Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-013-Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning -4115 Old NC10 JonesORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Oae. s~ -aao ~ ~rJ J3 ~- ~,b Action Agenda Item No. S - b SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) - 4115 Old NC 10 {Jones) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Map of the Subject Property 2. Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 3. Resolution of Rezoning Approval 4. Statement of Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan 5. Resolution of Rezoning Denial 6. November 24, 2008 QPH Minutes 7. January 14, -2009 Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607 Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation on and consider approval of a petition submitted to rezone a 2.8 acre parcel of property located at 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL 5.26..40 /PIN 9893-00-8606) from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1 ). BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the November 24, 2008 quarterly public hearing. Staff testified the property was zoned General Commercial Four (GC-4) when the Eno Township was initially zoned by the County on March 2, 1970 due to the operation of a garage/body shop. In the 1980's the County rezoned the property to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) in an effort to bring the property into compliance with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The body shop was closed sometime in the late 1990's. The property owner testified they were unaware the property was zoned EC-5 and that they have no interest in or intention of developing or operating anon-residential land use on the property. Staff indicated during the hearing there had been no opposition to the zoning atlas petition and recommended approval of the petition rezoning the subject property to Rural Residential One (R-1 ). PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its January 14, 2009 regular meeting. During the meeting there was consensus among the Board members that staff needed to continue to be proactive in identifying any similar zoning related problems and working with. the various property owners to address them. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning petition finding that: a. The Zoning Atlas Petition was complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance. b. Per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner had identified appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning Atlas Petition reasonably necessary in promoting the public health, safety, and genera! welfare. Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the property to support asingle-family residential development rather than allow for the development of anon-residential land use. c. Per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board found the approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition would carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation on a parcel of property where there was not anon-residential land use in operation. By approving the petition, the use of the property to support asingle-family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses as well as the land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. d. The Board recommended approval of the Statement of Consistency and Resolution of Rezoning Approval as provided by staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This regtyest has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined the approval of the request will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the BOCC take the following actions: 1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation, 2. Deliberate further on the proposed zoning atlas petition, 3. Close the public hearing, and 4. Approve the zoning atlas petition by: a. Approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment Two (2)), and b. Approving the Resolution of Rezoning Approval (Attachment Three (3)). USGS vVibr FoLrs &d4lSurveY VVaex Fwspre ..n.~... OC tlpdHed YMNer FwWn ~~~ WY4rBody ( ~` filvsr Bastes PnoN L~.! TbwmshMp Sclaoi System Boundary Conlows :•. i Spik '";,~~ zonr,o ~ too rR Fbodpl~ cEtreu~. tr~ayo7- ' CKy t Ftoodi.,~yr ~ 0¢102!07) 1 incA ~ 197.73 feet ~l j ~d ~r~f G soo rn Fwoav+.d+ cE~rae+rre ouor~a~y tkW Oy t~YieMSE~ `~ p~~~ tFanpaCaunty ~ .~., ~8~~-OQ~g~ t:anaavason E.assnantr ~ 5.26..40 I + Attachment ©ne ~'t ): PrvN~. _,, ATTACHMENT TWO (2) - Statement of Consistency: o ,Q~ , abn ~ - ~ i~ ~Noi~~t~~N~b STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341 REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS FOR DENNIS AND TRACY JONES Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Dennis and Tracy Jones, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a two point eight (2.8) acre parcel of real property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1). The .parcel is identified more particularly in the application for amendment submitted by the Applicant. The Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that the amendment requested, if approved, will be consistent with Orange County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Board of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment applied for is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1) The proposed Amendment will allow for the development of a parcel of property within the County consistent with existing overall policies and development strategies embodied within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, specifically: a. The proposed Amendment will eliminate 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, and b. The proposed Amendment will allow for the continued use of the property consistent with the land use category designation identified for the area within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC 0 Date: RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND TRACY JONES ApplicantlOwner: Dennis and Tracy Jones The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC" or "Board") herby approves an Application For Zoning Atlas Amendment (the "Application") to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning Atlas (the "Atlas"), submitted by Dennis and Tracy Jones, (the "Applicant") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below: FROM: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) TO: Rural Residential One (R-1) The property is further identified by the following legal description: BEGINNING at a stake located at the intersection of the south side of the Hillsborough University Road with the centerline of an abandoned road known as the old Durham and Hillsborough Road (now Old NC 10 (SR 1710)) as shown on a plat and survey hereinafter referred to, and running thence with the centerline of the said old Durham and Hillsboro Road South 76° 10' West 747 feet to a stake in the center of said road; thence North 17° 30' East 362 feet to the south side of Hillsboro-University Road; thence with the south side of said Hillsborough-University Road South 74° 50' East 666 feet to the BEGINNING, containing 2.8 acres, more or less, and being a portion of the property described in Deed Book 120 at page 369, Orange County Registry. !n accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the appropriateness of the Apptication: 1. That the Application is complete in accordance with the submittal requirements detailed within Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2; 2. That per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner have identified appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning Atlas Petition reasonable necessary in promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare. Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the property to support asingle-family residential development rather than allow for the development of anon-residential land use. 3. That per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition would carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation on a parcel of property where there is no non-residential land use in operation. By approving the petition, the use of the property to support asingle- family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses as well as the land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC ATTACHMENT FOUR (4) -Statement of Inconsistency: STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341 REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS FOR DENNIS AND TRACY JONES 0 Orange County has received and reviewed a Zoning Atlas Petition, submitted by Dennis and Tracy Jones, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a two point eight (2.8) acre parcel of real property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1). The parcel is identified more particularly in the application for amendment submitted by the Applicant. The Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that the amendment requested if approved will be inconsistent with Orange County's adopted comprehensive plan, and the Board of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment applied for is not reasonable and not in the public interest for the following reasons: 1) That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Board finds that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment will not carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof 2) That the Board finds that the proposed amendment will result in land uses that are not similar to existing development as the existing land uses surrounding the project are residential in nature. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC ATTACHMENT FIVE (5) -Resolution of Rezoning Denial: RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO DENY AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR A REZONING PETITION SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND TRACY JONES Date: ApplicantlOwner: Dennis and Tracy Jones 0 The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC" or "Board°) herby approves an Application For Amendment (the "Application") to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning Atlas {the "Atlas"), submitted by Dennis and Tracy Lee, (the "Applicant) to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below: FROM: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) TO: Rural Residential One (R-1) The property is further identified by the following legal description: BEGINNING at a stake located at the intersection of the south side of the Hillsborough University Road with the centerline of an abandoned road known as the old Durham and Hillsborough Road (now OId NC 10 {SR 1710)) as shown on a plat and survey hereinafter referred to, and running thence with the centerline of the said old Durham and Hillsboro Road South 76° 10' West 747 feet to a stake in the center of said road; thence North 17° 30' East 362 feet to the south side of Hillsboro-University Road; thence with the south side of said Hillsborough-University Road South 74° 50' East 666 feet to the BEGINNING, containing 2.8 acres, more or less, and being a portion of the property described in Deed Book 120 at page 369, Orange County Registry. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the denial of the Application: 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. 0 This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC Attachment 6 10 Excerpt From Approved 11/24/08 QPH Minutes APPROVED 1/22/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 24, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m, in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT• Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT; Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Samantha Cabe, Nathan Chambers, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mary Bobbitt Cooke, Larry Wright, Jeffrey Schmitt, and Tommy McNeill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Jay Bryan, Brian Crawford, and Joel Knight 3. REZONING of a parcel of aroaerly at 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL 5 26 40 /PIN 9893-00- 8606) from Existing Commercial Five (EC-51 to Rural Residential One (R-11 Michael Harvey made this presentation. Review of a petition to REZONE a parcel of property at 4115 Old NC 10 from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1) Property Vicinity Map (picture) APPLICATION SPECIFICS: •Applicant: Planning StafflDennis and Tracy Jones •Address: 4115 Old NC 10 •TMBL !PIN: 5.26..40 / 9893-00-8606 •Size of Parcel: 2.8 acres •Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) Lower Eno Protected Watershed, •Township: ENO •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Rural Residential •Proposed Zoning: Rural Residential One (R-1) -entire parcel i1 Surrounding Land Uses: •NORTH: Across Old NC 10 there are several properties zoned R-1 with one (1) parcel zoned EC-5. •SOUTH/EAST/WEST: Properties are zoned R-1. There are several single-family residences surrounding the property. Request: •Rezone property from EC-5 to R-1, •The property owner has indicated that they are unsure why the property was zoned EC-5, •They are currently utilizing the property for residential purposes, •They have no interest in maintaining the commercial zoning designation on the property Zoning Officer Analysis: •The application is deemed to be complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2, •The applicants have no interest, or intent, in developing/operating acommercial land use from the property. This represents a changing condition that makes the rezoning request reasonable as required under Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Ordinance, •The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which has the area designated as Rurat Residential, as required under Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance. Staff Recommendations: •Receive the rezoning petition, •Conduct the public hearing to hear and consider public comment, •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009, and •Adjoum the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation Commissioner Gordon said that the Statement of Consistency should be Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Jacobs said that, as part of the Land Use Plan Update/Implementation, there should be a systemic review and approach to everyone with an EC designation to see if they are still~valid. Staff answered that this is currently ongoing. There are 20 properties now under study. PUBLIC COMMENT: Dennis Jones said that he had no idea when he bought the property that it had an EC-5 zoning. He wants it to go back to residential zoning. Jeffrey Schmitt asked if there was any way that these 20 some properties could be wrapped together and Michael Harvey said that they would each need their own rezoning petition. is A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to receive the rezoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Attachment 7 1 Excerpt From Approved 01/14/09 Planning Board Minutes ~ 3 z 3 MINUTES 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 5 JANUARY 14, 2009 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Vice- 9 Chair); Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Tommy 10 McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Larry Wright, Cedar 11 Grove Township At-Large; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large; 14 Bingham Township; Vacant; At-Large, Vacant 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey, 17 Planner II; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Specia{ Projects Planner, Tina Love, 1 S Administrative Assistant II 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Margo Pinkerton, Citizen; Jo Soulier, Citizen 21 22 (Document with subject line "Vernon Davis NC 54 rezoning request° was passed out by staff from Steve Yuhasz, 23 Aftomey for Vernon Davis) 24 25 (Due to recorder malfunction there are no recorded minutes. The following is a summary of meeting from written 26 notes and staff 27 28 29 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 11: REZONING OF A PARCEL OF PROPERTY AT 4115 OLD NC 10 (TMBL 5.26..40 !PIN 9893.00- 32 8606) FROM EXISTING COMMERCIAL FNE (EC-5) TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE (R•1). 33 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the rezoning request heard at the 34 November 24, QPH. 35 3b Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner II 37 38 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract for this item as follows: 39 40 PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation on a petition submitted by both Planning staff and the property 41 owner, Mr, and Mrs. Dennis and Tracy Jones, to rezone 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL 5.26..40_ /PIN 9893-00-8606) from 42 Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1). 43 44 BACKGROUND: The property in question is approximately two point eight (2.8) acres in area, is located within the 45 Eno Township, is currently zoned EC-5 Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District, and is designated as being 46 within the Rural Residential land use category as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. 47 48 As staff indicated during the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, the Eno Township was initially zoned on 49 March 2, 1970 and the subject property was zoned General Commercial Four (GC-4) at that time due to the 50 operation of agarage/body shop on the property. 51 52 In 1981, the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan that established various land use categories indicating where 53 acceptable types of development, residential versus non-residential, were permitted throughout the County. In 1982, 54 the County created the Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) zoning district. The purpose and intent of the district, as 55 detailed within Section 4.2.12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, was: 14 56 ,... fo provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to 57 previously unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in 5$ zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located 59 in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 60 At the same time the County initiated a Zoning Atlas amendment of this, and other similar properties, to change their 61 zoning designation to EC-5 in order for them to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive 62 Plan. 63 64 PUBLIC HEARING: During the public hearing staff testified the previously identified body shop had been closed 65 sometime in the late 1990's and currently there was not anon-residential land use operating from the property. The 66 property owner testified they were unaware the property was zoned EC-5 and that they have no interest or intention 67 in developing oroperating anon-residential land use on their property. 68 69 .Staff indicated during the hearing there had been no opposition to the zoning atlas petition and recommended 70 approval of the petition rezoning the subject property to Rural Residential One (R-1). 71 72 During the hearing, the County Commissioners encouraged staff to continue to identify those EC-5 zoned properties 73 without a corresponding non-residential land use and determine if a Zoning Atlas Amendment is warranted. 74 75 RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board: 76 77 1. Deliberate on the petition and review the various comments made during the public hearing, 78 2. Recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition finding that: 79 a. The Zoning Atlas Petition is complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of 80 the Zoning Ordinance, 81 b. Per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner have identified 82 appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning Atlas Petition 83 reasonable necessary in promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare. 84 Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the property to 85 support asingle-family residential development rather than allow for the development of a non- 86 residential land use. 87 c. Per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition would 88 carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 89 Specifically, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation on a parcel of 90 property where there is no non-residential land use in operation. By approving the petition, the use 91 of the property to support asingle-family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses 92 as well as the land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. 93 3. Recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and Resolution of Rezoning Approval to the BOCC. 94 95 Brian Crawford thanked Michael Harvey for his presentation and asked if there was anyone in the audience that 96 would like to comment on the proposal. As there were none, Brian Crawford asked the Board members if they had 97 any questions. 98 99 Jeff Schmitt asked how this matter was brought to staffs and owner's attention. Michael Harvey indicated the 100 owners of the property had come to see him after attempting to refinance their residence when they were apparently 101 informed they would have to pay a commercial mortgage rate as the property had a commercial zoning designation. 102 Michael Harvey said the property owners were unaware that the property was zoned EC-5 and that they had no 103 interest in utilizing the property for commercial purposes. 104 105 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said she was concerned that this problem may be a County wide issue and hoped that staff was 106 being proactive is attempting to help property owners address it. There was general discussion on this point. 107 - 15 108 MOTION by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to recommend approval of the rezoning petition, in accordance with staffs 109 recommendation, finding that: 110 111 1. The Zoning Atlas Petition was complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of 112 the Zoning Ordinance, 113 2. Per Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff and the property owner had identified 114 appropriate changes relating to the use of the property making the Zoning Atlas Petition 115 reasonable necessary in promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare. 116 Specifically, the changing condition relates to the property owner's desire to utilize the property to 117 support asingle-family residential development rather than allow for the development of a non- 118 residential land use. 119 3. Per Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of the Zoning Atlas Petition would 120 carry out the intent of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 121 Spec~cally, the approval of the petition would eliminate an EC-5 zoning designation on a parcel of 122 property where there is no non-residential land use in operation. By approving the petition, the use 123 of the property to support asingle-family residence would be consistent with surrounding land uses 124 as well as the land use category for the area as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. 125 4. The Board recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as 126 contained within Attachment Two (2) of the abstract, and 127 5. The Board recommend approval of the Resolution of Rezoning Approval as contained within 128 Attachment Three (3) of the abstract. 129 Seconded by Lany Wright. 130 131 Brian Crawford asked ff there was any further discussion. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if staff could comment on 132 how many other similar conflicts there might be throughout the County. Michael Harvey said he believed the number 133 was currently in the thirties (30's) and reminded the Board that he testified during the Public Hearing that staff was 134 working to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Rachel Phelps Hawkins said she hoped staff would continue 135 to try and identify these various issues in a timely manner and work with the property owners to resolve the problem. 136 The Board echoed the concerns and suggested that staff ought to move forward to identify these properties and work 137 expediently to resolve them. 138 139 Brian Crawford asked if there were any further comments. There was no further discussion. 140 141 MOTION by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to recommend approval of the rezoning petition, in accordance with staffs 142 recommendation. Seconded by Larry Wright 143 144 VOTE: Unanimous 145