Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-016-Planning Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) 214 Phelps Road -_ _ _ _ - _ __ RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD Date: May 19, 2009 Applicant/Owner: Charles and Nancy Helgevold The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC° or "Board") herby approves an Application For Zoning Atlas Amendment (the "Application°) to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning Atlas (the "Atlas"), submitted by Charles and Nancy Helgevold, (the "Applicant") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below: 1. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and 2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5 The property is further ident~ed by the following legal description: Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR): BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of the subject property and also a control corner of the subject property per PB 54/178 running west to an iron stake 270.23 feet thence continuing south 05'46'04 West 100.69 to a point thence running west 341.50 feet to an iron stake thence continuing north 01'06'32 east 100.75 feet and incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently depicted on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5): BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of Charles Helgevold's EC-5 Area and also the control corner per PB 54/178 running thence South 01'06'32° West 175.03' to an iron stake, the Northwest corner of Lillian McKee, thence continuing South 01'06'32° West 316.26' to an iron stake, stake being on the northem right-of-way of Phelps Road, continuing to the center of the right-of--way South 01'06'32" West 33.02' to a point, thence North 85'38'37° West 132.39' along the center of Phelps Road to a point, thence North 08'37'18" East 30.05 to the northern right-of--way of Phelps Road to a stake, thence North 06'03'21 East 199.96' to a point, thence North 01'21'38„ East 182.58' to a stake, said stake being the Northeast corner of Charles and Mary Beth . ~ ~` Helgevold, thence North 01'06'32" East 100.75' to a point, thence North 88'53'06" East 111.89' to the point and place of BEGINNING. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the appropriateness of the Application: 1. That the Application is complete in accordance with the submittal requirements detailed within Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, spec~cally 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 peti#ion 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 19~' day of May, 2009. Noes: Don Baker, erk to BOCC _. _. __ 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 CIiARLES 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 19th day of May, 2009. Ayes: ~p ~, i~,/.~(.e~•-r. - c~`1'''`'r`~ Donna Baker; ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 2flfl9 Action Agenda Item Na. ~- ~' Gi~ SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezonin ) - 214 Phelps Road DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: {Y/N} Yes ATTACHMENTS}: CONTACT INFORMATION: 1. Map of Subject Property Michael Q. Harvey, Planner 245-2607 2. April 1, 2009 Planning Board Minutes Graig Benedict, Qirector 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 46,50Q square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five ~EC- 5} to Agricultural Residential (AR), and b. Rezone a 46,5Q0 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 opera~on on the property prior to their moving to the area in the late 1970'x, 2. They did not understand haw there could be commercial development allowed on the property, 3. They thought it would be better to move the commercial operation to the rear of the property, which was already zoned to allow for commercial development, rather than rezone the portion on properly 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 BQARD 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 aver 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 bjr 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. ADM[NISTRATIt}N RECQMMENDATlON: 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 approva! 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-residentia! 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 Thi•ee (3}} and Resolution of Rezoning Approval (Attachment Four (4}}. ~ ~GL ~~~ Yh~~ps ~~,ad e t1'! P Caper~t' MaP R~a~nm~nt Qn E ~~ ~''~ "~~~~ - " ~ ~ op~~a~ion. ~ t~nds~ P ~ ~o~~~ on~~ ~~ ~ ~~~,~ . ~ ~~ ~.--- ~~ ~~~y~ct pr~~ ~~; ..~ ;\ ~. s ~~ .` ' i' f ' ~E , `i 1', _.. ../4 s• •I F,Xt'F.RPT nF THE APRH: 1.2(!09 PLAN111iNCt Rt?ARTI M[N[1TF,R 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 4 l0 11 12 13 ]4 1.5 I6 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 7& 27 28 29 30 31 3Z 33 34- 35 36 37 38 34 40 4l 42 43 44 45 4fi 47 48 49 50 5l 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 MtNUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ARIL 1, 2049 REGULAR MEETING Attachment 2 ~-.::/ MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large {Chair}; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks Township; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough- Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hitl Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy MCNeilt, Ena Township STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant It OTrrERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Kim Callemyn, Charles Helgevold, Ethan Hetgevold AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING AnAS AMENDMENT-294 PHELPS ROAD To consider a recommendation to the B{?CC regarding this item heard at the February 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. •Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Harvey: Good evening, you have attached to your memorandum a map of the subject propeRy. It is attachment one. Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan is attachment two. The resolution of rezoning petition approval is attachment three, attachment faun is Statement of Inconsis#ency with Comprehensive Plan, and finally is attachment free resolution of rezoning petition denial. As the Board will recall this was presented at the February Quarterly Public Hearing, a petition to rezone a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road. With respect to the current zoning of the property, as staff testified during the pubi'~c hearing there is approximately a 46,500 sq. ft. portion of the property zoned EC-5, which stands for Existing Commercial Five, and the remaining acreage of the property is zoned AR, Agricu!#rual Residential. The property is also zoned Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District. The pet~ian proposes, calling your attention to attachment one which is the map, to rezone a 46, 500 sq. ft. portion of the property to Existing Commercial 5. This is the area of the property currently utilized to support an existing commercial landscape operation. Further, the petition call for the rezoning of the existing portion of property zoned Existing Commercial 5 back #o Agricultural Residential as there is no non-residential land use an that portion of 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 mapping error. Existing Commercial Five is a zoning designation That was imposed on properties during initial zoning of townships to ensure that existing non-residential operations were not made non-conforming and to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. For some unknown reason, the property was not properly designated on the official zoning atlas that we 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 where there is no commercial activity and the portion of the property that there is commercial activity is zoned residential making it technically illegal land use. As we discussed during the 4uarterly Public Hearing, the original official zoning atlas for the township as approved by the County show their entire parcel zoned EC-5. As denoted on the official zoning atlas utilized in 1994, the entire property was zoned Existing Commercial Five. You will also note on the o~ zoning atlas references to an amendment that was done in 2001, to r:orrect a map error that resulted from a subdivision of property that was approved in 1993. Somehow this designation was not property shown on the current, legaNy utilized zoning atlas that staff digitized and produced several years ago. What we're trying to do is correct that mistake. As the Board may remember during the Public Nearing, local residents commented that there was not a commercial operation on the property prior to them moving there in the late 1970s, They expressed concern they did not understand how there could be commercial zoning allowed in this area. They suggested that it would be better to move the commercal operation to the rear of the property where there is Existing Commercial zoning and they expressed that they were not supportive of the proposal. As staff had testified to at a Quarterly Public Hearing, at! we can indicate is that in the Minutes, as well as the official zoning map adopted during that time, there was a landscape operation inexistence, which is why the property was zoned as such. As we testified during the Public Hearing there was correspondence #rom Mary Willis, who was the current planning supervisor at the time, indicating that this is one of the EC-5 properties that was 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 O 64 commercal 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 commeraal use of residentially zoned property now, which is something that is prohibited by zoning 63 ordinance. ff we require Mr. HelJevold to move his operation to the rear of the property that would mean that the entrance and b4 the main drive access to the commercial land uce would be on residentially zoned property. That's not consistent with the zoning 6S ordinance and is currently not consisten# with the Comprehensive Flan. 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 ~ the ground, wi#h 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 Flan and with 69 attachment three approve the resolution of rezoning petition of approval and forward your recommendation back to the County 74 Commissioners.. I'll answer any question you may have at this time. 7I 72 Jeff Schmitt: How long has this existing operation been in effect that`s there currently? 73 74 Michael Harvey: We have documentation that staff rximpleted inspections in 1998, 2401, and 2003 and identified that the 75 operation was in existence at that time. There is testimony saying that the landscape operation was in existence prior to the 76 comprehensive zoning of the township back in 1994 so it`s been a continuous operation at least since 1994, we have done 77 inspections to prove that it has been a continuous operation. 78 79 Jeff Schmitt; is it the same property owner? $4 $1 Michael Harvey: Yes. $2 $3 Jeff Schmitt: So he's had-this since the 70s. $4 $5 Michael Harvey: tJa, he`s had it since 1994. He purchased the property in 1991. He began the business in 1993. $6 There was no zoning of this property until 1994. He purchased ti and began the business prior to our zoning of the township. 87 $$ 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 arcumstances, the direct answer #o 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 pro~rty in further wmpliance with existing buffer regulations because that whole area is going to 9$ 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 akx-g Phelps Road and around an existing mulch pile. IYs something we're going to be pursuing 144 with him but the problem Mr. Heigevold is going to have is that #echnicalty he can't do anything until we resolve the zoning issue. 141 142 Larry Wrigh#: Right, l was just wondering if the buffers were there. it wouldn`t leave him much roam to do much. 143 14~ Michael Harvey: It doesn't but he is going to be establishing some buffers to address same concerns his neighbors have 145 expressed at the Quarterly Public Hearing but he voluntarily suggest some buffering to address some of our concerns. 146 147 Lany Wright; Sa the County would work with him on that? 148 149 Michael Harvey: Yes, the County is not going to get the 100 ft. buffer normally required for this type of deve~pment. We`re not 114 going to try to oppose it on him but we are going to require buffering. 111 112 Morrow 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, 1 I S VorE: unanimous 11.6 1 i 7 Michael Harvey: The applicant is here, I just wanted to make the Board knew they were here. ] l 8' 2 cv 119 Brian Crawford: Thank you sir for coming. 120 12 I Mr. Helgevold: Thank you for fhe approval. 122 3 ', ATTACHMENT THREE (3} - Statement of Consistency: I Q STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 1S3A-341. REGARDING A APPLICATION OF A14tENDMENT TO TI-IE ORANGE COUNTYLONING ATLAS FOR CIARI.~ES 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 Raad in the follo~Jing manner: l . Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential {AR}, anal 2. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-S The parcel is identified more particularly in the application for amendment submitted by the Applicant. The Orange, County Baard of Commissioners _ has _determned that the amendment .requested, if approved, will be consistent with Orange County's adapted Comprehensive Pian and the Baard of Catnmissioners proposed action. an the amendment applied far is reasonable and in the public interest far the following reasons: l } The praposed Amendment wilt allow far 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 properly •consistent with the. land use category designation identified for the area within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Adapted by the Orange County Baard. afCommissioners 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: ApplicantlOwner. Charles and Nancy Helgevold The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County {hereafter "BQCC" or "Board") herby approves an Application For Zoning Atlas Amendment (the "Application"} to the Grange County Zoning ordinance (the "ordinance"} and the Orange County Zoning Atlas (the "Atlas"}, submitted by Gharfes and Nancy Helgevald, (the "Applicant"} to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described mare fully_belaw: 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 {Eli-5} to Agricultural Residential (AR): BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest earner of the subject property and also a control comer 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 paint thence running west 341.50 feet to an iron stake thence continuing north 01'06'32 east 100.75 feet and incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently depicted on the official orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned Existing Commercial Five (EC-5} 0 Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential {AR} to Existing Commercial Five {EC-5}: `.1'iJ~1Q;~ ~`a Qr ~ Si.i:°! S~~t7 K~uK~ del i~ 'r2 i~'G~'.~E'~5i >~~f?~'i '~+ ur;~/~r I~E`c~2,'~'Q r C~-~1 ~~GA u",~i ~ ~ ~fC M f' t ! tr` h f f'C ~ t (-r r rn r>< f j fi ~ ~ F fi Y a '~ ~ i Zi to e! R ~ f t!!5u f.f..~!(~: ~U~I ~i r~r t'.J J~~ ~?#, .G i,,i.l., ,~=rC. 5~~.~ L~ U~i~l ~'.SF ~I~,;r.. .u L:1 ..C.f S.~~P, F ft fhqQ ~'~;~fh nffrr (/+:~ryrrp( [~j ~itf/{r ( /~It ~r.r..f }~ '.1 *;!1 f''t//~~ i}~!'t~ ~~~r `` ~r4 T'n" ~/~ 7 t /^~ ' /~•• tp^f' t L , v. 1 IIt3. Lrf .lt. {~i I.li.t I~l..t~~~ f.l r:t~.t ..,s~.i LtN U .e 1iJ..t. !wf .s/>~LM I~i..it JI w,~V 1~ U~ 1tL71y .i1.I1F~ J }.~?~~ ~iG'~`~; ur rho n~`.~C~ t~yS'-~~-war Of r~'rG~~S ~v,, vG`I'"~~G i~ fhb svr•i~{ tiri rho r,~r~-,;`-'~ ~` f~. j to t7'A /A. ~f1 tnr ~rT + , @ }! t ~ rr7 ~~ ^ ~.: '~~ J r.!i 1',U s_,r~ ~ ~tt+ a~J~r v!U~?~~ r~(ST ~3.~1 _~ ~ ~„',1:, ~~~,~ir ,~J;t,? ~J>f~i„~ l~vSt i~2.~~ ~,~,'!s~ (f Y „~I~.Gf ;~, r,+„~vS ~! i , 'Y t ,'iry ~ AArrr~~tl~. t""'~ 11}~^ r ^ ~~e 1~ t . IfP ''f In ~_rif_ s~ nF "~ nir.¢- .~ ~ry R lt~, ~~ ~ G~if .I, .rYl~v "1~V: l f tit~v~ I~t ~ti~~ /~. ~+v ~~ t~iG ~.V l t~l~ ~ ~f•!; >f ~`J~ vi ~'.c-_4J ~J. tV +i i i t'. ff/~ h nr~~121^ '" Ern i } ~, ~ I+i k Pr 4' ~ '1' .1 ^ 1 } i i S.s7+t~ :~w?'C~ ~iti'~~1 ;ti; t !L'St f~~.~~ .C y ~:(t i,~~:l~~ +yir-.~ 4f~~~~3 !~~' ~~~.~~ ~0 ~ S,Uk~ ~r! ~ ; ~ +a ~!~t" CS C~ r C+ !~ ~' S 3r'd y ~ , r ~° '~ " r ui~ S,C~° ~.~~n ti ~ e t ~~ AI~ t,v f u( /~~~t~ ~+~. ~~J,Cr tt;h,~~y1~~ ft21~~y{~,~ iri~?6~1 L~Si Tp~ n -l~.ir~} ,}, r, ~n9 1 `1 a•GT ry r @~ ~!:.~d t~ ii~r ~r'i~E ~~IJ Y4V~v V` t1-Yry~ I~~il~+I` 1~~. ~4t .SF ti f', r! ., 4.IQ IvG 1~~1. ~U JV'~~ L~.lk s ~ C ~ r ' G t), } ~, i~7. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the fo_Ilowing 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 nan-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 property 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 Baard. of Commissioners this day of 2009. Ayes: 1~ Noes: Donna Baker, Glerk to BQCC ATTACHMENT F'1VE (5) - Statement of Inconsistency: STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSI'4~E PLAN PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE I53A-341 REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMEhTD1ti7:ENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZUNING ATLAS FUR CHARLES AND NANCY HELCEVOLD 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 pmperiy located at 214 Phelps Road in the following manner: 1. Rezone a 46,500 square fast portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-S} to Agricultural Residential (AR}, and 2. Rezone a 46,S00 square foot portion of property, currently utilized. to support a commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-S n Thee 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 Change 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 fallowing reasons: 1} That pursuant to Sectaon 20.3.2 (e} of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Board Ends 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 Ends 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 Boa"rd of Commissioners this day of 2x09. Ayes: Noes. 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 PETlTlON SUBMITTED BY CHARLES AND NANCY HELGEVOLD Date: ApplicarttltJwner: Charles and Nancy Helgevold is The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOGC" or "Board"} herby approves an Application Far 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 (EG-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 541178 running west to an iron stake 270.23 feet thence continuing south 05'4fi'04 West 100.69 to a point thence running west 341.50 feet to an iron stake thence continuing north 01 `06'32 east 100.75 feet and incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently depicted on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned Existing Commercial Five {EC-5) Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential {AR} to Existing Commercial Five {EC-5}: f3 J1`~i4¢~J t?~ 3 5i ~~~~ ~~f~ ~t~~P u~i'x tr ' n~}r .~i trf,`E'( `~' ~^~ "t'~ ~~"~~`r''~i1sS it^~ y~t~ C ~.'ii t~'..tt ir° ~Ui.t " .fu ~nPr ~c ~ ~ ~''1 ~ r rr,t'y ~ e ' ~ f t"+~ 'u"" 4`~; I' ~ " +. i'f (~, f f t' `~~ .f~ :L~.i t ~S°f'C_ ~;?1;~ lr1 ~~ ~~ ~``5t ~/~..i r~ Lr rr4n~ s"a~~ til't' ~~r~~frti~"~'Sr C~r~r G~ ! rsi'C it~C~~r~ i~°f:~£~ ~~i:?i.";,'~{~ ~G:~i;h t7i".u1'~~Sl~ ~L'a+ ,~',iv.t~• ?:s {}r t~Cf ~l~rt~~ ~'.O~G' GC' ~ ~! rho +~v!'~C~'+ f~~~'-~} 44~j~ ;!~ ~tC; ~ ~~,, vG+I'""~1Z,"~ i'J {~'£~ :~f (~' Ui jh r it ^r ^j ~::J'€~ U'l~},M~G t~i£'~t ~,~,li~~ ~'~ ~ ~vt'iT, i~+wY.`C~ #~',YI'~ i~~~~~~~ 1~`~5~ ~~1.~7j ;i~''~ i:'~~ ~6~i`.'~C ~'~ ~ri~iS ~~. iJ J G't~ir,I, it`~.'"~~~ ~1'U'~i a'~~"}~~ LOSi 3~,~~' i~'p~~~s t,{~r~~~,,p~..r','?}y±"f~y"~h~)-U!~-14~3j' k{ r(~;"q`Y~~'~ ~~, tC ,^i ~} ~ }py ,}'! ~ i ~ ,,fi~~,~,. F '~ !nn "" in n V~II~1,, ~h,~r,,^~ "iyf i}y Vf ~Lf,J~. tRt:f 1`.."L.~}~' ` R Jf ~~~~ r••;,! ~ Jre f:a~~ ~hc Ai ~a ci ref x ~t t'~ ~ ~ ^ ~F f s tfr vrs ~, r! r.y^~~~ " C „s,;; 5tC..., „~~, ~ t~"~ ;5~~:=~C,,. ~~,:,. G" " t~ i,.~ ~t i~Jt~° ..,,~'1 ~~.~'~"~,~, " ~~'1 „ ~C: ~ ~+ W ,~~ ~{~Sl r ~ t1 ~; ~iiii +~ ({jmt~~ ik; i Q 'K~ i 1 ~ K ~ i } itiAs' f €f r i fb ~f ~" +F.~{~ ST~.f t I ~ ~`~;~ Li L' ~{~~f i~:.t}~ :V lid{.' Ms+Fi~: ~+~W ~~4r ~; ~~ ~it3fY~7. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the den~a! of the Application: 1. That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e} of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the Application _ will no# 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 ~3, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes (~- 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD b QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 7 February 23, 2t}09 8 7:30 p.m. 9 I O The Orange County Board ofi Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board 11 met fior a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:30 12 p.m. at the Central t3range Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. 13 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners 15 Alice M. Gordan, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve 16 Yuhasz 17 COUNTY COMM{SSI4NERS ABSENT: 18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Genf Gledhill 19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Witlie Best and Qeputy Clerk to 20 the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identi#ied 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, it, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers 2s 2b 27 3. Zoning Atlas Amendment - 214 Phelps Road, To receive public comment on ~ the 2$ proposed following actions: 29 a. Rezone a portion of the property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing 30 Commercial Five (EC-5), 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 3d 3? AGENDA ITEM: C3 38 QUARTERLY PUBLIC NEARING 39 Review of a Zoning Atlas Petition 40 for a parcel. of property at 214 Phelps Road 41 (TMBL 2.46..40H /PIN 9866-58-5983j. 42 43 Property Vicinity Map: 44 APPLICATION SPECIFICS: 45 -Applicant: Planning Staff/Charles and Mary Beth Helgevald 4b -Address: 214 Phelps Road 47 •TMBL_ !PIN: 2.46..40H ! 9866-5$-5983 4$ -Size of Parcel: 4'lz acres 49 -Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5}, Agricultural Residential, Little River Protected 50 Watershed, c5 1 •Township: CEDAR GROVE 2 •Larid Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Agricultural Residential 3 4 Rezoning request: S 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 #o support a commercial 9 landscaping operation, from AR to EC-S 10 11 Surrounding Land Uses: 12 •NORTH: 13 Single-family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR. 1.4 I S •SUUTHJEASTJWEST: 16 Single-famly residential zoned AR. There are also several existing EC-5 and El zoned 17 properties in the area. 1$ 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 far the review of the application, 24 3. Staff believes that by re-configuring the existing EC-5 zoning lot on the property that the 2S mapping error can be corrected and the existing non-residential operation made 26 conforming with the Ordinance, 2? 4. The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent with the 28 goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 29 3Q 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 3~ a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five 3S (EG-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR}, and 36 b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of properly, 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 submi#ted written comments. 44 4S 46 PUBLIC CQMMENT: 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 SO happy for the cooperation of the County.- She was available to answer questions. ~~ 1. Sue Browning lives across the road from the applicant. She said that she was not aware 2 that there was ever a rezoning for an EC section of 46,000 square feet. She said that the 3 existing business is at the front, which is zoned AR. She said that this is a business in the 4 middle of a residential section, and she never understood how this happened. 5 Michael Harvey said that the landscaping operation began prior to the adoption of the 6 comprehensive zoning of the Cedar Grave Township. In effect, the property was "unzoned.° 7 The County created the EC-5 zoning designation in townships where initial zoning was taking 8 .place in an effort to ensure that legal operations would not be made non-conforming during 9 initial zoning. Regarding why the business cannot be moved, he said that the business is where I4 it is and the EC-5 designation should have been 4acated at the front portion of the property. if it 11 were moved it would create additional problems and an access issue. The cleanest way to fix 2 this problem is the recommendation. 13 Richard Browning said that before the Helgevold's came to this property, there was not a 14 business there. Michael Harvey explained the process again. I5 Richard Browning said that there is a huge pile of mulch there mast of the time. He does 1 G not see .how the business was allowed to begin with because there has never been a business 17 there. 18 Kathryn.Browning lives more than 540 feet away from the property and she can hear the 19 noise from the business and the heavy {wading equipment. She asked about future traffic flaw 20 as far as expansion of this with the rezoning. - 23 Michael Harvey said that the County has an existing noise ordinance enforced by the 22 Sheriffs Department. Regarding expansion, once the area is rezoned, it will be limited to this 23 portion of the property. There is a prohibition on expansion of existing EC-5. 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to 25 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the 26 Gounty Board of Commissioners in time far the May 19, 204 BOCC meeting, and adjourn the 27 public hearing anti{ May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's 28 recommendation and any submitted written comments. 29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 30 .~- ~ 1 "~iDD ~. s~~ 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 % 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 Y ~~ ~ 3 ~: 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: (YIN) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Application 2. Map of subject properly 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 property in question is approximately four and a half (4'/Z) 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 properly, 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: SOUTH/EASTNVEST: ~~1 Single family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR. Single-family residential zoned AR. REASON FOR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: In 1981 the County 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-S 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 the 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 identified Zoning Atlas error. NOTIFICATION 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 properly 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 Certification 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 Ofhcer 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 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. 3 4 to ~~.~,.~ D rtF C~~ A~ PP t't !a{c:vti C '~ ~~ 5~ ~~ lication For CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION pp Orange County Planning & Inspections ~ri8Iit8)C'a~ LTSe DISIPICI P.O. Box 8181 IiiiIsborough, NC 27278 Zoning Atlas Amendment 919.245-2575 r -FAX 419 644p-3010209 ~j - - ( n 1. I (We) ~ Garters ~~ 1iv,~ir'^( E~~ ~"~'~it ~~'~VOt6~ Owner CASE# Street Address City State Zip Cods Telephone do hereby petition to amend the Zoning Atlas of Orange County. ~. to the Zanin District ~ ~ ~ E Cr 2. By reclassifying from the Zoning Disyt~rict ~r ~r~ /~~hd~ ~ g 3. The property Iocated ~~ l~' ~`A is `~0~ . and having frontages} along bordering streets as follows ~A~ 4. Containing ~ `~ ~ 2 acres. c,~ 5. TMBL(s) ~' ~l~'• t'~.~ ~ FIN#(s) ~ ~`~~r~~ ~~ 6. I (V/E) 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. Owner(s) Signature(s): We aclmowledgo the provisions in ilie Zoning Ordinance fvr general use and planned developme/~nt~zon~ing and hereby proceed with a general use zoning petition. ,D ~ ~JG..> ~ ~ 1 Ca ~Da 8. If petition is executed by property owner, but au attorney or agent will handle public speaking, etc., please indicate: Attorney or Agent City State Street Address 9. Notification signs will be prepared and posted by the Planning Staffwhen the rezoning application is scheduled for Public Hearing. The required legal advertising is also handled far you by the Planning Staff. PLEASE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR SUBMITTAL OF YOUR. APPLICATION IMPORTANT: Only Applications with original signatures are considered complete. Faxed Applications NOT accepted. G tCu'reM Fhnning DivltionlFormrlGeneni Use App Form.doc t~~~©~~ ~ 5 6 Suy: Jett p~perfy - ,:.,:,. - :,,; . . xisftng tandsca :, s To ~ zoneq EC~e ot~erafion. ~' *~ y~yy 5 _~ _ .fit ' HELG am/ MgRY 8~k ARLES N ~' 2i4 P--~E~S Rp HILLSBpROUG _ :~«~~.~._ N, NC 2727&g881 lam: , ' 1, ~ shown an . _ h,. -., zj _ - ~ . GfS easel is krra~~ roep is abtatney wa :. ~ Zon,np ... ~' 5 Maps ~auw,9 ~ ~pa~aMy. ~`0"' Ornsa Co<n Sj ° ~ - ~ Pmpg~ 8a Co s shauW ~ eelrl v h xn Bw.,Cery ~ C`ty ~`'rt`6- ~~IOp YR F~°odAlatn '., . 1 ~ ~l'Pynn/n ~d SJ'~ ~Rd i q , ~F~Y1ve ~ " 0 831~PSCNo l~? 0~07~ : ass. ~lsons~n~: a°°"ay ecnve ~ ~: ~ Hey on E~eme ~ ~6pp YR 0LO1j~ i4p ~ Kam,; ~' i~hn~n .. "~. f -~ Fr°°dMein lEn~gne i inCn ~ 260 fr~~~ _- ~~~~' -~,~,~ 'ty '~I Q~ r~~ ovozo~ <, 153.15 feef Feet 4 6 -~.t,Fiy"S~}Z~ ~n ~.i-4~en tg .. F Y~ ~1 ~.- P-~ 9$x-58-5983 y 2.4&..40t{ •• ~..~.+ 8 SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 CHARLES HELGEVOLD CAN DO LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 214 PHELPS RD. HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 TM 2.46..40H EUGETVE Kt7VNEDY TRUSTEE ~ Z'~`'~ TIE TC NCGS 'KENNEDY ~ PlN 9688-59-0432 $3259'43'E DB ?397/473 3889.21' SCALE 0.9999941 287.92 ~i ~ CHARLES de MARY HFIGEVOID ^ ~ y48„qOH STRAY DOD FARM INC PIN 9888-58-5983 W 9888-59-9420 248..30 DB 840 104 ~ ~ 4 OB 4108/587 ' PB 54/178 PB 81/154 CONiROI. CORNER CONTROL C ORNER T n PB 100/61 /' 18 P 88 4 6 g e~ PB 103/193 E 8855 .05 N 7 ...,e.~...s.~ ~ .a a e... _ 1-s W /' ; 4.48 AC.~~pp ~ ,,' •' / ` Z ^ ;; / / cMw ` / ~ l iLl 24~8..40B ARY BETH HELCEIIOLD y'y ~/ /// / PIN 988 b8-3835 z ~ / DB 840//gg~~~~04 PB 81/iD4 / / // ~ PB f000000DDDDDD/81 / ZONED: AR ~ /~ / ~ ~ / Q 3 ~N 8888-58-8812 DB 88-E/- 9 -. 111 30.05' 1/ ~ ~ ~ ~ S02~05'2S'W ~°ASL1D$ 1?OAD N65~6'37'w .,:.~.,,.,.,+~- 33.02' SCALE 1" = 100' 100 0 1 ~ 100 pTtRT.TMTtyARY PLAT Not for Rernrdndon, Conveyance or Sales EC-5 AREA DESCRIP7)ON: BEGINNING at o stake, sold stake being the Northeast. comer of Charles Helgetaold's EC-5 AREA and olso the control comer per PB 54/178, runn/ng thence South 01716 32" West 175.03' to an Iron stake, the Northwest comer of L!lllan McKee, thence continuing South Of~6'32" West 316.26' to an /tort stake, stake being on the northern rfght-of--way of Phelps Rd.,' continuing to the center of the right-of-woy South 01 ~6 32" West 33 02' to o pont, thence North 8538'37" West 132.39' along the center of Phelps Rd. to a point. thence North 0857'18" East 30.05' to the northern right-of--way of Phelpa Rd. to 0 stake, thence North 06'032i` East 199.96' to a point thence North 011'38' East 182.58' to a stake, sold stake being the Northeast comer of Charles & Mary Beth He/gevo/d, thence North 01'06'32" East 100.75' to a paint thence North 8853'06" fast 111.89' to the point and p/oce of BEGINNING. Orange County ~um~-ary Inforguation PlN#: 9866580465 TMBL#: 2.46..66 • TRACT#: 246392 Tax Account: 181981 Street Address: 201 PHELPS RD Owner: SUMMEY ARTIS EUGENE Additional Owner: ~ & DIANNE T Mailing Address: 201 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH • Mailing State/Zip: C,27278-8951 Legal Description: #1 STEVE SUMMEY P60/lOS Legal Description. 2- AssessedLand Size: A1.27 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $31089 Building Value: $S6S21 Total Valuation: $87610 Orange County Sunaanary Infoxauation Mailing Addxess: 211 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zip: ~ NC,27278 Legal Descri tion: S/S SR 1 SS 1 • 9• 10 Orange County Summary Information Mailing Address: 221 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zi : NC,27278-8951 Legal Descri 'an: S/S SR 1551 Orange County Mailing Address: 30S PHELPS RD Mailin City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zip: C,272'78 Summary Information Orange County Summary Information pIN#; 9866681092 TMBL#: 2.46..46 • TRACT#: 202122 • Tax Account#: 114863 Street Address: 319 PHELPS RD Owner: DAVIS W1I.LIAM A Additional Owner: & HILDA R Mailing Address: 323 PHELPS RD ~ • Mailing Ci HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zip: NC,27278-8952 Legal Description: S/S SR 1551 P49/40 Legal Description 2: Assessed Land Size: A11.03 Rate Code: 00 Land Value• $92725 Building Value: ~ $75301 Total Valuation: $168026 • Orange County Summary Information PIN#: 9866694446 TMBL#: 2.46..30E TRACT#: 241959 Tax Account#: 227881 Street Address: 3301 SERENITY LN Owner: BRODIE JOSEPH O JR Additional Owner: 8~ KATHERINE R Mailing Address: 3301 SEREl~]ITY LANE Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zip: C,2'1278 Legal Description: #4 SEC 2 SERENITY P54I178 Legal Descri tion 2: ssessed Land Size: A10.44 • Rate Code: ~ ~ 00 Land Value: $106662 Building Value: $387024 Total Valuation: $406835.6 ~~ 12 Orange County Sum~anary Information PIN#: 9866681861 TMBL#: ~ 2.46..30D TR.A.CT#: ~ 241868 Tax Account: 244592 Owner: SWANGER TONY C Additional Owner: & MARY GATES BOYD *Note: INTEREST OWNERS EXIST Mailing Address; 5707 CABE FORD RD Mailing City: ~ DIJRI-IAM Mailing State/Zip: NC,27705 Legal Descri tion: #2 SEC 1 SERENITY PS4/145 egal Description 2: ' sensed Land Size: A2.OS to Code: ~ 00 Land Value: $42870 Building Value• $0 Total Valuation: ~ $42870 Orange County Summary Information 1N#~ ~ 9867509027 '1MBL#: 2.46..30B TRACT#: 221780 ax Account: 59419 Street Address: 312 PHELPS RD . Owner: WALTON DAVID EVERETT Additional Owner; & GAIL ailing Address: 312 PHELPS •RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zi ; NC,27278 al Description: /O SR 1551 Legal Descri tion 2: ~ CG TP Assessed Land .Size: A18.06 Rate Code: 00 Land Value; $121702 Building Value: $245945 Total Valuation: $367647 C)range County summary Information PIN#: ~ 9866599420 • TMBL#: ~ 2.46..30 TRACT#: 241958 Tax Account: 302702 Owner: KANXUA JOSEPH Additional Owner: Mailing Address: 187 LAUREL AVE ailing City: ON Mailing State/Zip: ~ NJ,07083 Legal Descri Lion: #3 SEC 2 SERENITY P54/1?8 egal Description 2: sessed Land Size: A11.21 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $82308 Building Value: $0 Total Valuation: ~ $82308 Orange County ~um>~aary Information P1N#: 9866588812 TMBL#: 2.46..31 TRACT#: 272604 Tax Account: 293376 Street Address: 304 PHELPS RD Cswner: MCKEE LILLIAN G Additional Owner: ' ' Mailing Address: 304 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH ' Mailing State/Zi : NC,27278-8952 Legal Descri tion: #A CHARLES HELGEVOLD P100/81 Legal Descri tion 2: Assessed Land Size: A1.86 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $38851 Building Value: $97167 Total. Valuation: $136018 13 14 Orange County Summary Information PIN#: 9866583835 L#: 2.46..40B TRACT#: 247665 Tax Accaunt#: 186295 Owner: HELGEVOLD CHARLES N Additional Owner: & MARY BETH Mailing Address: 214 PHELPS RD Mailing City:. HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zi : NC,27278-8951 Legal Descri tion: TR C CHARLES N HELGEVOLD Legal Description 2: ~ P61/154 Assessed Land Size: A3.2 e Code: 00 Land Value: ~ $55222 Building Value: $158898 ' otal Valuation: $214120 Orange County Summary Information PIN#: 9856591014 'TMBL#: 2.46..63 ' TRACT#: 275097 ax Account: 306609 Owner: PAGE JEFFERSON D Additional Owner: & SUSAN B ailing Address: 112 PHELPS RD ailing City: HILLSBOROUGH ' g State/Zip: NC,27278 e al Descri Lion: 2 IIELGEVOLD P103I193 Legal Description 2: Assessed Land Size: A3.46 Rate Code: 00 Land Value: $58298 Building Value: $179412 Total Valuation: $237710 Orange County Summary Information IN#~ 9866488975 TMBL#: 2.46..63E TRACT#: 268127 Tax Account: 267502 Street .Address: 118 PHELPS RD Owner: BRILEY BILLY G clditional Owner: & JUDITH D Mailing Address: . 118 PHELPS RD Mailing City: HILLSBOROUGH ailing State/Zi : NC,27278 gal Descri tion: #2A JEFFERSON & SUSAN PAGE • egal Description 2: P92/79 . ssessed Land Size: A2.16 ate Code: 00 Land Value: $74474 Building Value: $79730 Total Valuation: ~ $ i 54204 Orange County Summary Inforrmation PIN#: 9866496245 TMBL#: 2.46..32 TRAG'I'#: 272934 Tax Account: 296622 • Street Address: 3221 NC 86 N Owner: ALVIS JOY E Additional Owner: & CHRISTOPHER M (I-~ Mailing Address: 3221 HWY 86 N ailing City: HILLSBOROUGH Mailing State/Zi NG,27278 • Legal Description: 1 MARILYN LOFTIN P100/194 Legal Description 2: Assessed Land Size: A3.03 • Rate Code: 00 ' Land Value: $51077 • Building Value: $43613 Total Valuation: $94690 • 15 ,. 16 Orange County Summary Information p~#; 9866590432 TMBL#: 2.46..33A TRACT#: 232117 Tax Account: ~ 181057 Owner: - KENNEDY EUGENE WELBORN TR Additional Owner: & SANDRA KENNEDY MUNDY TR *Note: INTEREST OWNERS EXIST Mailing Address: ~ 3313 86N 'ling City: ~ ~ HILLSBOROUGH - Mailing State/Zip: NC,27278 egal Descri tion: E/O HWY 86 Legal Description 2: Assessed Land Size: A4.1829 Rate Code: ~ 00 Land Value: $48420 Building Value: $0 Total Valuation: $48420 N d .rte. ~r ~ , .7~' ~' ~:,.- x '. u t~ L J ''I, :, J ~, .._ ~:, ~; a y,~n~ ~ rwrot~es,~ +acbt~,~,h~ 4 `~'l ~~" J Jm ,~ ~ '~~~~ y* : tOp y~ Fwd,,, _ ~P Prepg ~aoShould pa e ~ ~f' ._ nay J F,oopNay Eflpl~n(Ef(eghaF020?/p~~ ~ __ ~9dhlsPeCdoog, ( ~'B UZip~, ,~ ~vtcnEa `_~~' 6ppYR ~' ~1' Clho~ ~~~ ' FJ~n (ER ~, :: a co„ ~- ~ e~~n9s ncu,.a n~a My ~ r men «t'r. . "~ z _ ~ inq~ a 104.3•• • p- N' 9866_ ``" ~ ''~. r~ 2.46 40H 3 A,u ~ ..~ ~~ g .. Attachment 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT . Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ,0nte or Current Planning mom`&, ®~°°. ~ 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~ u ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us ~,,b ~.~~''p` North Carolina, 27278 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Michael D. Harvey, Zoning .Enforcement Officer with Orange County, North. Carolina, DO HEREBY 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 from 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. V~iTITNESS my hand, this 6th day of February 2009. 19 -- ,~ 2 ~~o ~ 2~( ~ ement Officer 2'4 21 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT • Graig N. Benedic#, AICP, Director Curren# Planning (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) www.co.orange.nc.us February 6, 2009 306E Revere Road P O 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 Board of Commissioners to rezone a portions of their four and a half (4 '/a} acre parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road (TMBL 2.46..40H /PIN 9866-S8-S983) in the following manner: a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of the subject property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and ~ b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of the subject property, contently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from Agricultural Residential (AR) to ~ Existing Commercial Five (EC-S) (Please refer to attached map) ~ The Orange County Board of Commissioners are scheduled to review this request during a PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for February 23, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. to be held at the Central ! Orange Senior Center located at.103 Meadowlands Drive iu Hillsborough, North Carolina. According to • County Tax Records, you own property within five hundred (500) feet of the property., As a result, you have 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. • "~- tC ~ ~ • Micha 1 D. Harvey AI , CZO • Zoning Enforcement Officer • Orange County Planning Department 22 s#'~°~' ~ Exts#jn9l~d To be zoned E~~ °pera#ion, ---emu ~ i ~ a nd MAR~°y ;gE7ii ARIES iy 214 PHEr,pS H14ISBpRO~H NG 27278,8851 ~-a~__. ~~ oyy°~pnmtkan~Gw o~;~,• ~ ' a ky~p~nabyp ~Pxn~~~HQet~ ~~-e~wepypj~ 0 ~0p+rtto~s. =y"•tE~e~-e `~+t'~. • ~ 230 46 e~(~ecyv80~, ? 7n~yta,~BB ~ I .,, ~'~; :S ~~ 2.4$..40N 3 23 ATTACifIlV]fENT FOUR (4) -LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR): BEGINNING at a stake, said stake being at the Northwest corner of the subject property and also a control corner of the subject property per PB 54/178 running west to an iron stake 270.23 feet thence continuing south 05'46'04 West 100.69 to a point thence running west 341.50 feet to an iron stake thence continuing north 01'06'32 east 100.75 feet and incorporating approximately 46,500 square feet of land area currently depicted on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas as being zoned Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) Rezoning of a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5): _._.. -- ~EG[NN1NG ~# u sfakc, said ~takp hein~ ttie Norttleiist Corner ai Charles Flel~avQld s ~C-~ ~4Rt=A yid .. also the cantroi comer ~~ Pty 54/178, rl~nnlri~ fhepce Sotath Ci'(1~~3~" West 1~~;()~' to an lran 5fgke, the -rtiiwest caret cf L~licn Ma~ee~ tl~anae a~lflnl~in~ Bauth C1'C~`~~" West ~15,~5` to ~ lroh ~f4ke, stake being an the northern right-caf-way of Ph~p$ ~d., cQntin~ing ~~ the center ~~ #h~ right-af way South Ol'CS'32" West 33,02' #~ a poln#, thence North S~'3~'37~ West 13,~.~9' alt~nr~ ~~ center of Phelps R~, to a point, (hence North 1~8~~'t$" tryst 3Q.C~` to the northern righ#-~f-way of Phelps ~d, fo 0 s#ake, thence North 0~`C3'~i~ last 19~~~5' to a pcr`nt, thence Nor#h Cf'21'38~ fast fB~,56` #a a stake, saki stake 6eing the Nort~eost cornea of Charles ~ Mary Beth ilelgevold, thence North r7ii~6'~2~° Bast 1CC,~S' to a pain#, thence North ~5`53'CCi~ Bast fifi.B~' #c the po(nt and place of BBClNN1NG, 24 h ~ -~-a ~ C3 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'/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 Surrounding Land Uses: •NORTH: Single-family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR. •SOUTH/EASTM/EST: 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.