Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-017- Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Petition Charles & Nancy Helevold - 214 Phelps Rd~= 1~~~~i ~ -ate ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. ~ - ~ ~ q, SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) - 214 Phelps Road DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): CONTACT INFORMATION: 1. Map of Subject Property Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607 2. April 1, 2009 Planning Board Minutes Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 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 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 property 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 properly, 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)). Existin ~"~~'~'~ ~ u To be ones seape operation. ~_ EC-~ andL-,~,4Ry B~T~S-N . 214 pHEL,p NiLLSBdROUGN. NC »„_ _ Subject --~ ~.~-_ prope7rtY ' ~n ~. ~~': ----+~ r Xe5•xrs ~r ~ ~~%niY:Ya,ncw ~~cxn G.a .. `; -:t, F~a ra^9e Cou y pia^n ue6; Jsrd+~y ~^9 6 Inspactlans. ~i 40 1 '~'~h - t53 IS faef 28F T~ 9866-gg-5983 ;~'~~~~ Attachment 2 FXC:FRPT nF THE APRiL 1.2009 PLANNiNC~ RnARD MTNiJTFS 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 AesENT: 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 wll 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 Commercal 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 correcf 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 Toning 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 currenty? 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 operaflon 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. 8b 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. 111 112 MOTION 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) O Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5): dEG1i~iJiNG o(n Make, said stoke being (he Nor(heos( corner of Charles ,4elge~mld's i:C-5 ,~REd and also Elie corlrol corner per P8 54~i18, r~~nn~~g (recce Sou(h 416'32" k~°si 11.5.G3' fo an iron slake, the Nrrfh~vesi• comer of 1r11ion ~~~cKee, ?hence can±in~ling South 41'06'32" V~'es( 316.26' fa an .iron slake, stoke being on the northern right-of-gay or P~ielps Rd., continuing to (he comer o. the right-o. ~~oy Saulh 01'06'32" I'lest 33.02' to o paint, ?her7ce North 85'38'31" West 132,30' along ?he center of Phelps Rd. io o point, (lience North 08'37'18" Eost 30.05' to (he northern right-of-woy at Phelps Rd, to a slake, thence Plorlh 06'03'21" Eost iyy.96' to a point, (hence North 01'2i'38" East 182.58' to a slake, said slake being the Northeast corner of Charles ~ ~Uory 8elh Nelgevold, (hence North 01`06'32"East 104, ]b' to a point, ?hence Narih 88 X3'46" Ebsi 1 i 1,89' to the point and place of BEC~NNING. 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: io 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) is Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5): 13 i3EGl+;~NING al a sf ake, said stake being tiie ~~'darfheas? corner of Charles Nelgeva?d's E~-5 A,4~A and olsc the con?roi turner per P9 5Q/i18, running 1rrerce Sou(h 01'06:32'' West 115.0` io an iron stoke, the Nor?h+vesi corner a. ii?lion ~+~cKee, fherce con#inur'ng 5au?h t11'O6'3?" 4Ye,? .316.26' Ta an I/af s?ake, stoke being oR the northern right-o• gay or Phelps Rd., continuing to the cagier o. the rigrt-o. ~~ay 5oufh Di`0fi'32" 1'lesf 33,02' to o point, (hence North 85'38'31" West 13239' along the center of Phelps R~. to a point, Thence ~brlh 08'37'18" East 30.05' to the northern rig?-t-of-woy of Phelps Rd. to 0 stake, thence North 06'03'21" Eost 199.96' to a point, (hence North 01'21'36" fast 182.58'. to a stoke, said slake Being the Northeast corner of Charles ~ ~Mory Qelh Nelgevole, Thence North 01`06'32" Eost 100,15' to o point, thence North 68'53'06" East 1 i 1,89' to the point and ploce of BEGINNING. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the denial of the Application: 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 MINUTES 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 7 February 23, 2009 8 7:30 p.m. 9 10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board 11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:30 12 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. 13 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners 15 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve 16 Yuhasz 17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill 19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to 20 the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 21 PLANNING .BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary 22 Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner,. Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos 23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Joel Forrest 24 Knight, II, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers 25 26 27 3. Zoning Atlas Amendment - 214 Phelps Road. To receive public comment on the 28 proposed following actions: 29 a. Rezone a portion of the property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing 30 Commercial Five (EG5), specifically the area of the property currently utilized to support 31 a commercial landscape operation, and 32 b. Rezone the existing EC-5 zoned portion of the subject property to AR. 33 34 Michael Harvey made this presentation. 35 36 37 AGENDA ITEM: C3 38 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 39 Review of a Zoning Atlas Petition 40 for a parcel of property at 214 Phelps Road 41 (TMBL 2.46..40H /PIN 9866-58-5983). 42 43 Property Vicinity Map: 44 APPLICATION SPECIFICS: 45 •Applicant: Planning Staff/Charles and Mary Beth Helgevold 46 •Address: 214 Phelps Road 47 •TMBL /PIN: 2.46..40H / 9866-58-5983 48 •Size of Parcel: 4'/i acres 49 •Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Agricultural Residential, Little River Protected 50 Watershed, (~ 1 •Township: CEDAR GROVE 2 •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Agricultural Residential 3 4 Rezoning request: 5 Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five. (EC-5} to 6 Agricultural Residential (AR), and 7 8 Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial 9 landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5 10 11 Surrounding Land Uses: 12 •NORTH: 13 Single-family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR. 14 15 •SOUTH/EAST/WEST: 16 Single-family residential zoned AR. There are also several existing EC-5 and EI zoned 17 properties in the area. 18 19 Zoning Officer Analysis: 20 1. The application is deemed to be complete in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance, 22 2. Staff alleges a mapping error, in accordance with Section 20.3.2 (c) of the Ordinance, as 23 the primary justification for the review of the application, 24 3. Staff believes that by re-configuring the existing EC-5 zoning lot on the property that the 25 mapping error can be corrected and the existing non-residential operation made 26 conforming with the Ordinance, 27 4. The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent with the 28 goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 29 30 Staff Recommendations: 31 1. Receive the Zoning Atlas amendment petition, 32 2. Conduct the public hearing to hear and consider public comment on the request to: 33 34 a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five 35 (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and 36 b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a 37 commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5 38 39 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be 40 .returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 19, 2009 BOCC meeting, 41 and 42 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the 43 Planning Board's. recommendation and any submitted written comments. 44 45 46 PUBLIC COMMENT: 47 Charles Helgevold said that he moved-to this property in 1990, started the business, and 48 found out that Cedar Grove was going to be zoned. He was available to answer questions. 49 Kim Callemyn said that she has been doing survey work for the Helgevold's, and she is 50 happy for the cooperation of the County. She was available to answer questions. 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 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 Sheriffs 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 ~p -aaUq -v i ~ ~-~9-m9 s ~~ WC Breeze Family Farm Extension & Research Center to NC A & T State University for inclusion in a grant proposal to the US Department of Agriculture Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5-1. Public Hearings (SITTING AS THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD) The Board of County Commissioners recessed as the Board of County Commissioners and convened as the Orange County Housing Authority Board. a. Orange County Housing Authority Public Hearing -Annual Public Housing Agency (PHAI Plan -Section 8 Housing Program The Board conducted a public hearing and considered approval of submission of the Annual Public Housing Agency Plan for the Orange County Housing Authority and authorizing the Chair to sign. Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes said that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments regarding the Orange County Annual Public Housing Agency Plan for 2009. This annual plan is required as is a five-year plan in order to be eligible for Section 8 funds. The five-year plan describes the mission of the agency and the long-range goals and objectives for achieving this mission. Orange County approved the last five-year plan on April 19, 2005. The annual plan does not propose any significant changes in the administration of the Section 8 program. There are currently 623 families that are being served, which represents 254 property owners that lease property to Section 8 voucher holders. There is a waiting list of about 1,400 families. The average wait time for someone receiving assistance is going from 18 months to 24 months and is getting longer. She said that there may be some opportunity to apply for more vouchers. Commissioner Yuhasz said that Tara Fikes has talked about closing the waiting list and Tara Fikes said that this may happen before the end of the year. She said that surrounding counties have closed their lists and people are coming to Orange County for assistance. PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve submission of the Annual Public Housing Agency Plan for the Orange County Housing Authority and authorize the Chair to sign the Certification of Compliance/Board Resolution on behalf of the Board at the end of the public comment period. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Board of County Commissioners adjourned the Public hearing as the Orange County Housing Authority Board and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners. 5-2. Public Hearings (Sitting as the Board of County Commissioners) a. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) - 214 Phelps Road The Board considered the Planning Board recommendations on, and considered approval of, a petition to rezone portions of a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road. Planner Michael Harvey made this presentation. 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'/z acres- •Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Agricultural Residential, Little River Protected Watershed, •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 Staff Recommendations: •Deliberate on the petition, •Recommend approval of the petition finding that: a. Application is complete -Article 20 b. Correct alleged error -Sec 20.3.2 (c) c. Carry out intent of Comprehensive Plan- Sec 20.3.2 (e) 3. Recommend approval (Attachments two (2) and three (3) to the BOCC PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE A motion was-made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the Administration. recommendation to receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and approve the proposed zoning atlas amendment petition finding that: a. The Zoning Atlas Petition is complete in accordance with the provisions of Article 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 reconfigured 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 property zoned and, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion also includes approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 3) and Resolution of Rezoning Approval (Attachment 4). VOTE: UNANIMOUS ~ -~~ -~ 5 ~~~~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 23, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. C-3 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) - 214 .Phelps Road DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Application 2. Map of subject property 3. Mail out certification/property owner letter 4. Legal Description INFORMATION CONTACT: Name, Phone Number Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing in order to receive public comments concerning a petition to rezone portions of a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road (TMBL 2.46..40H /PIN 9866-58-5983). The properly in question is approximately four and a half (4 %2) acres in area. It is located within the Cedar Grove Township and: 1. A 46,500 square foot portion of the property is zoned Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), 2. The remaining acreage is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR), and 3. The entire property is within the Little River Protected Watershed Overlay Zoning District, The property is designated as being within the Agricultural Residential land use category as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Attachment Two (2) for a map of'the property. PETITION REQUEST: 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 The request is being made in order for the existing commercial landscape operation to be located within the appropriate non-residential zoning designation. 2 SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: Single-family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR. SOUTH/EASTNVEST: Single-family residential zoned AR. REASON FOR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: In 1981 the Courity adopted the Comprehensive Plan that established various land use categories indicating where acceptable types of development, residential versus non-residential, were permitted throughout the County. In 1982, the County created the Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) zoning district. The purpose and intent of the district, as detailed within Section 4.2.12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, is: .... to provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously unzoned` townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Cedar Grove Township was initially zoned in 1994. At that time there was a landscape business operating on the subject property. When the area was zoned, a portion of the property was zoned EC-5 to accommodate the existing landscape operation in accordance with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Section 4.2:12 of the Zoning Ordinance. It appears that the portion of the subject property designated as EC-5 on the .Zoning Atlas did not include the existing commercial operation. Staff has visited the property and determined that there has never been non-residential activity on the portion of the lot where the EC-5 zoning designation is currently depicted on the official Zoning Atlas: Through this process, staff hopes to correct the error and properly incorporate the existing non-residential land use within the EC- 5 zoning designation. ZONING OFFICER ANALYSIS: As required under Section 20.3.3 ofthe Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Officer is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of fhe application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. In analyzing this request, the Zoning Officer offers the following information: 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. ~ . ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning request based on the following: 1. The request would establish an EC-5 zoning designation on the subject parcel that is consistent with the various goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, 2. The request proposes to re-locate an existing EC-5 zoning designation over the area currently utilized to support an existing non-residential land use, and 3. The approval of the request abates an identifed Zoning Atlas error. 3 NOTiFICATtON PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: In accordance with Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Officer hereby certifies: 1. Staff caused a notice of the public hearing; indicating that this rezoning petition would be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners, to be published in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance, 2. Staff notified all adjacent property owners, within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, of the submittal of the rezoning petition and informed them of the date and time of the public hearing via certified and first class mail, and 3. Staff posted a sign on the subject property providing notice of the public hearing. Attachment Three (3) of this abstract contains: 1. A copy of the letter mailed to adjacent property owners informing them of the public hearing, and 2. A copy of the Certificafion of Mailing. 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. RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Board: 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 properly, 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. • ~~fc~,r~e,.~ ©rtFCc~ 1~~totc~-Ecoti ~'~P~S~ s~ CURRENT PLANNING DIVLSION pplication Foz Orange Cauaty Planning & Inspections (~ir81iG1Y'aZ USe D1S~Y•ICt P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Zoning Atlas Amendment 919.245-2575n t FAX 919 644p-3002 ~j r r r 1. I(We) t..~t~dr-t~5 ~~X-~~('~( i~t/~ f~tz~~1`eVO~~ [~'~Owner CAS~# of 2i~'~. ~6.,L'~'~ ~OC. 4l i ~~S~lJbryt)~~. `~,. ~~/~~ Street Address City State Zip Code Telephone do hereby petition to amend the Zoniag Atlas of Orange County. ~ ~ ur-(~ ~ CAS 2. By reclassifying from the Zoning District ~'",~ /~~ct~ ~ 2 to the Zoning District 3. The property located ~~ ~ ~~ P ~ 20~, and having frontage(s) along bordering streets as follows ~S ~G~- . 4. Containing ~~~f ~L sores. 5. T1viBL(s} ~~' `` ~ '" ~ ~ ~ PIN #(s) `~ ~ ~ ~,~ ",.~~ 6. I (WE) UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PETITION FOR GENERAL USE DISTRICT ZONING, AND I (WE) MAY NOT REFER EITHER IN THIS PETITION OR AT ANY HEARING RELATED TO SAID PETITION TO ANY USE INTENDED FOR THE CASE SITE NOR TO ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID SITE. 7. OvVner(S) Signature{s): We aelmowleage the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for general use and planned development zoning and hereby proceed with a general use zoning petition. ~~,~ o ~~ li lea Gov `g 8. If petition is execu#ed by property owner, but an attorney or agent will handle public speaking, etc., please indicate: Attorney or Agent city ~~~. ~~`CCt~~~tT. $v~N~t ~~r~~~ ~{w~~ ~ a Street Address Stake Zip Notif~catioA signs will be prepared and posted by the Planning Staff when the rezoning application is scheduled for Public Hearing. The required legal advertising is also handled for you by the Planning Staff. PLEASE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR SUBMITTAL OF YOUR APPLICATION IMPORT.A,N'T: Only Applications with ori>=inal signatures are considered complete. Faxed Applications NOT accepted. G:tQarert Plmnfng DivisionlFOrnos~Genenl Uro App Prnn.dm t~~~©(~ ~ 5 6 Attachment one {~~ Appiication .214 P helps Road _ Re2Oning Re quest Sub, t prop ~ Existing land T ~ ~' To be zoned ~pe operation. ~_ 5 HELGEV ~~. and MqR g~~RCES ly 214 PHELPS RD HIL('SBpRpuGH, NC ~._ zj2~a-asst ~+ K3 ~~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~41 -.i ¢ F~~1 .~ ~~ t ~ 1 T t" t x ••• ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ e,$- , ~ E 5 ~~ ~~N ~.~v~ '- ~' ~ _ ~.. ~ ~~ ,~; _ ~- f '. k ~~ ta !aw ~ n ~. .S- . ~~ r ~~~y, .ti ~~ . ~: ~~ Lt's-~: .*~ ~ j~ ~°^~'~g:~~ - ~ .- '~' ~`C$ V ~!~ Mapnre~°'d~4~rtmre~ ~ Qra'Aeo°'°'h ~§, um,~ ~ ~ ,tom vR FroodWato ' ~ _,_~; br °"Qa° comer ~~e a ~t ~~ ~ ~?~waoa~yor._-. 0 Spina Ewa,, «.~~a ozroz~ ~ ere ~ema~~ ~~~~ a5~~ootlPlafn (Etle~lfve OZN7/n~ _""'L' ~p ~~~m 140 ~ 280 ~ ~~='153,75 feet FB@1 • I' N' 986@'58-5983 ..., 2.46..40N ~ ~~ 8 SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 CAN DO LANDSCA~ MATERIALS 214 PHELPS RD. HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 TM 2.46..40H EUGENE KENNEDY 1RUSlEE ~ 2''~`'~ TIE TO NCGS 'KENNEDY P!N 9868-59-O~R32 B3rg9'43•E OB 2397/473 3089.21' SCALE 0.9999941 CHARIFS do MARY B TM 248„40H PW 9868-58-5883 DB 840/104 DB 4108/587 PB 81/154' n PB 100/81 c~ PB 103/193 LOT 1-3 4.49 11!~ (aoaAC a R/YQ CHARLES Qc MARY BETH HELGEVOLD TM 2.48..406 PW 988 58-3835 8814004 ZONEDi AR 15FD ~ -asst proms Rona 51RAY DOG FARM WC ~ 9888-59-9420 W 248«30 ~ OB 747/224 PB 54/178 CONTROL CORNER CONTROL CORNER N 889181.17 PER P854/178 E 1985513.05 N 889184.74 uersxrot•c __..,... E 1985898.19 , W 1 i~ i~ i /~/ ~' ~EC-5;'~ ~9 ~ `/ / / UWAN Mc1(EE TM 248..31 °= / /BA."" ~ ~ ~ DB 88 $E~S484S 78 8812 ,: ~ / .o ~ PB 100/m 50205'25"W 3.sar SCALE 1" = 100' 100 0 100 100 PREI.IlVIII~TARY PLAT Not for Recordation, Conveyance or Sales EC-5 AREA DESCRIPI)ON: BEG7NN/NG at o stake, sold stake being the Northeast comer of Charles Helgevold's EC-5 AREA and also the contrd comer per PB 54/17a running thence South Ot 06'32' West f 75.03' to an iron stoke, the Northwest comer of Lillian McKee, thence contlnufig South Oi 08'32' West 316.26' to on lion stoke. stake being on the northern right-of--way of Phelps Rd., conttnuing to the center of the right-of-way South 010fi 32" West 33 02' to a point, thence North 85'38'37" West 132.39' along the center of Phe/pa Rd. to a point thence North 0837'18" East 3U 05' to the northern right-of--way of Phelps Rd. to a stake, thence North 0803'21" East 199.98' to a point thence North Ot X1'38" East 18258' to o stake, said stake befog the Northeast comer of Charles & Mary Beth Helgevdd, thence North 0106'32" East 10U 75' to a point thence North 8833'08" East 111.89' to the point and place of BEgNNING Orange County summary Iaafor~rnation IN#: 9866580465 TMBL#: 2.46..66 • RA.CT#:• 246392 - Tax Account: 181981 Street Address: 201 PHELPS RD Owner: SUMMJEY ARTIS EUGENE Additional Owner: - & DL4NNE T Mailing Address: 201 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH • Mailing State/Zip: C,27278-8951 Legal Descri tion: #1 STEVE SUMMEY P60/10S Legal Description 2: Assessed Land Size: A1.27 Raze Code: 00 Land Value: $31089 Building Value; $S652I Total Valuation: $87610 Orange County ~unc~~nary Inf®~ation. Mailing Address: ~ 211 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH ~o Orange County summary Information SPIN#: 9866585010 TMBL#: 2.46..54 TRACT#: 202332 Tax Account#• 97235 Street Address: 221 PHELPS RD Owner; ~ PENLAND BILLY Additional Owner: Mailing Address: 221 PHELPS RD 'ling City: HILLSBOROUGH ' ing State/Zip: C,27278-8951 Legal Description: S/S SR 1551 Legal T)eseription 2: Assessed Land Size: A5.41 to Code: 00 Land Value: $66771 . Building Value: $199435 Total Valuation: $266206 Orange County Summary Information Mailing Address: 305 PHELPS RD Mahing City: HILLSBOROUGH - . ading State/Zip: C,272'78 Legal Description: #1 WILLIAM R BROWN:[NG P81/33 ' ri Orange County Summary Information IN#: 9866681092 TNiBL#: 2.46..46 . TRACT#: 202122 Tax Account- 114863 Street Address: 319 PHELPS RD Owner: DAMS WII..LIAM A Additionai Owner: & HILDA R Mailing Address: ~ 323 PHELPS RD • ailing City: HILLSBOROUGH 1Vlailing StateJZip: NC,272?8-8952 Legal Description: S/S SR 1551 P49/40 Legal Description 2: ~ ' Assessed Land Size: 11.03 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $92725 Building Value: ~ $75301 Total Valuation: $168026 Orange County Summary Ynformation PIN#: ~ 9866694446 TMBL#: 2,46..30E TRACT#: 241959 Tax Account: 227881 Strut Address: 3301 SERENITY LN Owner: BRODIE JOSEPH O JR Additional Owner: & KATHERINE R ailing Address: 3301 SEA LANE ailing City: HILLSBOROUGH ailing State/Zip: C,2'7278 Legal Description: #4 SEC 2 SERENITY P541178 Legal Description 2: ssessed Land Size: A10.44 Rate Code: ~ ~ 00 Land Value: $106662 Building Value: $387024 Total Valuation: $406835.6 11 12 Orange County Summary Information pIN#; 9866681861 TMBL#: 2.46..30D 'TRACT#: ~ ~ 241868 Tax Acrount#: 244592 O~eT; SWANGER TONY C. • dditional Owner: & MARY GATES BOYD *Note: INTEREST OWNERS EXIST Mailing Address: 5707 CABE FORD RD Mailing City: DURI~AM -ding StatelZip: NC,27705 Legal Description: #2 SEC 1 SERENITY P54/145 Legal Descri Lion 2: sessed Land Size: A2.05 to Code: ~ ~ Laud Value: .. $42870 Building Value• $0 Total Valuation: ~ $42870 • Orange County Summary Information IN#: 9867509027 TMBL#• 2.46..308 TRACT#: 221780 ax Account: 59419 Street Address: 12 PHELPS RD • Owner: ~ WALTON DAVID EVERETT dditionai Owner: & GAIL ailing Address: 312 PHELPS RD ailing -City: HII,LSBOROUGH • ailing State/Zip: C,27278 egal beseription: /O SR 1551 Legal Descri Lion 2: CG TP Assessed Land Size: A18.06 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $121702 . wilding Value: $245945 • Total Valuation: $367647 Grange County Summary Informal~ion IN#: 9866599420 TMBL#: 2.46..30 TRACT#: 241958 Tax Account: 302702 Owner: KANXUA JOSEPH Additional Owner: Mailing Address: 187 LATJREL AVE Mailing City: ON Mailing State/Zip: ~ NJ,07083 Legal Descriprion: #3 SEC 2 SEI~El~TITY P54/I78 Legal Description 2- sessed Laud Size: A11.21 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $82308 Building Value: $0 Total Valuation: - $82308 ®range County ~u>~.~aaY-y ]tnforma~.on PIN#: ~ 986658881.2 TMBL#: 2.46..31 TRACT#: 272604 ax Account: 293376 • Street Address: 304 PHELPS RD Owner: MCI~EE LILLIAN G dditional Owner: ' ' Address: 304 PHELPS RD • Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH ' Mailing State/Zi ; C,27278-8952 Legal Description: #A CHARLES HELGEVOLD P100/81 Legal Descri tion 2: Assessed Land Size: A1.86 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $38851 Building Value: $97167 otal Valuation: $136018 13 14 Orange County Summary Information ~#; 9866583835 T"MBL#• 2.46..40B . 'T'RACT#: 247665 Tax Account: 186295 Owner; HELGEV OLD Cl-IAILLES N dditional Owner: & MARY BETH ailing Address: 214 PHELPS RD • City; HILLSBOROUGH Mailing Sla#elZi : NC,27278-8951 Legal Descri lion: TR C CHARLES N HELGEVOLD Legal Description 2: ~ P61/154 Assessed Land Size: A3.2 Code: 00 Land Value: ~ $55222 Building Value: $158898 otal Valuation: $214120 Orange County Summary Information IN#: ~ 9866591014 TMBL#: 2.46..63 TRACT#: 275097 ax Account: 306609 0~~; PAGE JEFFERSON D Additional Owner: & SUSAN B • 1VIailing Address: 112 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH . g State/Zip: NC,27278 egal Description: 2 I~ELGEVOLD P1031193 gal Description 2: Assessed Land Size: A3.46 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $58298 Building Value: $179412 Total• Valuation: $237710 grange County Staxnmary Infornraation IN#: 9866488975 TMBL#: 2.46..63B TRACT#: 268127 Tax Account: 267502 Street Address: 11 S PHELPS ltD Owner: BRILEY BILLY G ciditional Owner; & JUDITH D ' ' g Address: 118 PHELPS RD 'ling City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing- State/Zip: NC,27278 Legal Description: #2A JEFFERSON & SUSAN PAGE - al Description 2: P92/79 Assessed Land Size: A2.16 - • ate Coda: 00 d Value: $74474 , Building Value: $79730 Total Valuation: $154204 Assessed Land Size: A3A3 - Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $51077 - Building Value: $43613 Total Valuation: $94690 - 15 ,. - ®range County Summary Information 16 Orange County Samxnary Information pIN#; 9866590432 ~~g~; 2.46..33A TRACT#: 2321 I7 Tax Account: ~ 181057 Owner- ~ KENNEDY EUGENE WELBORN TR dditional Owner: & SANDRA I~~ENNEDY MUNDY TR 'xNote; INTEREST OWNERS EXIST Mailing Address: ~ 3313 86N ' lyl~.g City: ~ ~ HILLSBOROUGH ' Mailing State/Zip: NC,27278 egal Description: E/O HWY 86 Legal Description 2: Assessed .and Size: A4.1829 Rate Code: ~ 00 Land Value: $48420 Building Value• $0 Total Valuation: $48420 q i ! HELGEyO 244 PyE~g~7HFL4RL~S N H~LtS8OROU ~ ~":~ G.,, H~ 27278-8854 ~. y ~~ ~". r y ~` s .._ ~ ~ '~ .j ~;. ~~ ,y' . t fi.+ r; E ~ .._/ j~ ~ J,l ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ _ ~~ ' ~' ( - ~` t ~~ ` - ~Pp Pa-ed y~~ariessiWUlOi~~~C . Gty ~ r,~ra . ~ 70o rR . , . , ~-. ~tY Atannhe~ y~fied ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~a~r; ~~'~- ~oodway ~P~In (r-~;ya,~•o o~~io~j 0 ed MsPectton~ ~ . rr'~~~~=~mer,ts, ~ ~ ~so°~~ y~aa~n(ErrAC~,,dozrolio~~ , ~ ~n~'` 104.39 feet 4s a--wgy - ~18 Attachment 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT . Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director • ~eont a[ or Current Planning ~° °°p ~ 306E Revere Road (919} 245-2575 ~ ~T P O BOX 8181 (919} 64~-3002 (FAX) ~. Hillsborough, WVVW.co.orange.nc.us ~'°~rb E6L01~~6 North Carolina, 27278 CERTIF.~CATION OF MAILUITG ZONING ATLAS AMENDN.t~NT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Michael D. Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HERCBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20} of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, by certified mail a Notice of Public Hearing to be held regarding the processing of a Zoning Atlas Amendment petition initiated by Planning Staff and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Charles and Mary Beth Helgevold, to rezone portions of their property at 214 Phelps Road (TMBL 2.46..40H /PIN 9866-58-5983) in the following mariner: a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of the subject property fram Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of the subject property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) The owners were identified according to the Tax Records and as required by Article Twenty (20), of the Orange County •Zoning Ordinance. • The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 6th day of February 2009. is a ICP, CZO '~"- ning Enfo ement Officer • 19 2'0 21 Or?ANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, A1CP, Director Gurrenf Planning (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (~Ax) www.co.orange.nc.us February 6, 2009 306E Revere Road P 4 Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A REZONING PETITION In accordance with Article Twenty (20} of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, please accept this letter as written notice that the Orange County Planning Department and Mr. and Mrs. Charles and Mary Beth Helgevold, the property owners, have petitioned the Orange County Beard of Commissioners to rezone a portions of their four and a half (4~ %z} acre parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road (TMBL 2.46..40H 1 PIN 9866-58-5983} in the following manner: ~ . a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of the subject property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) fo Agricultural Residential (AR), and '• b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of the subject property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from Agricultural Residential (AR) to ~ Existing Commercial Five (EC-a'7 (Please refer to attached map) ~ ~ The Orange County Board of Commissioners are scheduled to review this request during a PUBLIC IHEARTI~TG scheduled for Febrarary 23, 2Q09 at 7:30 pm. to be held at the Central _ Orange Senior Center located at.103 Meadowlands Drive i» Hillsbarortgh, North Carolina. According to' County Tax Records, you own property within five hundred. (500) feet of the property,. As a result, you }nave the right to express any and all concerns, or support, concerning this request. This Notice is being sent to inform you of the rezoning request and invite you to • attend the PUBLIC HEARING on February 23, 2009. If you would like more information on the • proposal, or have any questions, please contact staff at (919) 245-2607. lvlicha i D. Harvey AI , CZO • Zoning Enforcement Officer Orange County Planning Department 22 S t A~perh, Existing lar~~ ~ r ~ zoned EC 5a °Nar~ti~. NEtG ---~u~ a and Mq~~ C~tES ry 214 PH~~,Pg RD ~ ROUt,`t•% 1VG 27278-89.54 ~~lsh~~~'~o6tat~d r ~ .E~ PrP a~~~ C°+mh AQeiay%~ J~, ~ m' ~fBCypp02t11.a~i~.~. ' a„8d,g$~ i ,~~~:~^' Ca• '~ ' ~ r-MS~~24fi qQN 3 23 ATTACIEIlVIENT FOUR (4) -LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of properly 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 properly 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 of>•icial 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): I~EG~VfVING at a sfaks, sQid stc~lte beif~~ file i~a~lieast c-a~ner of ~i~~es Nslgs~ld's I`C-~ ~Rt=~ and j ._. ~ ~ ~ ,...~, , . ofd fire catlt~ol catnsr :~f P~ ~4 1.7r~, ~~~nati thl?nc~ ~nttth Qf p~3~ West il~~t)~ to c?n ir~i stoke, the i~rthl~~t co~~ at Lllli~t~ l~cl(se, fh~cs ~~trtillin youth ~t~~€~~" 4trest 3t~,~~` ~ ~ irah stake, stake being an the northern rt~ht-cif-gray of Phelps ~d., cQntinu~tq f~ the ~enttsr ~f the right-~f wa~- South 01'~~'~~~ West 3,~.t~~` to a point, thence IVarth 8~`3~'~7h hest t3~~39' ait~ng the venter of Phelps Rd, to ~ pa~tF thence North f~E~1'1f~" ~~t ~0 ~~' tQ the northern i=igh#-~f-wry of f~he[pe Rd, fo ~ stake, thence North t~`~3'~i~ fast i~~.9~' to a paint, thence North l~l',~l'~~~ host )8~,~~' to ~ etake,. sold stoke being the Nartheest carne of Charles ~ Mary Beth Helge~al~, thence North t~ti06',~~f` f=ast f~0,~~' to a paint, thence North ~S'~3"I~~~ E;aSt fi1,~9' to the paint and place of I~E~INNIN~, 24 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 11, 2.2.14.3 and the last paragraph and said that this would give County-initiated amendments a different status. She said that the County amendments should be treated the same as others. She noted several places where there were differences. Commissioner Jacobs said that at the beginning with the Board of County Commissioners' responsibilities should be to provide direction to the Planning Board. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Annual Report on page 6 and said that the County Commissioners have supposedly been getting annual reports about subdivision activity in Orange County. He does not recall seeing these recently. He challenged staff to have a master list of annual reports that have been promised. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 10, 2.2.14.2, Creation of New Activity Nodes. He asked about the size of the current activity nodes. Craig Benedict said that an activity node now is 200-300 acres. Ten acres would be very minor in comparison. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Gordon that the County should not be treated differently than members of the public as far as making application. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the notice in the newspaper and said that the dense text does not communicate very well to the public. He suggested discussing this and coming up with a better way to communicate with the public on these issues. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is pleased that there can be oral evidence at Planning Board meetings. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to 2.4.2 on page 20 and said that he would like to add a legal department and Environment and Resource Conservation to the Development Advisory Committee. Jay Bryan said that there needs to be consideration of another approach regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He would hate to see minimal changes coming in piece meal without notifying the people (i.e., boards and organizations) that have been involved in it. He suggested thinking of a way for a certain volume of amendments to be grouped together and that the notification process goes out to all of the boards and groups involved. Judith Wegner made reference to page 10 and the purposes for possible amendments and said that there would probably be other reasons for amendments. She made reference to 2.2.14.6 and 2.2.14.7 and said that she agrees with having the oral evidence presented. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a recommendation be submitted back to the BOCC in time for the April 21, 2009 BOCC meeting and adjourn the public hearing until April 21, 2009 to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 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'h acres •Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Agricultural Residential, Little River Protected Watershed, •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. 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 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive-thru facilities.