six" VWWAU ar Tom s ssaNarre sew -m- N " U-cm IS (An& a rgrae TD we awamicr.
cost rune 440011 aaTWK aM VMS btld acv at, May . is 77 . ar 11:41
AND ariLT aeaeonce IN m eoutee er 7.9 awrert. or O9eee or TNff c2urTv IN sear ✓fiuMmm — 272 V.
4sTTV Jer9 NAT". 40041reR a
arTUMN 70. 71
.1OA•
veLVaa A r'
t 350
r "
� • � � � : � � �
��� . � � � � i � .! ��
,
, ,������'� ��,�. �,� � r � , . c� . .� . � �
"`.��:x�� �� "" " ' � '�
4,''.'"';;����2t s�+ , � '�� ��►
s ,� ��� ` � � ''��� �
F �������a�f.��i3i�` �'�� � • `'r�• � � `` � 'r11� f II' ' •
,..��e�€!� �..�_.. � { �,
�''�����;�''�,,,��, �" 1,� � � '
�, � 1'C :. —
�►�q��,_ � � � �.q1.4i.,�� • � ' � ��
'��"" �"`6 „�� s .'� ';; , " '' � ' '�
�a-..�-� 1 a
�a�1��4`�'t'`� �'� � ,w ��j�� � �� � ( � ' �
�''',��. ,�r ^��� ` �� �� % ■�
'_,.,; ;1���.��'����, (F� '�'�'':�� �: �„��
i -- '����J�� F �� '� � u•- _ '
E� � � . .
R°i�����s����+o7lu �� „� - � `<�� ' ,
��''�;��+�J : �',�z�� :.� , ������, z L7 � � -
`� 1 '
, �,_ .,�K I�����,a ` 1�'���°4'"��!���li�• � —= �����-'7,q,� �•��:�'��� �,�� �j� � �I�
F ;�. ;�:�r����d,: ��� �:_ :����M r� -N�-■ � ,� �� ��E� � �� '� � , r
-r?�ti. �� S�'. �.,:�b, A�.;��',d� �� 4j�•�..7��:���IIII' �1.�.!"!L�-,1 '��II'I� � ��11�!'��
3�' �'h� `T)�'t�Y,.�,�f �, ��.7(�!Y � �.�� ��'I�1 �I�i � ,' �
1���� �� � z������ �,�' ' i'����--�� � �I���,'E�/ � ���� i _ � � � � � �
�:�`1 ���y, ��S�A� b'� !F. � ��,rN'.'� � �� ��' � �� 1: . �: ��1� ��1�� � � � ���
�t,. C, z f�r "�, r � ',���� y �;:� � �� : .,9� ����� ��111�� 1 �� ��� ����� ���� . � � � � � �� I�
� <:�"s`Zi�zC'�` c-�1�`t.. c.t,,,, 7?� �. j;�i= `��' „ �, � �I 1�f1�� 1 �1��r�1-;;v.:ll������� �
7�
���� .�,��,�� � � ^t� n� ���°� ;:�� �5����L�� �, "'�� II�IIII��ii► q .,,. ■■ �� �J � �1t:���
� � f��,��,:. ����}r`��' ����e� �:�:��; N .{r � �� ����y�L�°• - �/ � J � ;. ,■ ��l�!V�9�z�R��
r �lk �M k'����,�f��1�'��r.y��!9���.,,�, �3+� ��c +lss� �� � �� Y*C�� � ',,�� • , ���r � �'� ��� � �,-� ��t �
`���'�#�:��������������ra��1"��� ������� �� — _r*RS�,�1� �-� .,� � � � i ������� ��i�� i���,� � ��, � � �
� ����� __ _ - - - - ,� - __.,,,� ���.;,,� � ,�� ��,
��,�„ � �=�' - ""�- ,�- . ' �,
�:,� � . . ., . i� � � �•� '�_�",� � ?�'.�!�� .�1 �
� �
�- �,�.- - . `� 1�►'�1 ► , � _
- �,_ �
. , _._-_. ��I'i�6i�rZ ��
f ^ ' � �s- , --
, -�- _
,� . �L� �.:�-. __--�_ __�,__..�
. ' ; �.� �: '' •• �_ �
�.
t � �r�: �
� �7— ��% � � r �l rt�n...,..,,��-��
I� ■ `� ,� �����
i/f � � .� � � ��:�Ili �•�� � �
� � ■.. �:'"'� ! � l
, � , _ . ,/� "- _���r. ; ��
\��� _�,� �
. . - ,
. , ' �'�`; ;
., �� � \� '
' .A!� .
,
I ��: : � i� �_ � �
r „ , . !s� �� � - �
,�� � �. � �33SZ�s"�� �
1• �� �.. r�'� , �
'. . � �' � �
i.
� ��,�' �
'�� � • • - � � • • .
• r,�i�� .
.. �
. .
, �� ��� .,�: • . . •
�'nmii��r
. � � � � � •
. . �, � • • '� � '.
� � ` ' • �• - • • � � � - • • .
� • � � - � �
� � ' � , � � � 1 � � � � � 1
' � � � • � � , �
�
�
I
�
I���'�I�I� � ,,, _ � �
�I 1 � i:I� l,'' '��,, 1 `' ;' �-
�.�r�• � �,�_ .�,� f r��3 � I,I��' — � � r- I
, ,
��■���11�ir�t r {�� ��}i�� �h I i , ' � 1■ �
:�� �,.�, , .:�._� .�.���,� L ,,, ,��i��� ��
. , ,. �4?�x. �..,.h.F '11 r I � ` � . ■
�.���� �_ � , �,� � ��n ,�.. ►`►�t„r 1���. �I � �iw � �� ■ �
��,..,����M1a������z�r :� ��� ���,� � r.,�,� ..�� r � ��.
• ��1 E��� k .x; -�� � �,; �-,; ;;������Il>��r� III�I�) , � �
,� ,,. _ £,<� , � � ' .. ���1 �■�. ■►�' 1
'� �.� ��:�� � , ���� i ,�S � i��,���.. ��.����� ��. � ' � Ill�i�.�� � � �� r U
�1���� rm �_. � z xr t . . :�_�, I III
��": � y �
r- ,, J '�`�`: � � a � � ',` j �
—_,I, t �5:� r y.Ig4 `�w �' �� '"' ' ����t —•� ''
�\I�� � �� , �� � � �
�'�,� �-� � �� �.����� ��. ' , r �� /' ��, ' �
� ��
��!, � � � ���_ �� : ;., . ,
-
/
�� : � ►�—�–
�s- � }�_ . . . � --
'�►' �'� ��� ' �-3 � " � �
s a c, . ���� �
r5
_�', ■ '' �r'-- ` 5,� � � /'�� 'f
..
� i1' —_`__._ ��/ � ' '
■ -- «...��1�l�- ....:�\
_� ,i• ••- �
�c. � � '�
� ■�-� 1 �
■ • � �
1� ��`� ��
�-•� �
'• ~� , r+� � �
►• �r � �
/-��� ►I�
�� // . , . �
:�-,� � �
,,
_;;� ,
� � � � � „ � � � i , �� '
� �� � ► � � �.
13
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
v �
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Z -04 -98 JAMES AND PATRICIA LATORRE
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: James & Patricia LaTorre
4812 Timberwood Trail
Efland, North Carolina 27243
Location: North side of West Ten Road, approximately 0.5 mile west
of Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25
miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), Cheeks Township.
Lot size: 19.96 acres
Existing Land Use: One (1) residential structure, remainder is undeveloped. Much of
the land has been cleared for agricultural purposes.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: EDD, Undeveloped.
South: R -1, Residential Uses.
East: Predominantly undeveloped woodland with few residential
uses.
West: EDD, Undeveloped woodland, scattered residential uses.
MEMORANDUM
Z -04 -98 JAMES AND PATRICIA LATORRE
NOVEMBER 13, 1998
Comprehensive Plan land Use Designation: Economic Development
Zoning: 1- 85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development District, Primary
Development Area.
The intent of Secondary Development, as provided in the Orange County Economic
Development Districts Design Manual, Part Two, Chapter 2.1 Development Areas, is to
provide a "step- down" or land use buffer between Primary I and II Development Areas
and residentially zoned or developed properties. Within these areas, only a limited
number of residential and office uses are allowed Where residential development is
contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are
permitted.
The Orange County Economic Development Districts Design Manual, Part Two,
Chapter 2.2, Permitted Uses, lists the following permitted uses in Secondary
Development Areas:
Dwelling, single - family (Only in designated locations and subject to design
standards)
Dwelling, two- family (Only in designated locations and subject to design
standards)
Dwelling, multi - family (Only in designated locations and subject to design
standards)
Temporary mobile home (For occupancy during construction of permanent residential
unit and for 30 days after issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy)
Rail /bus passenger shelter
Water and sanitary sewer pumping stations
Churches
Governmental protective services
(Police and fire stations, rescue squads and volunteer fire departments)
Parks, public and non - profit
Governmental facilities and office buildings
(Including solid waste collection centers)
Accessory uses
14 ,
15
MEMORANDUM
Z -04 -98 JAMES AND PATRICIA LATORRE
NOVEMBER 13, 1998
The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit:
Temporary mobile home (For custodial care)
Elevated water storage tank
(Permitted as accessory use without a Special Use Permit)
Day care facility
Large day care home
The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit:
Public utility stations and sub - stations, switching stations, and telephone exchanges
Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions (within a planned development)
Credit agencies and institutions (within a planned development)
Security and commodity brokers, and investment offices
(within a planned development)
Insurance carriers and agents (within a planned development)
Real estate agents and brokers (within a planned development)
Community Center
Schools, elementary, middle and high (within a planned development)
Beauty and barber shops (within a planned development)
Clubs and lodges and social, fraternal and union clubhouses
(within a planned development)
Health services, including doctors and dentists offices and medical and
dental laboratories (within a planned development)
Laundry, dry cleaning and shoe repair services (within a planned development)
Libraries (within a planned development)
Art/photographic studios (within a planned development)
Recreational facilities (non - profit) (within a planned development)
Recreational facilities (for profit) (within a planned development)
Repair service, electronic and appliance (within a planned development)
Other offices and personal services; e.g., attorneys, watch and jewelry repair, computer
programming and data processing, employment and travel agencies, advertising
agencies, and accounting, engineering, architectural and surveying offices
(within a planned development)
Historic buildings for non - residential mixed use
To: Eddie Kirk
Orange County Planning Department
From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass
Date: October 20, 1998
Re: James and Patricia LaTorre
Location: Cheeks Township Rezoning
Tax Map 3.44.2A
North side of West Ten (SR1144) .5 miles west of
Bushy Cook Rd. approximately 1.25 miles east of
Suckhorn road (SR1144)
The Orange County Sherif Office has been asked to write a
letter regarding our apflity to provide law enforcement
services for the proposed rezoning site.
We presently provide patrol services to this area and see no
need for an increase in personnel or equipment to provide this
service.
oe needed please contact our
16
17
9-1 -1 Communications
24 Hour Warning Point
919 - 732 -8161 •933 -2600
24 -Hour Fax Machine
919 -967 -9026
orange County Emergency Management
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough
North Carolina
27278
s
'��► e.t.a'.
November 18, 1998
TO: KAREN LINCOLN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: MIKE TAPP, FIRE MARSHAL
RE: JAMES AND PATRICIA LA TORRE
Emergency Medical Services
Fire Marshal
Disaster Response
Hazardous Materials
919- 644 -3030. 968 -2050
Administrative Fax Machine
919 - 968-4066
We have on concerns regarding the above referenced rezoning request. Please send us a
copy of the final plan for distribution. As usual, please contact us if you have questions.
Located at 1914 New Hope Church Road • Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
ffij
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILISBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
P 9
DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1998
FROM: KAREN LINCOLN
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
TO: MIKE TAPP, FIRE MARSHALL, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Thank you for your response to my request for agency review for Z- 04 -98, Rezoning
application for a 19.96 acre lot owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and located on
the north side of West Ten Road in Cheeks Township (Tax map reference 3.44..2A).
There is no final plan, the LaTorre's are requesting the rezoning for the entire property
referenced above. Attached is a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the
property.
This request will be presented next Monday at the November 23, 1998, quarterly public
hearing. Please forward any further comment you may wish to add ASAP.
Thank you.
19
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Lincoln, Planner III
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: November 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Water and sewer plans for the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District
In response to your query regarding plans for the Buckhorn Road EDD, I can advise you that
there are no specific plans in existence at this time for the construction or provision of water or
sewer utilities to the EDD. There has been, of course, a great deal of discussion about the
potential for the eventual extension of utilities to this area, but such an extension is not likely to
take place without the certainty that some group of businesses or at least one major business is
going to locate in the EDD. At this time, it is not clear what utility provider would be extending
utilities to the area or how the costs of such an extension would be paid.
It is my believe that both the BOCC and the Planning Board were well aware of the uncertain
nature of utility extension to the EDD when the EDD was approved. Likewise, I believe that it
was understood that the creation of any utility infrastructure or capacity in the EDD would occur
by one of the following means: 1) an industial or commercial venture in the EDD could pay the
cost of obtaining utility service by means of developing its own individual on -site utility
capacity; 2) an industial or commercial venture in the EDD could pay the cost of obtaining utility
service by means of extending municipal -type utilities for the Town of Mebane or from a
combination of the Orange - Alamance and Orange County water and sewer utilities; or 3) an
industrial or commercial venture in the EDD would guarantee that it would employ a sufficiently
large number of individuals at a pay scale that would qualify for economic development CDBG
funded utility extension. To date no commercial venture has, to the best of my knowledge,
expressed an interest or shown the ability to develop in the EDD under any of these conditions.
However, given the location of the EDD with respect to the interstate system and the rail system,
a commercial venture meeting these criteria could show up on the horizon tomorrow.
If I may provide additional information, please advise.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PRESERVATION • PROGRESS • PEOPLE
TO: Karen Lincoln, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
FROM: Economic Development Commission Board
DATE: November 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Rezoning of Property of James and Patricia LaTorre, Tax Map 3.44..2A
At its November 12, 1998, meeting, the Economic Development Commission Board reviewed the
application of James and Patty LaTorre for rezoning of subject property from EDD Primary
Development Area to EDD Secondary Development Area. After discussion, a motion was made
and passed unanimously to recommend against such rezoning activity.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application.
c: John Link
ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
POST OFFICE BOX 1177 • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
PHONE (919) 732 -8181, EXT. 2325 • FAX (919) 644 -3008 • EMAIL: TABERNAT @INTERPATH.COM
20
DRAFT 2,
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 23,1998
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning
Board met in joint session on Monday, November 23, 1998 at 7:30 p.m, in the F.
Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of holding a joint Public Hearing.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brown, and
Commissioners Alice Gordon, Moses Carey, Jr., and Steven Halkiotis.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner William L. Crowther.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen
Barrows, and members Nell Andrews, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., James
Selkirk, Robert Strayhom, and Elizabeth Walters.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks,
Libby Searles, and Runyon Woods
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the
Board Kathy Baker. All other staff will be identified as necessary.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Brown requested that an item be added to the Agenda regarding
Carrboro's intent to repeal the junk car provision in their Ordinance. If this provision is
repealed it would become the responsibility of Orange County to enforce the County's
provision regarding junk automobiles.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis, to add this item to the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Brown indicated that she would Chair Items C.1 and C.2.b and the Karen
Barrows, Chair of the Planning Board would Chair the remainder of the items.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
22
,D
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS RAFr
2. Zoning Atlas Amendment
d) Z-4 -98 James and Patricia LaTorre
This item was presented by Planner Karen Lincoln for the purpose of receiving
evidence and public comment on the proposed rezoning from Primary Economic
Development to Secondary Economic Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the I-
85 /Buckhom Road Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map
44, Cheeks Township, as parcel 2A. Th subject property is owned by James and
Patricia LaTorre and is locate on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 1.25
miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The owners are requesting Secondary
Development area designation for the property. This designation is intended to provide -
a "step -down" or land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially
zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office uses are
allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential development is
contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are
permitted. Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the 185 /Buckhom
Road EDD; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R -1 Rural Residential Zoning
District; the entire area is within the U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed
Overlay District. A Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends
southward 1,250 feet from 1-40 & I-
right -of -way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use of land within
the MTC Overlay District for single family and two- family dwellings is not subject to the
provisions, requirements and restrictions of that overlay district.
QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
None.
QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
Ms. Mabel Allison, a resident of West Ten Road in Efland, owns property on the
East and North side of this property. They feel that changing the zoning of this
property will effect their land. They are concerned and opposed to the rezoning of this
property.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to sooner than February 2, 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
DRAFT
Except for the power easement, the entire tract is wooded with mature
hardwoods and locally common understory species. The Division of
Environmental Health and the soils survey show that the soils are suitable to
support septic systems. The subject property ranges in height from 700' to
780' above MSL sloping to the southwest and north and typically runs in
the 71/2 to 1S percent slope range.
Lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems.
Private roads are justified because the proposal maintains rural character by
providing larger lots and building setbacks than required in the R -1 zoning
district, prohibiting further subdivision, limiting tree removal and
minimizing disturbance and grading.
The area is designated as Rural Residential in the adopted Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This property and surrounding parcels
are zoned R -1 Rural Residential. Land uses are single - family residential.
The Orange County Fire Marshal and EMS indicate that the subdivision can
be served adequately by their respective agencies.
The final plat of the `first phase' of High Point Woods was approved as a
minor subdivision by Planning Staff on November 26, 1996.
The next activity required major subdivision approval because it was
submitted prior to the expiration of two years after the approval of the
original minor subdivision of the property. Titled Lot 4A High Point
Woods Subdivision, this `second phase' consisted of the subdivision of Lot
4A into 2 lots fronting on the south side of Davis Road. Final plat approval
by the Board of County Commissioners was on August 4, 1997.
The Concept Plan for High Point Woods, Phase III was approved
unanimously by the Planning Board on August S, 1998 per the Resolution
of Approval (copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ).
Planning Staff recommends approval of the a Preliminary Plan for High
Point Woods, Phase III, with conditions listed in the Resolution of
approval.
MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded
by Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (NOVEMBER 23,1998)
a. Zoning Atlas Amendment
(1) Z-4-99 James and Patricia LaTorre
Presentation by Karen Lincoln.
This item is to consider amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas by
rezoning from Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic
24
DRAFT
Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the I- 85Buckhom Road
Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44,
Cheeks Township, as parcel 2A.
The subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is located
on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 0.5 mile west of Bushy
Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhor Road
(SR 1114).
The applicants purchased the property in August, 1994, as an existing "U-
Pick" Berry Farm. The applicants' written statement, submitted as part of
the application, indicates that the applicants have tried to market the subject
property for commercial development and cannot find-any interested clients
because of the lack of public infrastructure (water and sewer) needed to
attract large industrial or commercial enterprises. The applicants are
requesting Secondary Development Area designation for the subject
property
Secondary Development Areas are intended to provide a "step - down" or
land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially
zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office
uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential
development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four
dwelling units per acre are permitted.
Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the I- 85Buckhom
Road DE; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R-1 Rural
Residential Zoning District; the entire area is within the U- ENO-PW Upper
Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from 1-40 &
I -85 right -of -way and covers the norther third of the subject property. Use
of land within the MTC Overlay District for single family and two- family
dwellings is not subject to the provisions, requirements and restrictions of
that overlay district.
There is one residential structure on the subject property. Adjacent
properties to the west, south and east also contain residential structures.
Areas along West Ten Road farther to the east also contain residential
structures. Areas along West Ten farther to the east are predominantly
wooded; areas farther to the west are wooded and interspersed with
residential uses; areas south of West Ten Road contain cleared and wooded
land interspersed with residential areas.
As documented in The Grange County Economic Development Districts
Design Manual (Part Two, 2.2 Permitted Uses) residential uses (single -
family, two - family, and multi - family dwellings in designated locations and
subject to design standards, and mobile homes for replacement of existing
mobile home and for temporary occupancy during construction of a
permanent residential unit) are the only uses allowed, subject to County
staff review and approval of development plans, within Secondary
Development Areas in the I- 85Buckhorn Road EDD that are not allowed in
Primary Development Areas in that district However, the I- 85Buckhom
Road EDD was approved as a Primary Area for economic development and
contains no Secondary Development Areas.
25
I-00
t • .,
The Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the I -85 and
Buckhorn Road Economic Development District north of I -85 in March,
1994. In August, 1996, the Board approved the expansion of that district,
as strictly a Primary Development Area, to include a 586 -acre area bounded
by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the south, the boundary
of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east, and 1 -85 to the north excluding
Clearview Subdivision and an adjacent mobile home park. Prior to August
1996, the subject property had been zoned R -1 Rural Residential, U -ENO-
PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed.
Prior to the expansion of the Buckhom EDD, community meetings were
held to discuss the possible expansion of that district Some of the citizens
supported the expansion of the EDD and the rezoning of their properties.
Some of the citizens did not want to see any change to the residential
character of the area. Others were not opposed to non - residential
development, but wanted some assurance that they would not lose the'
potential to develop their properties for residential purposes if it would be a
long time before non - residential development would happen. Many
citizens expressed the belief that the County should extend water and sewer
services to the area in order to attract business (if the area were rezoned for
that purpose).
Minutes of the May 28, 1996, public hearing regarding the expansion of the
Buckhorn Road Economic Development District include the following
observations. Mary Willis, Planner III, responded that allowing residential
development of any large tract would defeat the purpose of the district Ted
Abernathy, Economic Development Director, stated that development will
probably not happen in this area for another ten years -or more but the
proposed rezoning would safeguard the proposed expansion of the
Economic Development District by restricting subdivisions. Mr. Abernathy
also stated that during the comprehensive planning process, "it was decided
that some land needed to be set aside for non - residential uses" and this area
was chosen because of its location near an interstate and in close proximity
to water and sewer facilities.
Planning Board member S.A.M. Brooks commented that she supported
comprehensive planning and that the only reason there is not industrial
growth in this area is because water and sewer are'not available and she
urged the County to pursue providing those services.
Commissioner Willltoit stated that the County has limited land designated
for commercial and industrial purposes and this is a strategic location along
an interstate; that residential development can preempt long -range planning
because residential development can go in without public water and sewer,
that he supported moving ahead with extending the Efland sewer line to this
area. It was also pointed out that extending the Efland sewer system would
not be economically feasible under the existing conditions because the fees
would not provide enough monies to expand the system.
Two citizens spoke at the public hearing. Owen Allison spoke in support of
the expansion of the Economic Development District David Pemmar asked
that the area where his Amoco Station is located be excluded because of the
impact the EDD standards would have on any renovations or expansions to
RIP
the existing business. He supported an Economic Development District but
not for businesses like motels and restaurants and suggested that more area
close to the interchange be excluded from the EDD.
The County Engineer has verified that there are no specific plans at this
time for the construction or provision of water or sewer utilities to the EDD
and that such an extension is not likely to take place without the certainty
that some business enterprise(s) islare going to locate in the EDD. He
commented that it is not clear, at this time, which utility provider would be
extending utilities to the area or how the costs of such an extension would
be paid.
The Orange County Sheriff s Department commented that the Sheriff's
Department presently provides patrol services to the area and that office
sees no need for an increase in personnel or equipment to continue that
service (if the property is rezoned).
On November 12, 1998, the Economic Development Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that the rezoning be denied. Members
expressed concern that allowing further residential development in the EDD
would erode the integrity of the area making it less desirable for industrial
and commercial development. One of the location criteria used in selecting
the expanded area was that there were relatively few residences within the
area (17 within 586 acres). That commission also noted that it supports
extending utilities to the Buckhorn EDD to attract light industrial and
commercial development.
Lincoln reviewed the Planning Staff findings which are attached to these
minutes on page
The applicants did not appear to address their request at the November 23,
1998 public hearing. Mabel Allison, owner of property adjacent to the
subject property to the east and north, testified that she and her husband
oppose the proposed rezoning and increased residential development in the
I- 85Buckhom EDD.
The Zoning Officer recommends denial of the application to rezone 19.96
acres in the I- 85Buckhorn Economic Development District to Secondary
Development based on the potential of uses allowed in Secondary
Development Areas decreasing the desirability for the intended Primary
Economic Development uses supported by the Land Use Element of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan, as amended
August, 1996, provides for only Primary Development Areas within the
Buckhorn Road Economic Development District.
The Planning Board has 60 days from the date of the Public Hearing in
which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation
within the required time shall be considered as a favorable recommendation
without conditions.
Allison asked if the County Engineer had provided any long range plan for
the extension of the Efland Sewer System. Lincoln responded that he
verified that there are no specific plans for construction. It is not likely that
the extension will take place without some certainty that there are business
enterprises that are wanting to locate in that EDD. Allison asked how long
the housing development had been in the area. Lincoln responded that it
was there prior to the rezoning in 1996.
Mr. James La Torre, applicant, using the map, indicated that he is
surrounded by houses and the property in question contains three houses.
He continued that he was trying to market his property but real estate agents
have indicated to him that without public water and sewer businesses are
not likely to locate in the area. That was the reason he was hoping for some
leeway for some residential development.
Barrows clarified that the three houses on the property are non - conforming
and are there simply because they were already there at the time of zoning
to EDD. The owners could not make additions to them since they are non-
conforming.
MOTION:
Walters moved agreement with the findings of fact on Article 20.3.2a -2e as
indicated by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Brooks.
VOTE:
Unanimous.
MOTION:
Woods moved to deny the application for rezoning. Seconded by Brooks.
VOTE:
Unanimous.
(2) Z -5 -98 L.J. Rogers Trucking Company
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
This item is to consider a request to correct a Zoning Atlas error in Cedar
Grove Township by rezoning 5.5 acres from NC -2 Neighborhood
Commercial and AR Agricultural - Residential to EC -5 Existing
Commercial.
The proposed rezoning involves all of Tax Lot No. 2.17 -1C (3.44a), apart
of No. 2.17..1 (1.5a + of a 184a tract), and small portions of Nos. 2.17.. IA
& 1D (less than an acre) at 7818 NC 49. L.J. Rogers, Jr. Trucking
Company, Inc. has been in business at this location since 1975. On the
property are the Rogers general offices, dispatch facility, training and safety
operations, maintenance shops, outdoor storage of semi - trailers, and
parking for semi - tractors. The proposed zoning lot is located on the
northwest side of NC 49 approximately 1,100' southwest of the intersection
of NC 49 and Corbett Ridge/Carr Store Roads. The 3.44a parcel is zoned
AR Agricultural - Residential. A .94a portion is zoned NC -2 Neighborhood
commercial and 1.12a is zoned AR. Proposed zoning is EC -5 Existing
Commercial for the entire 5.5a complex.
The L. J. Rogers, Jr. Trucking Company has been in business on this site
for 23 years. With a gross income of over $7 million dollars in 1997, the
company currently hires 68 employees including 55 drivers, 8 office staff, 3
supply workers and 4 dispatchers. The Company owns and operates more
than 200 semi - trailers.
27
James and Patricia LaTorre
4925 West Ten Rd.
Efland, NC 27243
(919) 304 - 5530
(919) 563 —1113
Dear County Commisioners,
Thank you for hearing our situation concerning the rezoning of 20 acres within the
economic development Buckhorn district to secondary development. We appreciate
your concern for the individual.
Please take the time to drive down West Ten Rd. and feel free to drive into my
driveway. It still has the sign for Pick Your Own. Seeing is important. Mr. Carey's
concern about this 20 acres being changed to secondary development having a large
negative effect on the whole project is invalid. This is only a small piece sandwiched
in between residential use.
It is not that I have the monev to subdivide for residential or commercial. But
secondary development will give me more chances to find a buyer. As of now, two
commercial buyers were turned down due to such strict use guidelines. These
guidelines are unrealistic and no realtor or commercial user can work with them.
I realize your intentions were good but you have created an impossible situation.
Unless we are prepared to sit and wait 20 years, we lose.
Sincerely,
�.�