HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2008-108- Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) Intersection of NC 54 & White Cross Road (Davis)0X)0- -76,1)5' - >6(F
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND C /�
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 24, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. CA
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) — intersection of NC 54 and White Cross
Road (Davis)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Rezoning Petition
2. Staff generated maps detailing rezoning
request and boundary of Node
3. Mail out certification /property owner letter
4. Statement of Consistency
5. Resolution of rezoning petition approval
6. Statement of Inconsistency
7. Resolution of rezoning petition denial
8. Information concerning 1995 rezoning
request for subject property:
a. Excerpt of November 27, 1995 BOCC
Quarterly Public Hearing minutes,
b. December 18, 1995 Planning Board
abstract,
c. Excerpt of December 18, 1995
Planning Board minutes,
d. Letter from Michael Brough — Vernon
Davis Attorney — dated December 18,
1995,
e. Letter withdrawing rezoning petition —
Vernon Davis — dated January 9,
1996.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Name
Craig Benedict, Director
Michael D. Harvey, Planner
Phone Number
245 -2592
245 -2607
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a petition submitted by Mr. Vernon Davis to rezone a
portion of his four point seven (4.7) acre parcel of property located at the intersection of NC 54
and White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M / PIN 9749 -40- 0293).
BACKGROUND: Mr. Davis owns two (2) parcels of property at the southwest quadrant of White
Cross Road and NC Highway 54. One (1) parcel is an eight thousand four hundred (8,400) square
foot parcel of property that is zoned Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2). The second parcel, (the
parcel subject to the submitted rezoning petition) is a four point seven (4.7) acre parcel of property
zoned Agricultural Residential (AR).
2
Both properties are located within the Haw River Unprotected Watershed and within the White Cross
Rural Community Activity Node. (Please refer to the maps contained within Attachment One (1) and
Two (2) of this abstract).
PETITION REQUEST: Mr. Davis has submitted a rezoning petition seeking to rezone approximately
one point zero four (1.04) acre portion of his four point seven (4.7) acre parcel of property located at
3010 White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M / PIN 9749 -40- 0293):
From: Agricultural Residential (AR)
To: Neighborhood Commercial Two (2)
EXISTING LAND USES: The subject property is currently undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: Across NC* Highway 54 there are several properties
zoned Local Commercial One (LC -1) and NC -2.
There is a daycare /school operating out of an existing
building and a contractor's office about to commence
operation.
SOUTH: Property to the south is zoned AR and is primarily
used to support single - family residential land uses.
EAST: Across White Cross Road there are several properties
zoned NC -2 and Rural Residential One (R -1). There
is a gas station operating to the east of the subject
property and several single - family residences.
WEST: Property to the west is zoned AR. There are several
single - family residences to the west of the property.
REASON FOR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT:
The septic system supporting the commercially zoned property is .located on the four point seven
(4.7) acre AR zoned parcel. The septic system and required repair area encumber approximately
one (1) acre of the subject property. -
Within his application, Mr. Davis indicates that he is concerned over his continued ability to utilize the
NC -2 zoned property for the following reasons:
1. Recent plans, published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, indicate that
there will be modifications to both White Cross Road and NC 54. These improvements will
limit the available parking for the existing commercial operation and restrict access to the
property,
2. Mr. Davis is concerned about his continued ability to have the septic system supporting his
commercial operation on the AR zoned parcel of property. As detailed within the application,
previous Planning staff informed Mr. Davis that the Zoning Ordinance would prohibit the
operation of a septic system supporting a commercial land use on a residentially zoned parcel
of property.
Mr. Davis is worried that if /when the existing septic system fails he will be prohibited from
making the necessary improvements to maintain the use of the NC -2 zoned parcel of property
as there is insufficient land area to install a new septic system on the property.
It should be noted that current Planning staff concur with the interpretation made sometime in
the mid 1990's that we would not support the installation of a septic system on a residentially
zoned parcel of property to support on off -site commercial land use. Further, there is no
evidence that Mr. Davis sought to appeal this determination and, as a result, the decision has
the full force of law.
The applicant would like to rezone a portion of the subject property at 3010 White Cross Road,
specifically the aforementioned one point zero four (1.04) acres, and recombine it with the adjacent
NC -2 zoned lot creating a one point six (1.6) acre parcel of property encompassing the existing
commercial building and the existing septic system /repair area on a single parcel of property. .
It should be noted that Mr. Davis had previously attempted to rezone the subject property. In
1995, the County reviewed a request to rezone the subject parcel from AR to Agricultural
Services (AS). This request was denied. (Please refer to Attachment One (1) of this abstract
for more information) One of the rationales for the denial was directly related to the location of
the aforementioned septic system.
Mr. Davis would like to resolve this problem to avoid future conflicts.
ZONING OFFICER ANALYSIS: As required under Section 20.3.3 of the 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 has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The properties in question are located within the White Cross Rural Community Activity
Node as denoted on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map.
3. According to the Comprehensive Plan Rural Community Activity Nodes are areas of the
County intended to serve the needs of the surrounding rural community, where numerous
land uses have been deemed appropriate for development including: churches, fire
stations, small post offices, schools, other similar institutional uses and one or more
commercial uses.
4. According to Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum
amount of land zoned NC -2: ' ... at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a
maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more
widely than in the Transition areas.' There is a similar prohibition on the amount of Local
Commercial One (LC -1) zoned property within an established Node contained within
Article Four (4) of the Ordinance.
5. In completing an assessment of the existing non - residentially zoned property within the
White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, the Zoning Officer has determined:
a. There is approximately four point two (4.2) acres of existing property zoned Local
Commercial One (LC -1) within the Node, and
b. There is approximately four point five (4.5) acres of existing property zoned
Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2) within the Node.
6. The applicant has not submitted any information indicating that the existing population
density, within the Node, has changed allowing for an increase in the allowable non-
residential acreage.
7. The Zoning Officer, while agreeing that the request makes sense given the issues
relating to the location of the septic system, finds that the request is inconsistent with the
requirements of the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is required to recommend the Board deny this request due to the
following:
1. Approving the request, as submitted, creates a violation of Article Four (4) of the
Ordinance. Specifically, by approving the request there would be more NC -2 zoned
acreage than is permitted within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node as
detailed within Article Four (4).
2. The applicant has failed to submit any documentation indicating that there are changing
conditions within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node that would warrant an
increase in the total amount of non - residentially zoned property from five (5) to nine (9)
acres as prescribed within Article Four (4).
While staff understands the applicant's request, and supports the need for a reexamination of
the area, Ordinance is written in such a manner that the request cannot be approved at this
time.
Staff believes, however, that this situation justifies a comprehensive re- assessment of the
existing Rural Community Activity Nodes and the allowable levels of non - residential
development permitted within them. Staffs recommends the Board, at the appropriate time and
with a strategic plan, authorize the initiation of the Small Area Planning process for the White
Cross Rural Community Activity Node.
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.
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 mail,
3. Staff posted a sign on the subject property providing notice of the public hearing.
Attachment Three (3) of this abstract contains:
1. A list of property owners notified by letter,
5
2. A. copy of the letter mailed to adjacent property_ owners informing them of the public
hearing, and
3. A copy of the Certification of Mailing.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends-the Board:
1. Receive the rezoning petition,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
3. 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
4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until February 2, 2009 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation.
�ac I� t~'►'� -Pry 1
7
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION /application For
Orange County Planning; dr. Inspections General Use District
P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Zoning Atlas Amendment
919 245 -2575 FAX 919644 -3002
1 Owner CAI# 1. 1 (We) 14Y)m
of�� t
Street Address City
do hereby petition to amend the Zoning atlas orUrangc County,
ML ;OX09
State Zip Code Telephone
2. By reclassifying front the 'boning District._ XK to the Zoning District
>. The property located
and having frontages) along bordering streets as fbilows 1J C 54 Ot+a►d �" . awFs 2. 'aaA •
4. Containing Q. �rtcres.
PIN (s) W- 4Q- 02m !:Ii
6. 1 (WE) UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PE-ITITION FOR GLNERAL USE DISTRICT ZONING, AND I (WE) MAY NOT
REFER EITI••IF'R IN 'THIS 11'.71-1TION OR AT ANY HEARING RELATED TO SAID PETITION TO ANY USE
INTF,NDED FOR TI-Ir." C'ASV SITE NOR'TO ANY SPECivic DETAILS C'ONCI.`RNING THE, DEVELOPMENT OF SAID
SITE.
7. Owner ( S ) Signatt{ } f ° lrC S : ewe acknot iMpe she trowsiona in the Y.onimtordinance for AMITIONAL INFORMATION
TO 13F: St113A•Iti-1'ED VNI'171 PECrf1O.N
general wk, ruxl planned Jevclopnu�nt •riming aril hcrehv pnn:eed wrlh a general use coning petition.
If petition is eweutctl by property owner. but an attorney or agent
will handle public speaking, etc., please indicate:
OqC " � ll'4Ct�/�rt CSS
1 J f�
�._
city state !_.ip Telephone
9. Notification sighs will be prepared and posted by the Planning Sta1T when the
rezoning application is scheduled for Public Hearing. The "mired legal
advertising is also handled fior you by the Planning Staff.
ELL
J�SI ivl.giiti .�l`t I'OIt 'l_P,41iN 1 t °{)1Z 1113MI1_f,1I„ (XI Y A.LJi AI'l'Llt'A I1ON
IMPORTANT: Only Applications with original signatures
are considered complete. Faxed Applications NOT accepted. ,t.
5.
0_1
CERTIFICA'I7i OF OWN11-iRS111P
Showing the names of all owner(s) of each -lot and .
a list of nautcs, addresses ofall adjacent property
owners -stdthin 500'(may be obtained from Land
Records in the Government Services Center. 205
Cameron Street Hillsborough. NC ) and stamped,
addressed envelolmi. of all owners & adjacent.
otvttcrs within 500 lbel of the petitioned Intel. .
CL)RRI'iNT GISft'AX MAP(s) showing each lot .
to be rezoned and all adjacent properties within '
500' (may be obtained iron the Land Records'.
Government Services (renter 203 Cameron Street.
I lillsboroutlt NCl
Ll".(;Al. DrSCRIP,rm orland requesiLd l'or
rc7oning, typed on a separate auachcd page: If
pn)pcily being re;mned consists of two or more
lots each huving a sepaiuto description, then those
dt criptians musl be combined into title
description or the perinil ee orail the properly.
'Ibis is normally found in the property(s) Deiid(s)
as a mctuh and bounds description or. is referred t6:
in the. Deeds) as a Recorded i'lat. lithe NO '
relbrs to a Recorded Plat, a copy of that: Recorded
Plat must be uttachod. (Copies of Deis and ' .
Recorded Plats may be obtained Irom the Orange
Counly Register.of Deeds Office.
JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING.
MUCK K (payable W County orUrangc) to
,cover tlx: filing fee for re?.oning.
8 The Law Office of
Steve F. Yuhasz, PLLC
226 South Churton Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 644 -0123 Fax (919)644 -1177
September 17, 2008
Vernon Davis rezoning request
TM 6.30..7M
PIN 9749 -40 -0293
JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING
This request is to rezone a portion of the tract from AR to NC 2, as shown on the
accompanying sketch. If the rezoning is allowed, the rezoned portion of this parcel will
be recombined with the adjoining parcel to create a 1.16 acre lot.
This entire tract was the subject of a request to rezone to AS in 1995. During the review
of that rezoning request, it was noticed that a septic system easement had been placed
on this property for the benefit of the adjacent 0.12 acre tract, zoned NC -2.
Approximately one acre of this tract is currently encumbered by the septic system
easement. During that previous review, a policy was established that prohibited the
installation of septic systems serving non - residential properties on land zoned for
residential purposes. The septic system on this lot, having already been legally installed,
and being necessary for the safe and healthy operation of the retail store on the NC -2
parcel (which does not contain sufficient area for the installation of a system) was
allowed to continue in operation. The rezoning to AS for this parcel was, however,
denied.
The store has continued to operate through the intervening years. Recently the North
Carolina Department of Transportation has published plans for improvements to the
N.C. 54 - White Cross Road intersection. These road improvements will limit the
available parking and access to the retail store. The purpose of this rezoning request is
twofold- to include the septic system serving the store in the same zoning designation as
the store, and to include sufficient area within the NC -2 lot to allow the building to be
relocated farther from the road and to relocate the access drive and parking to a safer
and more convenient location.
When zoning was introduced to Bingham Township, the parcel containing the store was
in different ownership than the surrounding property. It was not possible, at that time,
to create a bigger lot to contain the store. The NC -2 zoning designation assigned to the
parcel was a clear indication of the intention to create a non-residential presence in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection. This rezoning will fulfill the promise of that
initial zoning decision by creating a lot capable of existing as an effective and separate
non-residential parcel.
CHAPEL
HILL N)CO3O OR
91s rals map is obww f,
Orange county pun rim verma,(
Inch = 67.9a —
feet
PIN- 9749-40-0293
III I
of Courl"
Is d
be T-1
Map
Inch= 5A 12Z toet
vou" 002751":1
y
- \
al
III I
of Courl"
Is d
be T-1
Map
Inch= 5A 12Z toet
vou" 002751":1
y
- \
'--` - Mc
�,, ��60
rr
NC 54
/I
CIN '
1
RejOGate
o
Y
c
1 � �16 Aco
1
3.67 Ac`
I ��
Page 1 of 1 13
Orange County
Summary Information
1PIN #• 119749408985 j
TMBL #: I 6.30..9
TRACT #: 672164
Tax Account#: 288893
Street Address: 3307 NC 54 W
Owner: BLACKWOOD WILLIAM EVERETT
Additional Owner:
Mailiniz Address: 11320 DM LAND RD
Page 1 of 1 �ti
Orange County
Summary Information
PIN #: IF9749404659
TMBL #: JF6.303B
ITRACT#: 647.704
Tax Account#: IF293938
Owner: IFNUdRMj
KENNETH H
Additional Owner:
[4 SUSAN H
Mailing Address:.
IF33 10 ELVA LN
Mailing City:
11CHAPEL HILL
Mailing State/Zip:
i NC,27516
Legal Descri don:
IF#lA WHITE CROSS PTNS P61/172
Legal Description 2:
Assessed Land Size:
JJAI.56
Rate Code:
10
Land Value:
$124800
Building Value:
$36787
Total Valuation:
$161587
r�
L
Orange County
Summary Information
Page
Of 1
IN #:
9749402837
TMBL#: 6.30..8
TRACT #: 11647703
Tax Account#: 279196
Street Address: 113461 NC 54 W '
Owner:
HERTZBERG BRUCE S
Additional Owner:
Mailing Address:
104 STONEYBROOK RD
Mailing City: CHAPEL HILL
Mailing State /Zip: NC,27516
Legal Description:
#1 WHITE CROSS PTNS P61/172
Legal Description 2:
Assessed Land Size:
A3.08
Rate Code:
10
Land Value:
$53518
Building Value:
1 $441691
Total Valuation:
$495209
Page 1 of 1 lLP
Orange County
Summary Information.
PIN#:
9749422010
TMBL #:
6.30..7G
TRACT #:
6b6213
Tax Account#: 11264025
Street Address:
1F3531 NC 54 W
Owner:
RIGSBEE CAROLYN
Additional Owner:
Mailing Address:
1922 CLOVER GARDEN CH RD
Mailing City:
11CHAPEL HILL
Mailing State/Zip:
C,26
751
Legal Description:
#5 -6 RIGSBEE EUBANKS & LLOYD
Legal Description 2•
Assessed Land Size:
A63.46
Rate Code: I
10
Land Value:
$447458
Building Value: '
$106527
Total Valuation:
$130166.3
Page 1 of I 11
Orange County
Summary Information
pIN##: 19148396909
TMBL #: 6.30..7C
TRACT #: 672351
Tax Account#: 1303990
Owner: TILLEY GREGORY T
Additional Owner:
Mailing Address: 113600 HYW 54 W
Mailing City: ICHAPEL HILL
Mailing $tate/Zip: C,27516
Legal Description:
1 MACK F MLEY P99/171
Legal Description 2•
A14.99
Assessed Land Size:
Rate Code:
01
Land Value:
$124147
Building Value:
$0
Total Valuation:
$124147
Page I of 1 V1
Orange County
Summary Information
IN #: JF9748492693.
TMBL #: 6.30..24
TRACT #: 1 600795
Tax Account—#: IF189579
Street Address: 112920
WHITE CROSS RD
Owner: JJDAVIS
VERNON PRESTON
Additional Owner: IF&
BARBARA S
Mailing Address: 11127
BIRNAM WOOD DR
Mailing City: 1
CHAPEL HILL
Mailing State/Zip: I
C,27516 -9610
Legal Description:
W/O WHITE CROSS RD P76/179
Legal Description 2:
[—Assessed Land Size: IFAI
Rate Code: 1101
Land Value:
$20368
Building Value:
$30475
otal Valuation:
$50843
Page 1 of 1 la
Orange County
Summary Information
IN#: 119749405354
TMBL #:
6.30..20
TRACT #:
600570
ax Account #; H266711
Street Address: J13322 NC 54 W
Owner: JIS & D LLOYD LLC
Additional Owner: .
Mailing Address: - 11180
1 WILDCAT RD
ng City:
CHAPEL HILL
Mailing State /Zip:
C,27516
Legal Description:
INT HWY 54 & SR 1952
Legal Description 2:
Assessed Land Size: I A0.88
Rate Code: 1110
Land Value: 1
$31170
Building Value:
$70722
Total Valuation:
$101892
Page 1 of 1
Orange County
Summa Information )
Summary )0j( "s
PIN #: IF9748496921
TMBL #: 6.30B..7
TRACT #: 1F602082
Tax Account#: lr48625
Owner: 11CHEEK
J PAUL JR
Additional Owner:
Mailing Address: JPO BOX 363
Mailing City: 11CHAPEL HILL
Mailing State zip: 1
NC, 27514 -0363
Legal Description: #4 MRS BENNIE DURHAM
Legal Description 2:
Assessed Land Size:
A10
Rate Code:
10
Land Value:
$90580
Building Value:
Iso
Total Valuation: i
$2250
}i
A certain parcel of land in Bingham Township, Orange County, North Carolina, further
described as:
BEGINNING at a point in the western right -of -way of White Cross
Road (S.R.1952) the southeast corner of property of Vernon P. and Barbara
S. Davis acquired by deed recorded in the Orange County Registry in Book
419 page 32, a northeast corner of Lot 1 as shown on the plat hereinafter
referenced, an iron stake. Then with the western right -of -way of White
Cross Road, S 05 °- 59' -04" W 151.01 feet to a new point, an iron stake. Then
leaving the right -of -way, a new line N 81 °- 00' -56" W 153.98 feet to a new
point, an iron stake. Then another new line, N 10 °- 38' -47" W 272.79 feet to
a new point in the southern right-of-way of North Carolina Highway 54, an
iron stake. Then with the southern right -of -way of N.C. 54 counter-
clockwise along the arc of a curve having a radius of 3879.42 feet an
distance of 164.92 feet (chord: S 84°- 23' -26" E 164.91 feet) to a point, an
existing iron stake. Then continuing with the right -of -way, S 46 °- 02' -16" E
20.48 feet to the northwest corner of the previously mentioned Davis
property, an existing iron stake,. Then with Davis S 07°- 14' -04" W 104.18
feet to a point, an iron stake. Then continuing with Davis, S 81 °- 14' -50" E
81.04 feet to the point and place of Beginning, containing 1.04 acres more or
less, and being the northeastern portion of Lot 1 as shown on the plat of
survey by ENT Land Surveys, Inc. entitled "Property of Vernon P. Davis
and Barbara S. Davis" dated August 29, 1996 and recorded in the Orange
County Registry in Plat Book 76 page 179.
4
R
0� PROP
HM ET
Y p AD
T TWA X21 NC2
.CEN
pnin9
pop
ropoSed to be rezoned
area p
E1ao��n t�ReclPre 6�c
® 100od dve Wmy0n
� Ei ��n iE�`re 021071
Q g�du�
b
-�o
feet
inch = 67.98
NC 2 zoned
Ined
sed tO be re�rnb
Area Pro ed Parcel
with NC -2 zon
1
o(Z) _MappF
im
CHMT EN
Pre -sch_
�uN,p14w S-w
pRpP
ERTY p,Np SuRR
Restaurant
Comrnercial B
uildin9
240.88 feet
MIC,
\ \
ON
Node Boundary
•.`A S ,�•ti ty ` ',} o a
JI
AW
c
t� F ti
Date shown on this _ obtained
GIS and is for reference
Exact locations and boundaries should be field verified.
q
Ir•�
4 Werrt 3
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning ��` * 306F Revere Road
(919) 245 -2576 P O Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us North Carolina, 27278
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1, 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 Mr. Vernon Davis to rezone a portion of his property, at 3010
White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M / PIN 9749 -40 -0293) from Agricultural Residential (AR)
to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2).
The owners were identified according to the Tax Records and as required by Article Twenty
(20), of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing.
WITNESS my hand, this 7th day of November 2008.
31
32
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict AICP, Director.
Current Planning
(919) 245 -2675
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX)
www.co.orange.nc.us
306F Revere Road
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough;
North Carolina, 27278
November 7, 2008
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 Mr. Vernon Davis has petitioned the Orange County Board of
Commissioners to rezone approximately one (1) acre of his property at the intersection of NC
Highway 54 and White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M / PIN 9749 -40 -0293 — please see attached
map for more detail):
FROM: Agricultural Residential (AR)
TO: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2)
The Orange County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to review this request during a
PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for November 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle
Courtroom located at 106 East Margaret Lane in the Town of Hillsborough.
According to County Tax Records, you own property within five hundred (500) feet of the
subject property. As a result, you have the right to express any and all concerns, or support,
concerning Mr. Davis' request to rezone his property. This Notice is being sent to inform you of
the rezoning request and invite you to attend the PUBLIC HEARING on November 24, 2008.
If you would like more information on the proposal, or have any questions, please contact staff at
(919) 245 -2607.
Mic I D. Harvey , CZO
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Orange County Planning Department
33
34
Paul Cheek
PO Box 363
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Gregory Tilley
3600 Highway 54 West
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Kenneth and Susan Martin
3310 Elva Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Paul Cheek
PO Box 363
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Gregory Tilley
3600 Highway 54 West
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Kenneth and Susan Martin
3310 Elva Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
S and D Lloyd LLC
1801 Wildcat Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Carolyn Rigsbee
1922 Clover Garden Church Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
William Blackwood
320 Dairyland -Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
S and D Lloyd.LLC
1801 Wildcat Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Carolyn Rigsbee
1922 Clover Garden Church Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
William Blackwood
320 Dairyland Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Vernon and Barbara Davis
127 Birnam Wood Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Bruce Hertzberg
104 Stoneybrook Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Vernon and Barbara Davis
127 Birnam Wood Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Bruce Hertzberg
104 Stoneybrook Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
3
ATTACHMENT FIVE (5) — 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
VERNON DAVIS
Date:
Applicant/Owner: Vernon Davis
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 Vernon Davis (the "Applicant ") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by
rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below:
FROM: Agricultural Residential (AR)
TO: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2)
The property is further identified by the following legal description as provided by the
Applicant within the Application:
BEGINNING at a point in the western right -of -way of White Cross Road
(S.R. 1952) the southeast corner of property of Vernon P. and Barbara S.
Davis acquired by deed recorded in the Orange County Registry in Book
419 page 32, a northeast corner of Lot 1 as shown on the plat hereinafter
referenced, an iron stake. Then with the western right -of -way of White
Cross Road, S 058- 59' -04" W 151.01 feet to a new point, an iron stake.
Then leaving the right -of -way, a new line N 818- 00' -56" W 153.98 feet to a
new point, an iron stake. Then another new line, N 108- 38' -47" W 272.79
feet to a new point in the southern right -of -way of North Carolina Highway
54, an iron stake. Then with the southern right -of -way of N.C. 54 counter-
clockwise along the arc of a curve having a radius of 3879.42 feet an
distance of 164.92 feet (chord: S 848- 23' -26" E 164.91 feet) to a point, an
existing iron stake. Then continuing with the right -of -way, S 468- 02' -16" E
20.48 feet to the northwest corner of the previously mentioned Davis
property, an existing iron stake,. Then with Davis S 078- 14' -04" W 104.18
feet to a point, an iron stake. Then continuing with Davis, S 818- 14' -50" E
81.04 feet to the point and place of Beginning, containing 1.04 acres more
or less, and being the northeastern portion of Lot 1 as shown on the plat of
survey by ENT Land Surveys, Inc. entitled "Property of Vernon P. Davis
and Barbara S. Davis" dated August 29, 1996 and recorded in the Orange
County Registry in Plat Book 76 page 179.
ATTACHMENT FOUR (4) — Statement of Consistency:
35
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUSSIONERS
PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A -341
REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
ZONING ATLAS FOR
VERNON DAVIS
Orange County has received and reviewed the application of Vernon Davis, (the "Applicant ") to
amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a one point zero four (1.04) portion of a four
point seven (4.7) acre parcel of real property located at 3010 White Cross Road from
Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2). 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.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
37
In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to
the appropriateness of the Application:
1. That the Application is complete in accordance with the submittal requirements
detailed within Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2;
2. That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the
Application will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
a. The purpose, intent, and goals of the Growth Management System
adopted by the BOCC in 2003.
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
8ATTACHMENT SIX (6) — Statement of Inconsistency:
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A -341
REGARDING A APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
ZONING ATLAS FOR
VERNON DAVIS
Orange County has received and reviewed the application of Vernon Davis, (the "Applicant ") to
amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone a one point zero four (1.04) portion of a four
point seven (4.7) acre parcel of real property located at 3010 White Cross Road from
Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2). 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
3) That the Board finds that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the
requirements of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT SEVEN (7) — 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
VERNON DAVIS
Date:
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 Vernon Davis (the "Applicant ") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by
rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below:
FROM: Agricultural Residential (AR)
TO: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2)
The property is further identified by the following legal description as provided by the
Applicant within the Application:
BEGINNING at a point in the western right -of -way of White Cross Road
(S.R. 1952) the southeast corner of property of Vernon P. and Barbara S.
Davis acquired by deed recorded in the Orange County Registry in Book
419 page 32, a northeast corner of Lot 1 as shown on the plat hereinafter
referenced, an iron stake. Then with the western right -of -way of White
Cross Road, S 058- 59' -04" W 151.01 feet to a new point, an iron stake.
Then leaving the right -of -way, a new line N 818- 00' -56" W 153.98 feet to a
new point, an iron stake. Then another new line, N 108- 38' -47" W 272.79
feet to a new point in the southern right -of -way of North Carolina Highway
54, an iron stake. Then with the southern right -of -way of N.C. 54 counter-
clockwise along the arc of a curve having a radius of 3879.42 feet an
distance of 164.92 feet (chord: S 848- 23' -26" E 164.91 feet) to a point, an
existing iron stake. Then continuing with the right -of -way, S 468- 02' -16" E
20.48 feet to the northwest corner of the previously mentioned Davis
property, an existing iron stake,. Then with Davis S 078- 14' -04" W 104.18
feet to a point, an iron stake. Then continuing with Davis, S 818- 14' -50" E
81.04 feet to the point and place of Beginning, containing 1.04 acres more
or less, and being the northeastern portion of Lot 1 as shown on the plat of
survey by ENT Land Surveys, Inc. entitled "Property of Vernon P. Davis
and Barbara S. Davis" dated August 29, 1996 and recorded in the Orange
County Registry in Plat Book 76 page 179.
'WS]
40
In accordance with the Ordinance,.the Board hereby makes the following findings as to
the denial of the Application:
1. That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the
Application will not carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan or part thereof.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
, 2009.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
41
. excerpf �� �'�-• cvu ���` �
2 (b) CP -3 -95 Larid Use Plan Amendment (Natural and Cultural Resources)
3 This item was presented by Marvin Collins to receive citizen comment on
4 proposed amendments to the land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Revisions were
5 proposed to the Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical Recreational, 130gaical, and
6 Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions-of Orange County and the "Water
7 Resources" section through which to implement, in part, the State's Water Supply Watershed
8 Protection Act of 1989. The proposed revisions were listed in their entirety. The
9 administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board
10 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January
11 16, 1996.
12
13 QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE
14 PLANNING BOARD.
15 None.
16
17 QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.
18 Steve Yuhaz asked for clarification about the practical effect of the designation and
19 questions h it would be used within the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations.
20
21 Marvin Collins stated that many of these features are currently regulated through existing
22 ordinances. The limitations created by poor soils cause difficulty in getting preliminary soil
23 analysis approved by the Health Department.• The natural areas-and historic, sites..are.covered
24 through the Environmental Impact Ordinance requirements as.well as through the potential
25 cluster subdivision option that exist in the subdivision regulations.
26 _
2f- A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to
28 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
29 :- -commissioners no sooner than.January 16, 1996.
%n � -J -- ..... _ _..r .. • "� . -/ -- -- .. __ /... - -..` -
32 2. ZONING Atlas Amendments
33 (a) Z -7 -95 Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis (AR to AS)
34 This item was presen e _y..Mary ..i is_. o receive.citizen -com. -e t a Zones ._....__.._.__
35 Atlas amendment re uq est submitted by Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis. The Davis' request
36 rezoning o a 4.67 acre portion of a 10.01 -acre lot from Agricultural- Residential (AR) to
37 Agricultural Sergi e S . The property is located in southwest corner of NC 54 and White
38 Cross Road (SR 1952) and is known as Lot No. 6.30..7M. The proposed zoning lots abuts a
39 .17 -acre (50'x 150') NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial parcel, known as Lot No. 6.30..7B. The
40 property is located in the White Cross Rural- Community Activity Node.
41
42 'QUESTIONS* AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.*
43 Commissioner Gordon said that it appeared that even if this request was granted, the
44 septic system would not be in compliance.
45
42
1 Mary Willis indicated that current zoning Would not allow the septic system and the
2 rezoning to Agricultural Services would not change that..She stated that the Board of
3 Commissioners could refer this item to-the Health Board and the Planning Board to.look at a
4 solution.
5 '
6 Commissioner Gordon stated that she would like to see it referred to the Health and
7 Planning Boards to look at the septic system issue.
8
9 QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
10 None. -
11
12 QUESTIONS AND /ORrCOMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.
13 tom Whisnant, owner of the White Cross School which is located across from this site,
14 spoke against granting this request. White Cross School is a working artists community and an
15 empower ent projectwThe North Carolina Writers Network.is located here. He was not
16 concerned about this request until he researched the AS designation and discovered that it
17 allowed both warehousing and storage. The Planning Staff indicated that the applicant has
18 discussed both a storage facility for Southern Bell as well as mini- warehouses: The community `
19 intends to present a petition opposing this use. If this request is granted, the applicant could
?0 then pursue either of these options simply by applying for a building permit. He asked that the
M Commissioners reject this request.
13 Kasper, lives across the.atreet_from .this property, and. does.not support this..
?4 proposal, It appears likely that 4 acres of self - storage units are ari'gptron"and that would not be
?5 in line with the community vision. He requested that the Board of Commissioners reject this
?6 request.
!7
?8 :?} Barbara Trent stated that she Lives in he immediate community and does not support
t9 this proposal. 'She asked that the County send out another notice and include all residents as
10 well as land owners.
31
12 Lf Werdori-Rigsl5ee s poke in opposition to this rezoning request. He felt that this would
33 greatly detr from a value of the surrounding land. He also mentioned that the sewage lines
W run though the field. He asked if it was permissible to put a building in the same location as the
15_. —.. sewerlin-es: -
16
17 Mary Willis stated that only the rezoning and the variety of allowed uses are being
18 considered now. Even if the property were to be rezoned, a site plan would still have to be
19 approved prior to the start of construction. The site plan would have to comply with all county
10 zoning regulations. It is not permissible to build over septic systems. The Zoning Ordinance
11 also requires. buffering that would be adjacent to residential zoning..
13 s') San Lew , a White Cross'property owner, spoke against this proposal. He felt that it
14 would be awn ore. He requested that it not be rezoned.
15
4
1 Rene Price, Planning Board member, asked about the existing use of the property.
2
3 Mary Willis indicated that the total tract consists of approximately 10 acres. There is a
4 residence on the southern most portion which is not being proposed for rezoning. There is
5 nothing on the portion being proposed for the rezoning. There is an antique store with a zoning
6 of NC -2 on the corner. co ¢
7 /
8 A motion was made by CoMi/nissioner ,.Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to
9 refer this item to the Planning Board for_a_recommendation to be returned no sooner than
10 anuary 16, 1 99B.-
I1 VOTe—U–RANIMOUS
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to
14 refer to the Planning Board and the Board of Health the problem of the septic system being
15 • located in the wrong zoning district for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
16 Commissioners.
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to
20 refer to the Planning Board a request that they review the permitted uses for Agricultural
21 Services District and recommend if there should be a change. �-
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23 ..:..... _..._._..._.... -- __.. _ ___ _.. -
24 11777 (b) Z -8 -95 Jones Concrete (AR to EC-5)
25 This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on
26 a Zoning Atlas Amendment request submitted by the Orange County Planning Department. T
27 The Planning Staff requests-the rezoning of a•4.54 -acre lot owned by Henry Ernest Jones at
28 5908 NC 86 North also known as lot No 2,31.5. The premises has been used commercially for
29 Jones Concrete Service..since '1969... The,request is to rezone the property from AR to EC -5 to
.30- correct.an oversight d.uring_.the .original zoning of.Cedar Grove Township.. The Administration _ . -
-31• recommends that the proposed Zoning- Atlas-amendment -be referred to the Planning Board for. - ._-
32 a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996.
33
S11ONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
35 None.
36
37 QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
38 None,
39
40 QUESTIONS ANDIOR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.
41 Mark Sheridan, attorney for Henry.Jones, spoke in support of this request. He
42 mentioned that Mr. Jones -has been in the concrete service business for 35 years. He thanked
43 Ms. Willis for her candor in acknowledging the oversight in the zoning process. Mr. Jones was
44 denied a request for a permit to rebuild a structure damaged by fire. He was told that he did
45 not have the proper zoning. At that time the Planning Department filed the application on Mr.
.. 44--
O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION'AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 18, 1995
Action Agenda
Item # S h (3)
SUBJECT: 2-7-95 VERNON P. & BARBARA S. DAVIS -- ZONING ATLAS
AMENDMENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Staff Findings
Site Maps
General Information Memorandum
Draft Public Hearing Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X —No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley
X2584
TELEPHONE NUMBERS~
Hillsborough
Durham.
Mebane
Chapel Hill
- 732-8181-
- 688 -7331
- 227 -2031
- 968 -4501
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment in.
Bingham Township.
BACKGROUND: The Davis's request rezoning of a 4.67 -acre
portion of a 10.01 -acre lot from AR Agricultural-
Residential to AS Agricultural.Service. The'.
property is located in the southwest corner of NC
54 and White Cross Road and is known-as Lot No.
6.30..7M.' The proposed zoning lot abuts a .11-- —
acre. (4,889 sf) NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial
district (6.30..78) located on the immediate
corner of the intersection.
The property is located in the Agricultural
Residential Land Use Plan Designation and the
White Cross Rural Community Activity Node.
...Across NC 54 to.the north,'properties are zoned AR-
Agricultural- Residential, NC -2 Neighborhood
Commercial, and LC -2 Local Commercial. Across
White'Cross Road to the east, the land is zoned.
NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial -and R-1 Rural
Residential. Property to the south and west is
zoned AR Agricultural- Residential.
45
The intent of AS Agricultural Services zoning
.district is to provide for rural non -farm, non-
residential-uses which support or cu ura -
si_lvacultural uses. The application criteria
state that an AS district will usually be applied
where the following conditions exist:
1. The site is within areas designated by-the
adopted Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural -
Residential. No change in the Comprehensive
Plan is required.
2. The lot size for individual uses would be
appropriate to the water supply and sewage
.disposal.
3. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AS
at any location shall not exceed ten acres.
There are 17 uses permitted by right in the AS
Zoning District. Two require approval of a Class
A Special Use Permit, and four require approval of
a Class B Special Use Permit. Any of,these uses,
either by right or with special conditions, could
be allowed on.the proposed zoning lot. These uses
are listed In he a tac ed General Information
Memorandum.
Information from White Cross Fire Department, the
Sheriff'.s.Department, and-911 Services has been
received indicating that uses permitted in an AS
zoning district can be served in this location.
November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments
Concern over uses permitted 'i.n the AS district,
particular y .warehousi.n�, was expressed by the
owner and a tenant of the Wfi to Cross S"dh66l
T -here 'was also con ern a out-a i iona commercial
uses in the White Cross Activity Node.
Comments were also received regarding
Environmental Health approval of a septic system
on the proposed zoning lot for the used furniture
store on the .11 -acre NC -2 zoning lot at the
intersection. The zoning Ordinance does not
Provide for installation of a septic system on
property lot zoned for the use served by the
septic system. Since the furniture store located
on the. NC -2 .zoning district would not be permitted..
in the AR or AS zoning districts, thenthe
installation of the septic system for the
furniture store in the AR or AS district is in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
46
Typically, initial installation of a septic system
is triggered by new development, and requires
associated approval of a building permit. During
the•buildirig permit review process, the location
of the proposed septic system would then be
reviewhd by the Planning Staff for compliance with
the zoning ordinance. In this case, no building
permit was needed, thus there was no mechanism to
trigger Planning Staff review prior to issuance of
the Improvements Permit by Environmental Health.
Board Action.
The Board of Commissioners directed that the
issues raised by the installation of the septic
system be addressed by the Planning Board and
Board of Health, and that the list of uses allowed
in the AS district be reviewed by the Planning
Board.
A report will be presented to the Board of-Health
at its January meeting. Comments will be referred
to the Planning Board at its February meeting.
Recommendations of both Boards can then be
presented to the Board of Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the
rezoning per the attached findings.
Related to the above recommendation, the Planning
Staff recommends:
I ) That the issue of permitted uses in the AS
district be referred to the Ordinance Review
Committee following review and comment by the
Agricultural District Advisory Board,
Cooperative'Extension, and Economic
Development Commission. This recommendation
is made because the nature of farming in the
County is changing and the list of permitted
uses should reflect identified changes; and
(2) That, following the resolution of the issue
of permitted uses, consideration be,..giuen to
establishing a small area planning; .. iou
wow with the property owners sn an around
`tlie White Cross activity node to prepare a
land use plan for the node.
I AC. �
s 7126 SEE MAFT3D.
9 It J 2006 1, / 42 B
�
i74`.J10.017 AC. /1 /IOAC .3951 (WEST6ROOK
/
53.46 AC:
1
5634
7D 3/
1 l � a 8A.
a
0328 1.01 aC. _
WHI
G) ,
\ / / 3 972
DI$J -}?! K 7 , AC. .53AC.CZ
O -91
NC - -�. N LE --1 , .561' s _ -
_:588
O zco�
25 -
0 �.
- 20
18 .05AC.DIG. 10.OiAC. 9A7C
sa•t t
029 0 X
7 C 40
• 6908 7M
SEE MAP 308 �
15.85 AC. DIG. ! ' -° (MRS. BENNIE QURH
24 2693
I AC.
37
•6183
Pe 31. 84 A C.
21A •� y
-3 D
3.719
i 0.96 AC •
13.58AC.
CV
ZONING A77.4S AMENDMENT REQUEST
Z-7 -95 Vernon P. & Barbara S. Davis u
Scale I"= 400'
48
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Not for Recordation,
Conveyance, or Sales.
A(C 54
/ / /// / j% % 2• =4
s 4 IJ40• 25 16'
of
Nrc�2
76-14'00- F
60 00'
4.67 Ad.
/ / / / / / /// i i // /// Cl)
pipposed A/S Zone/
Gi n c E 2s l ey /
to become new
41A7f' to
N 85'¢2'00" W I
W 60, 'In
R/
N
""P rope of
GREM10'DD
TIL LEY"
P8 53 Pg 90
N aweftl' Ll
Vemon Davis
(5.34 Ac. remaining) '
too 0 100 -200
200
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT .REQUEST
Z -7 -95 Vernon P. & Barbara S. Davis
r�
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 449
306F REVERE ROAD -
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
`l.N• N O
• V F. b
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING BOARD
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Z -7 -95 VERNON P. & BARBARA S. DAVIS ZONING ATLAS CHANGE
REQUEST FROM AR AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL TO AS
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Vernon P. & Barbara S. Davis
3310 NC 54 W
Chapel Mill; NC 27516
LOCATION: 3310 NC 54 West (Tax Map No. 6.30.3M)
LOT SIZE: 4.67 acres on a 10.01 -acre tract
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
NORTH - • • - - -• -: Neighborhood and Local Commercial
NORTHEAST - Local Commercial
WEST - Agricultural- Residential
SOUTH • - Agricultural-Residential
EAST - Neighborhood Commercial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Rural Community Activity Node
50
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Planning Board
DATE: November 27, U95
PAGE: Two
EXISTING ZONING - '
AR Agricultural - Residential
PROPOSED ZONING
AS Agricultural Service
Intent and application criteria of the AS Agricultural Service District are given in
Section 4.2.24 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Intent.
The AS Agricultural Service district provides sites in rural areas for rural non-
farm; non - residential uses which support horticultural, silvacultural, agricultural
uses of the AR Agricultural - Residential district.
Application Criteria.
The AS district is usually applied where the following conditions exist:
1. The site is within areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
Agricultural - Residential;
2. Lot sizes are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage
disposal; and
3. Normally, maximum amounts of land zoned AS at any_location are no__.._
more than 10 acres.
Permitted Uses.
Accessory Uses
P2 Botanical Gardens & Arboretums
P4 Bus Passenger Shelter
P7 Church
P10 Governmental Protective .Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue :...._.. _ ..
Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments
P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
S2 Agricultural Service Uses
INFORMATION M.EMO'KANDUNI
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Planning Board
DATE: November 27, 1995
PAGE: Three
S10 Farm Equipment and Sales
S11 Feed, Seed, Storage and Processing
S13 Greenhouses (No On- premises Sales)
S14 Greenhouses (On- premises Sales)
S18 Commercial Feeder Operation
S19A Class i Kennels
S48 Sawmills
S49 Stockyards
S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoors
S51 Storage or Warehousing: Inside Building
S51a Studio (Art)
The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit:
P11 Land Fills (Two acres or more)
P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone
Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants
The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit:
P12 Land FzZls (Less than Two Acres)
P17 Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water
Storage Tanks
P22 Transmission Lines
S20 Class n Kennels, Riding Stables
L
'51
52 j
F��
;t b. oning
�ICI^14-j oork
Atlas Amendments
,A" *ao. ►
9c,
(1) Z -7 -95 Vernon P. and Barbara S. Davis
(AR to AS)
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
The property is located in the southwest corner
of NC 54 and White Cross Road and is known as Lot
No. 6.30..7M. The proposed zoning lot abuts a
.11 -acres (4,889 sf)NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial
district (6.30..7B) located on the immediate
corner of the intersection.
The property is located in the Agricultural
Residential Land Use Plan Designation and the
White Cross Rural Community Activity Node.
Across NC 54 to the north, properties are zoned
AR Agricultural - Residential, NC -2 Neighborhood
Commercial, and LC -2 Local Commercial. Across
White Cross Road to the east, the land is zoned
NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial and R -1 Rural
Residential.
The intent of AS Agricultural Services zoning
district is to provide for rural non -farm, non-
residential uses which support hort.icultural-
si.lvacultural uses. The application criteria
state that an AS district will usually be applied
where the following conditions exist:
1. The site is within areas designated by the
adopted Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural -
Residential. No change in the Comprehensive
Plan is required.
2. The lot size for individual uses would be
appropriate to the water supply and sewage
disposal.
3, Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AS
at any location shall not exceed ten acres.
There are 17 uses permitted by right in the AS
Zoning District. Two require approval of a Class
A Special Use Permit, and four require approval
of a Class B Special Use Permit. Any of these
uses, either by right or with special conditions,
could be allowed on the proposed zoning lot. A
list of the uses is included in the Information
Memorandum (an attachment to these minutes on
pages ).
Information.from White Cross Fire Department, the
Sheriff's Department, and 911 Services has been
'.i
received indicating that uses permitted in an AS
zoning district can be serviced in this location.
Concern over uses permitted in the AS district,
particularly warehousing, was expressed by the
owner and tenant of the White Cross-School. There
was also concern about additional commercial uses
in the White Cross Activity Node.
Comments were also received regarding
Environmental Health approval of a septic system
on the proposed zoning lot for the used furniture
store on the .11 -acre NC -2 zoning lot at the
intersection. The Zoning Ordinance does not
provide for installation of a septic system on
property lot zoned for the use served by the
septic system. Since the furniture store located
on the NC -2 zoning district would not be
permitted in the AR or AS zoning districts, then
the installation of the septic system for the
furniture store in the AR or AS district is in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Typically, initial installation of a septic
system is triggered by new development, and
requires associated approval of a building
permit. During the building permit review
process, the location of the proposed septic
system would then be reviewed by the Planning
Staff for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
In this case, no building permit,'was needed, thus
there was no mechanism to trigger Planning Staff
review prior to issuance of the Improvements
Permit by Environmental Health.
The Board of Commissioners directed that the
issues raised by the installation of the septic
system be addressed by the Planning Board and
Board of Health, and that the list of uses
allowed in the A5 district be reviewed by the
Planning Board.
A report will be presented to the Board of Health
at its January meeting. Comments will be referred
to the Planning Board at its February meeting.
Recommendations of both Boards can then be
presented to the Board of Commissioners.
The Planning Staff recommends denial of the
rezoning per the findings (an attachment to these
minutes on pages ).
The Planning Staff also recommends:
53
54 "
(1) That the issue of permitted uses in the AS
district be referred to the Ordinance Review
Committee following review and comment by the
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board,
Cooperative Extension, and Economic
Development Commission. This recommendation
is made because the nature of farming in the
County is changing and the list of permitted
uses should reflect identified changes; and
(2) That, following the resolution of the issue
of permitted uses, consideration be given to
establishing a small area planning group to
work with the property owners in and around
the White Cross activity node to prepare a
land use plan for the node.
Barrows asked for more clarification of
Agricultural Service Uses. Willis responded that
Staff would have to look at specific services to
determine the relationship to agriculture. She
continued that feed and seed stores would be a
good example.
Rosemond asked if the proposed storage /warehouse
was for agricultural related goods. Hinkley
responded that he felt that the intent of the
ordinance was for the storage to be agriculture
related. However, the listings are not.specific
enough to say that they are only agricultural. He
felt this would allow for all-types of storage or
warehousing.
Rosemond asked how farming was changing in
relation to agriculture services. Hinkley
responded that farming and agricultural uses have
become more mechanized and specialized.
Therefore, there will be more things that are
service oriented -in'relation .to - farming. If there
is to be'warehousing, it should be specifically
agricultural related.
Willis noted that there have been changes in area
farms due to dairy farms and tobacco farms going
out of business. She felt that there should be
review /discussion with Cooperative Extension,
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board to
determine the service needs of the changing
agriculture so that the ordinance can be better
tailored to meet those needs.
Katz asked why it was
uses is not specific
those uses. Hinkley
felt that the agricultural
enough to address only
responded that with the node
55.
being "maxed out ", the possibility is great that
there could be some commercial uses that are not
specifically agricultural related. Katz
continued, asking how the node became " maxed
out ". Hinkley responded that the acreage set
aside for the activity node by the Comprehensive
Plan has been met. However, because of the lack
of clarity, an AS district could allow for'more
commercial development.
Reid asked if the owner's intent for rezoning is
known. Hinkley stated that if the property is
rezoned, the owner could not be held to one
specific use; he could have any of the uses
allowed in an AS district. Waddell reminded the
Board that the rezoning would go with the
property, not the owner, should the property be
sold at some point.
Vernon Davis, applicant, indicated he would like
to make comments regarding his request. Mr.
Davis referred to the map of his property
indicating other property he owns in the White
Cross area. He noted that the proposed entrance
to the requested AS district is from White Cross
Road rather than NC 54. It is an existing
driveway where the County, in the past, had a
solid waste collection site.
Mr. Davis distributed copies of a letter prepared
by attorney, Michael Brough. The letter stated
that the property is not appropriate or likely to
be used for agricultural or residential purposes.
The letter also stated that the portion of 'the
tract that contains the septic system which
serves the small furniture store on the .11 acre
tract zoned NC -2 can be removed from this
rezoning request and added to the lot which it
serves.
Brown referred to the neighbors' concerns
regarding storage, mini - storage or warehouses and
asked if that was the plan for this property. Mr.
Davis responded that all types of businesses
require some storage. He noted he would be.
willing to delete storage as a permitted use if
that would help with his efforts for rezoning.
Katz asked for clarification of the last
paragraph of the letter from Michael Brough which
states: "the tract in question clearly is
inappropriate for the residential or agricultural
uses permissible under the existing zoning,... ".
r 56
Mr. Davis responded by pointing. out the other
commercial uses in the immediate area noting that
NCDOT had indicated the need for turn lanes. He
indicated that he felt this would help make the
area inappropriate for residential uses. He also
noted that there were several renters-rather than
homeowners in the area.
Price asked about the uses that Mr. Davis
considers incompatible with residential uses.
Mr. Davis listed the surrounding uses noting
again that he felt they were not compatible with
residential uses.
Hinkley reminded the Board of one of the
recommendations from the Planning Staff that a
small area planning group be established to
prepare a land use plan for the node.
Willis commented that this area was studied
several years ago with other economic development
districts because it was reaching its maximum.
The sentiment from the residents was that no
changes were wanted that would provide for more
non - residential development. Thus, that area was
eliminated when proposed economic development
districts were recommended. The Staff felt
perhaps the area should be studied to determine
if a small area plan would be of interest to the
residents.
Reid expressed some confusion with what
recommendations were being requested of the
Planning Board. Waddell responded that the
findings seemed to indicate the request should be
denied. He continued that Staff seemed to be
looking for other recommendations that would
allow the property owner* to do something with his
land.
Hoecke expressed agreement with the understanding
expressed by Waddell. He noted concern with the
long list of permitted uses that were not
acceptable. He felt that the second
recommendation from the Staff regarding a small
area plan could be a solution.
Waddell indicated he would be in favor of setting
the small area planning process in motion.
Price asked if it was possible for a small area
planning group to be designated or, must that
decision come from the Board of Commissioners.
Waddell responded that the Planning Board could
.
12
not appoint a small-area planning group, but,
could send that recommendation forward to the
Board of Commissioners.
Willis emphasized that there are three parts to
the Planning Staff recommendation. The first is
denial of the rezoning; another, to recommend
pursuit of a'small area plan; and, the third -part
of the recommendation is to study /review
agricultural services and uses in the area with
the involvement of the Agricultural Districts
Advisory Board and Cooperative Extension.
Walters asked how long it would take for the
small area planning process. Willis responded
that she felt it would take six months to one
year. However, she indicated Planner David
Stancil might better be able to answer questions
regarding that issue.
Reid asked for a list of uses in the AR district
other than farms. Hinkley responded that single
family homes, duplexes, and those uses related to
residential development such as fire stations,
community halls, recreational facilities, etc.
Hinkley noted that bona fide farms are exempt.
Mr. Davis noted that he had begun the process in
1989 and felt he had met all of the rules with
the exception of the one addressed by Mr. Brough
regarding the septic system for the furniture
store. He asked that the Board help him with his
problem and grant the rezoning.
Steve Yuhasz, land surveyor, asked if an AS
district is limited to a commercial node and the
response was no. -,
Tom Whisnant, representing property owners of
White Cross. He distributed a list of "Reasons
Not to Rezone" from those property owners to
Board members. {A copy of the list is an
attachment to these minutes on page .)
Mr. Whisnant continued expressing concern with
comments made regarding rental property since Mr.
Davis owns a lot of rental property in the area.-
Mr. Whisnant stated that he felt there was no way
that the Planning Board could consider approving
this request and remain within the guidelines and
intent of the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
He noted that it circumvents any type of traffic
impact study. He continued that there was much
57
r 58
opposition from the neighbors, noting that there
were many who could not be in attendance at this
meeting. They also felt that this process is
technically flawed and there has not been a true
public hearing on the'matter. He stated that
there were several residents who should have
received notification but did not. He felt the
residents like the area as it is and have no
desire to have more commercial uses. The uses
that could be made of the property under the
current zoning are appropriate.
Brown asked if Mr. Whisnant felt there would be
any interest in the area pursuing -a small area
plan. The response was that he felt that the
residents were happy with the work done
originally in the Land Use Plan which allowed for
a variety of commercial uses as well as
residential uses. He continued that if this
request is approved, the amount of commercial use
will be more than doubled. He noted that he felt
many in the community would support a small area
plan since it would give them opportunity to
voice their opinions and participate in the
process..
Walters expressed concern that Mr. Davis stated
he had begun the process in 1989 and Mr. Whisnant
had indicated the property in question was
purchased in 1994. Mr. Davis responded that he
had requested a rezoning in 1989.on some property
across the street. The request was denied because
it was residential; one side-of White Cross Road
is residential and the other is agricultural
residential in the Land Use Plan.
Price asked if Mr. Whisnant would be interested
in being a part of a small planning area study
and the response was yes. She continued asking if
he felt other residents would be interested and
he responded that had not been discussed but he
felt there would be interest.
Weldon Rigsbee, property owner across the road
from the property in question. He expressed
concern that such a list of uses would cause the
area to have the appearance of a junkyard. He
noted that he felt there was sufficient area for
storage behind the seed and feed store.
MOTION: Reid moved that the Planning Board find as
recommended by the Planning Staff for denial of
the rezoning request. Seconded by Price.
59
Barrows expressed concern that the finding of
fact regarding the maximum amount of land zoned
AS shall not exceed ten acres did not address the
fact that there is also an activity node.
VOTE: 10 in favor.
1 opposed -- Waddell felt that the applicant has
followed the -law as spelled out and
the Board is unable to make changes
to the zoning by application. He
felt the individual has attempted to
meet the requirements.
Reid indicated support that a small area plan be
developed and that the definitions of AS and AR
be better defined. Willis responded that that
issue is included under the first part of-the
recommendation. The Board of Commissioners have
directed the Planning Board to review what -areas
of agriculture and agriculture services would tie
into an AS district.
Katz noted that he understood that the
Commissioners have already requested that the
Planning Board evaluate the uses permitted in an
AS district.
Price asked if the Planning Board could place a
time limit on the small area plan so the
property owner would not be held up indefinitely.
If a small area plans does-not materialize, does
the applicant have the option to bring his
request back in a certain period of time and the
response was that he could bring his request back
in one year..
Willis stated that part of the process of
establishing a small area planning group is to
determine what the time-line would be.
Walters referred to a motion made at the
Commissioners' meeting to request that the
Planning Board review the permitted uses for
Agricultural Services District and recommend if
there should be a change.
Discussion followed regarding getting comments
and suggestions, from the Ordinance Review
Committee, Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
and Cooperative Extension Service for permitted
uses in the AS- district.
Brown asked if the Township Advisory Council
would be involved. Willis responded that a small
1 60 • -
i_5
area planning group would certainly involve the
Township Advisory Council.
Brown expressed concern with the apparent rush to
deal with the permitted use table. She-continued
that she felt the permitted uses should be
addressed in the small area plan as part of the
community input. Willis responded that these are
purposely set up as two separate items. She
continued that the permitted uses in AS are more
widely applicable throughout the County. Thus, it
is a much larger issue.
In terms of dealing with a small area plan, there
are more things that are specific to a particular
area.
Brown asked what issue about the AS district that
all of the groups are to address. Willis
responded that was from the comments at the
public hearing; those items that address
agriculture, horticulture, silvaculture types of
uses. Willis continued that the directive from
the Commissioners at the.public hearing was for
the Planning Board to review the permitted uses.
Brown emphasized that she felt defining storage
in more detail would address the issue.
Price stated that she felt the Board was going to
be constantly confronted with definitions. The
issue of the small area planning group should
move ahead and not wait on other issues. The
group could very specifically define its
recommendations.
Hoecke stated that he felt there were two
separate issues because the definition of AS is a
more general one. The small area planning group
could define more clearly what is compatible with
the area and what is not.
Walters expressed agreement with Willis that the
permitted uses for an AS district are county-
wide, not just specific to the White Cross Area.
Brown again questioned whether the permitted use
table should be addressed at this time and how it
would affect the small area planning process.
Price expressed concern that the small area
planning group should move ahead since the
Planning Board already has the.charge from the
Commissioners to study the permitted use table
for AS district.
61
r:
MOTION: Katz moved approval of the recommendation for
referral of the issue of permitted uses as
suggested by the Planning Staff and, that the
Planning Board'supports the immediate
establishment of a small area planning group to
work with the property owners and residents in
and around the White Cross activity node to
prepare a land use plan for the node. Seconded
by Reid.
VOTE: 10 in favor.
1 opposed - Walters was concerned that this
could be a stalling tactic.
Katz again expressed concern with the lack of
proper notification and asked that the Planning
Staff follow up on this concern. Willis
responded that according to General Statutes,
requirements have been met for notification.
It is not a• requirement that tenants be notified.
Katz asked that discussion'of the notification
process be included on the next long range
meeting agenda. Price expressed the same concern
noting that 500 feet in a rural area was not very
large. Chair agreed that this should be
discussed at the next meeting.
(2) Z -8 -95 Jones Concrete (AR to EC -5)
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
The Planning Staff requests the rezoning of a
1.54 -acre lot owned by Henry Ernest Jones at 5908
NC-86 North also known as lot 2.33.5. The
premises has been used commercially for Jones
Concrete Service since 1969. The property lies on
the west side of NC 86 approximately 2100 feet
north of Carr Store Road (SR.1352) /Sawmill road
West (SR 1545) and 3,300 feet south of Compton
Road (SR 1353). The request is to rezone the
property from AR Agricultural - Residential to EC -5
Existing Commercial to correct an oversight
during the original zoning of Cedar Grove
Township effective. January 1,1994.
The property i.s located in an area designated by
the Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural -
Residential lying just north of the old Cedar
Grove School and a Rural Neighborhood Activity
Node centered on the intersection of NC 86 and
Carr Store /Sawmill Road West.
The Plan describes the Agricultural - Residential
62
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306E REVERE ROAD
HILLSHOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278
4##
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING BOARD
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Z -7 -95 VERNON P. & BARBARA S. DAVIS ZONING. ATLAS CHANGE
REQUEST FROM AR AGRICULTURAL- .RESIDENTIAL TO AS
AGRICULERAL SERVICE
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Vernon P. & Barbara S. Davis
3310 NC 54 W
Chapel Hilt, NC 27516
LOCATION: 3310 NC 54 West (Tax Map No. 6.30..7M)
LOT SIZE: 4.67 acres on a 10.01 -acre tract
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
NORTH - Neighborhood and Local Commercial
NORTHEAST - Local Commercial
WEST - Agricultural - Residential
SOUTH - Agricultural - Residential
EAST - Neighborhood Commercial
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Rural Community Activity Node
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Planning Board
DATE: November 27, 1995
PAGE: Two
EXISTING ZONING
AR Agricultural - Residential
PROPOSED ZONING
AS Agricultural Service
Intent and application criteria of the AS Agricultural Service District are given in
Section 4.2.24 of the-Zoning Ordinance.
Intent.
The AS Agricultural Service district provides sites in rural areas for rural non-
farm, non - residential uses which support horticultural, silvacultural, agricultural
uses of the AR Agricultural- Residential district.
Application Criteria.
The AS district is usually applied where the following conditions exist:
1. The site is within areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
Agricultural - Residential;
2. Lot sizes are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage
disposal; and
3. Normally,, maimum amounts of land zoned AS at any location are no
more - than 10 acres.
Permitted Uses.
Accessory Uses
P2 Botanical Gardens & Arboretums
P4 Bus Passenger Shelter
P7 Church
P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue
Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments
P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
S2 Agricultural Service Uses
63
64 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Planning Board
DATE: November 27, 1995
PAGE: Three
i
S10
Farm Equipment and Sales
` S11
Feed, Seed, 'Storage and Processing
S13
Greenhouses (No On- premises Sales)
S14
Greenhouses (On- premises Sales)
` S18
Commercial Feeder Operation
S19A
Class I Kennels
S48
Sawmills
S49
Stockyards
S50
Storage of Goods, Outdoors
S51
Storage or Warehousing:- Inside Building
• S51a
Studio (Art)
The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit:
P11'
Land Fills (Two acres or more)
P16
Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone
Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants
The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit:
P12 Land Fills (Less than Two Acres)
P17 Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water
Storage Tanks
P22 Transmission Lines
S20 Class II Kennels, Riding Stables
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO
APPLICATION: Z-7 -95 VERNON P. & BARBARA, S. DAVIS
BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIAL SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
ARTICLE 20 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATIONMEZONING (°Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non - compliance)
Ordinance Requirements
The application must comply
with all requirements
specified in Article 20 -
Amendments. Those
requirements include:
20.3.2 a) Map showing affected
property at scale of not less than
1' =10(r nor more than 1 " =20'
203.2 b) Legal description of
the zoning lot
20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error,
if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment
20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if any,
which make an amendment reasonably necessary
to promote health, safety, and the public
welfare.
PLANNING"
STAFF PLANNING
RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO BOARD
FINDINGS• SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
_X Yes
No
Site plan provided at scale of 1" = 100'. •
Yes
No
__?__yes
No
Legal description provided.
Yes
No
i
Yes
No
Not applicable.
Yes
No-
Yes
No
Not applicable.
Yes
No
rn
rs
ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING (continued)
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO
SUPPORT FINDINGS
PLANNING
BOARD
FINDINGS
2032 e) Manner in which proposed Yes —X —No. The tract is categorized in the Land Use Yes No
amendment will carry out the purpose Element as Agricultural-Residential which
and intent of the Orange County allows for Agricultural Service Zoning.
Comprehensive Plan. However, all the permitted uses do not
clearly support the horticultural, siivacultural,
and agricultural uses of the AR District.
ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
Article 4.2 identifies the criteria
which will normally be used to
determine the application of a
zoning district designation. The
applicant has applied for an AS
Agricultural Service designation.
The criteria for that district are set
forth in Article 41.11 and are as follows:
(a) The purpose of the AS District is to Yes _X No
provide sites in the rural portion of the
County for rural non -faun, non - residential
uses which support the horticultural,
silvaculturat, and agricultural uses of
the AR districts.
(b) This district will usually be applied
where the' following conditions exist:
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO BOARD
SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Not all the uses permitted in the AS District Yes
clearly support the horticultural, silvaculturaI,
and agricultural uses of the AR District.
No
2
R
i
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO BOARD
PIN_ DINGS
SUPPORT FINDINGS
The site is located,in the AR Ag
ricultural- Yes No
Residential Area designated by the Land -Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Tile area is adequate to accommodate as
Yes No
individual well and septic system.
Tire proposed zoning lot is 4.67 acres Yes No
M
J
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMIv1ENDED
FINDINGS
1. Site is within areas designated by the adopted
X. yes No
Compreliensive Plan as Agricultural ResidentiaL
2. Lot size for individual uses would be
x Yes No
appropriate to the method of water supply
and sewage disposal.
3. Normally, the maximum amount of land
Yes No
X
zoned AS at any location shall not exceed
ten acres. '
i
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO BOARD
PIN_ DINGS
SUPPORT FINDINGS
The site is located,in the AR Ag
ricultural- Yes No
Residential Area designated by the Land -Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Tile area is adequate to accommodate as
Yes No
individual well and septic system.
Tire proposed zoning lot is 4.67 acres Yes No
M
J
M.
The Rezoning of 4.67 acres at White Cross to "AS"
Reasons To Rezone:
1. It enriches the applicant.
Reasons Not to Rezone:
1. This rezoning is not supported by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: It circumvents the
reasoning for limiting commercial development in Rural Activity Nodes.
2. This rezoning is not supported by the Orange County Land Use Plan for Bingham Township.
3. Approval will create a public health hazard for everyone who travels these roads, to make this
worse, approval under the "Agricultural Services Loophole" does not even require CUPS, or
traffic impact studies.
4. There is an existing zoning violation on the subject property. This should be cleared up by the
applicant before it becomes more complicated.
5. Approval is not in keeping with desires to preserve the rural character of the White Cross
Community.
6. The applicant can already use the property for residential or agricultural purposes. It was
purchased under this zoning in February 1994.
7. There is great opposition from residents of White Cross.
8. This application process should be stopped because this process is technically flawed. Only
two property owners were notified of this rezoning request. It is therefore qustionable whether
it is within the law to proceed with this application. Proper notice has not been given as required
under the rules for rezoning applications.
9. People have worked very hard to create a nice community, the proposed uses would be a blight
on the community and bring in many problems that are not in keeping with this community.
10. County commisioners have asked that the definition and uses of "AS" districts be reviewed.
This application should not be considered until this clarification is made.
-flac� men
MICHAEL B. BROUGH & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1829 E. FRANKLIN STREET. 800•A
MICHAEL B. BROUGH CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514
JAN S. SIMMONS
WILLIAM C. MORGAN, JR.
ALISON A. ERCA December 18, 1995
Orange County Planning Board
306 F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Rezoning Application of Vernon P. and Barbara S. Davis
Z-7-95
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
(919) 929-39D5
Pax (919) 942 -5742
Mr. Vernon Davis has asked me to assist him in addressing two of the
concerns expressed by the planning staff in their report on this rezoning
request.
The first concern is that not all of the uses in the AS District are
entirely compatible with the horticultural, silvacultural and agricultural uses
of the AR District. The first response to this concern is that, while there may
be some lack of correlation between the list of permissible uses applicable to
the AS District and the stated purpose of the AS District, this is a matter that
should be dealt with generally and not in the context of this rezoning
application. In other words, the property in question meets all of the standards
of the AS District and a rezoning would therefore be consistent with the
comprehensive plan and should be approved.
Moreover, it would be particularly inappropriate to deny this application
on the basis of a perceived lack of correlation between the uses permitted in
the text of the ordinance and the statement of purpose of the AS District
contained in that ordinance because, unlike most areas designated as Agricultural
Residential, the Davis's property is located within a Rural Community Activity.
Node designated on the Comprehensive Plan at the intersection of NC 54 and White
Cross Road. Mr. Davis has apparently been precluded from applying for other
commercial designations for this tract because the area within this commercial
node already contains five acres of property zoned NC -2 and five acres of
property zoned LC -1, which is the maximum available under the zoning ordinance.
Thus, even if there is a legitimate concern that all of the uses permissible
within the AS district are not entirely compatible with an area that is truly
agricultural, this concern does not apply to the subject of this rezoning request
because the Comprehensive Plan already recognizes that this lot is appropriate
for non - agricultural and non - residential uses. In short, it is quite apparent
that this 4.67 acre tract, at the southwest intersection of Highway,.54.and White
Cross Road, is no more appropriate or likely to be used for agricultural or
residential purposes than the properties directly across NC 54 or White Cross
Road, all of which have already received a commercial zoning designation. It
should therefore be rezoned to allow the limited range of uses permissible within
the AS District.
70
December 18, 1995
Page 2
Second, a concern has been expressed about the recent installation of a
septic system on a portion of the tract that is being requested for rezoning,
which septic system serves the small furniture store on the .11 acre lot zoned
NC -2 at the southwest intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road. Apparently,
although the zoning ordinance does not address the matter, the ordinance may be
open to the i nterpretati on that a septi c tank system must be 1 ocated on 1 and that
has the same zoning as the use which the system serves. To remove this issue
entirely from this rezoning request, Mr. Davis is prepared to delete from this
rezoning request a portion of the 4.67 acre tract that is presently used for the
septic tank system serving the furniture store. If there is a technical
violation with respect to this septic area, this can easily be cured by a
rezoning that would add the septic area to the adjoining lot that it serves.
Thus, this issue should have no bearing on the present rezoning request.
In summary, the tract in question clearly is inappropriate for the
residential or agricultural uses permissible under the existing zoning, and the
AS zoning designation would simply provide the applicants with some additional
flexibility in finding a viable use for this property that would be both entirely
consistent with the comprehensive plan and the existing uses in this area.
MBB:glh
Sincerely,
MICHAE B. //B ROUGH & ASSOCIATES
M chael B. Brough
71
January 9, 1996
Orange County Commissioners
%Orange County planning Department
306 Revere'Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Rezoning Application of Vernon P. and Barbara S. Davis
Z -7 -95
Dear Board of Orange County Commissioners:
We are requesting the Commissioners to.delay taking
action on this application at present time. We understand
that there are issues to be resolved in the Agriculture
Services District and that a small area planning committee
will be formed :to look at.possible changes. We areliobking
forward to working with our neighbors,. so that we can have
the best plan for'the.White Cross Community, as well -as the
County.. We, also understnad that this planning will take a
fair amount of time and in that reguard are holding the
Commissioners to no time frame. Thanking you in advance,
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
74��Z and Barba a S. Davis �c� VPD : bsd T ,�- � • aV4
f
, PIZ toe
c�
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.
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
4. REZONING of property at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M
/ PIN 9749 -40 -0293) from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two
(NC-2).
Michael Harvey made this presentation.
Review of a petition to REZONE a portion property at 3010 White Cross Road (approximately
1.04 acres) from
Agricultural Residential (AR) to
Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2)
Property Vicinity Map (picture)
APPLICATION SPECIFICS:
- Applicant: Vernon Davis
- Address: 3010 White Cross Rd
-TMBL / PIN: 6.30..7M / 9749 -40 -0293
-Size of Parcel: 4.7 acres
- Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR),
- Township: Bingham
-Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: White Cross Rural Community Activity Node
- Proposed Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2) — 1.04 acres
Surrounding Land Uses:
- NORTH:
- Across NC 54: several commercial operations and residential land uses
- SOUTH /EAST/WEST:
- Predominately single - family residential land uses with a commercial land use to the east
Node Boundaries (picture)
Request:
*There is a septic system, and required repair area, located on the subject parcel that supports
an adjacent commercially zoned parcel of property owned by Mr. Davis,
'Mr. Davis is concerned about his continued ability to have the septic system supporting his
commercial operation on the AR zoned parcel of property.
'Recent plans, published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, indicate that
there will be modifications to both White Cross Road and NC 54. These improvements will limit
the available parking for the existing commercial operation and restrict access to the property.
'Mr. Davis is seeking to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of the subject parcel to NC -2 and then
recombine the property with his adjacent NC -2 zoned property,
'If the request is approved, the septic system supporting the existing commercial operation will
be properly zoned and could be recombined with the adjacent commercially zoned parcel of
property
Zoning Officer Analysis:
According to Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum amount
of land zoned NC -2:
' ... at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where
population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas.'
There is a similar prohibition on the amount of Local Commercial One (LC -1) zoned
property within an established Node contained within Article Four (4) of the Ordinance.
Zoning Officer Analysis (continued):
In completing an assessment of the existing non - residentially zoned property within the
White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, the Zoning Officer has determined:
'There is approximately four point five (4.5) acres of existing property zoned Neighborhood
Commercial Two (NC -2) within the Node, and
'There is approximately four point two (4.2) acres of existing property zoned Local Commercial
One (LC -1) within the Node.
Staff is required to recommend the Board deny this request due to the following:
'Approving the request would allow more NC -2 zoned property than allowed by the Ordinance.
As there is already 4.5 acres of NC -2 zoned property this request, if approved, would increase
the total acreage to 5.5 acres,
Zoning Officer Analysis (continued)
'There has been no evidence submitted indicating that the density within the Node is equal to
existing densities within the various Transition Areas in the County,
Staff Recommendations:
'Receive the rezoning petition,
*Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
*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
'Adjourn the Public Hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation.
Planning Board member Samantha Cabe asked clarifying questions about the transition area
and the density and Michael Harvey answered.
Jeffrey Schmitt asked if there was any practical reason that this request would be denied by
staff other than the technical implications. Michael Harvey said no and that staff understands the
rationale and the need, but they are bound by the limitations of the ordinance as currently prescribed.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Steve Yuhasz is the attorney for the applicant. He gave a history of the property. He said
that when this property was first zoned in 1981, the property had a commercial building and was
determined by Planning staff to be zoned as a commercial building. The adjoining property was in a
different ownership at the time, so there was no opportunity to create a larger parcel to hold the
commercial use. Mr. Davis acquired the commercial piece of property and in 1995, the septic system
was installed to provide for the commercial use. At this time, there was no triggering mechanism
whereby Planning would know that the septic system had been installed. Recently, the DOT has
made some improvements to the NC 54/White Cross intersection, and there is not a well - defined
driveway into the commercial property. This is because the entire frontage along the property is used
as the driveway onto the property. Since the improvements, cars are venturing more into Mr. Davis'
parking area and it is becoming more difficult for cars that park there. Mr. Davis wants to make
improvements to the property that would make it a safer parking area and also to incorporate the
septic system onto the lot.
Steve Yuhasz said that the staff agrees on the practical points, but the only problem is the
ordinance. The ordinance says that normally, the maximum amount of NC -2 in a node is nine acres.
This is nowhere near nine acres, so it should be a normal situation unless the exception applies,
which says, "a maximum of five acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed
more widely than in the transition area." He said that he does not see any evidence that staff has
done anything to study the relative densities as of today. He thinks that the zoning request should be
approved and that the staffs objections are not well- founded.
Commissioner Gordon said that the explanation that Michael Harvey gave had to do with
policy, and he also discussed the transition areas.
Brian Ferrell said that he would let Michael Harvey speak to the transition definition, but the
point about whether or not there is a commercial use being made of a residentially zoned piece of
property is one of the reasons that staff is saying that there is a sticking point.
Michael Harvey said that the ordinance stipulates that normally the maximum of land zoned
NC -2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres. It further says that a maximum of five -acres shall
apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in transition areas. The
staff interprets this to say that, within the node itself, if population density happens to be lower and is
distributed more widely than what is in the transition areas in common, then the five -acre limit applies.
Commissioner Gordon asked for numbers and Michael Harvey said that the population is
about 22- 30,000 and the density is one to two acres within the various transition areas. In Bingham
Township, there are 6,211 individuals from the last census. It is the staffs professional opinion, that
given the population of Bingham Township and within the node itself, that it does not meet the criteria
for being more dense than the transition zones that are close to the density and should not be able to
take advantage of the nine acres. He agrees that the staff and applicant are disagreeing on a
technical definition.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that when that was done a number of years ago that it was
very hard to site the nodes.