HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-17-2010 - 6b i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. (o " �
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) — 3300 NC 54 West
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning
1. Staff Generated Map of Subject Property Supervisor, 245-2597
2. Minutes from May 24, 2010 Quarterly Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
Public Hearing
3. Minutes from June 2, 2010 Planning
Board Regular Meeting
4. Copy of Legal Advertisement
5. Statement of Consistency with
Comprehensive Plan
6. Resolution of Rezoning Petition Approval
7. Statement of Inconsistency with
Comprehensive Plan
8. Resolution of Rezoning Petition Denial
�� PURPOSE: To receive the�Planning Board recommendation on a rezoning petition submitted
by Mr. Vernon Davis to rezone a portion of a 2.04 acre parcel of property located at 3300 NC
Highway 54 West (TMBL 6.3bB..8 / PfN 9749-50-0366). "
Specifically, the applicant is requesting to rezone 1.36 acres of the subject parcel as follows:
From: Rural Residential One (R-1) (1.36 acres in area)
To: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) (Rezoning the 1.36 acres zoned R-1 to
NC-2)
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 24, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing. As staff
indicated during the hearing, the subject property is 2.04 acres in area, with approximately 1.36
acres of the property zoned Rural Residential One (R-1) and the remaining portion zoned
Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2)
The septic system supporting an existing commercial land use is located on the residentially zoned
portion of the subject property. Within the application, Mr. Davis indicates he is concerned about the
continued ability to have the septic system supporting the existing commercial operation on the
residentially zoned portion of the property. As a result, Mr. Davis is seeking to rezone the area and
have the entire parcel zoned NC-2.
2
During the public hearing, a local citizen expressed concern over the apparent use of the
subject property to support a U-Haul rental business. The citizen, while supportive of the
rezoning request, expressed concern that such a land use was inconsistent with the intent and
purpose of the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node.
The applicant has ceased utilizing the subject property to support the U-Haul operation. Based
on a recent interpretation made by the Planning Director, staff is in the process of requiring the
applicant to cease the U-Haul operation from a nearby property as well.
Staff Note: Salient information regarding this application includes:
A. Recent amendments to Article Four (4), specifically Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, of the
Ordinance have increased the total cumulative amount of allowable non-residential zoned
property within a Rural Community Activity Node to ten (10) acres of LC-1 and ten (10)
acres of NC-2;
B. Th ere is already 4.2 acres of property zoned Local Commercial One (LC-1) and 5.5 acres
of property zoned Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) within the White Cross Rural
Community Activity Node; and
C. If this petition is approved, there will be 6.86 acres of NC-2 zoned property within the
Node, leaving a balance of 3.14 acres of allowable NC-2 zoned property.
Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its June 2, 2010 regular
meeting where the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this request as
presented by staff.
While voting to approve the request, Planning Board members indicated that they wanted to
begin a dialogue amongst themselves, and eventually with the BOCC, about the possibility of
expediting the �eview of, and taking action on, rezoning requests where no major concerns were �
associated with the petition. This is a potential topic for the annual BOCC/Planning Board work
session this fall. • ' ' ' . .
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. Planning staff processed the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
3. Close the public hearing, and
4. Approve the rezoning petition by:
a. Approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5)
b. Approving-the Resolution of Rezoning Petition Approval (Attachment 6)
ATTACHMENT ONE - Aerial Map of Subject Property (with zoning)
r ,
- It'd �.. °'� � iT � �,• ��� � � ��� �� i � a
1
' , Unprotected W Tim rshed µ
ell
. .� ..
}
}
PLC—�
9a
2
NC-
2
r..r�
{
Subject Property
i
3300 NC 54 West
(TMBL 6.30B..8 / PIN 9749-50-0366)
,4NC Highway 54`
NC-2
NC-2
�.
r
NC-2
3 r 3 Applicant requests the rezoning of the
1.36 acres of the
property,current)Y housing
AR `* the septic system and repair area, to NC-2
- a
USGS Water Feature �Parcel Zoning � 100 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02107) 0 150 3(
Soils Survey Water Feature Township t City limits Floodway(Effective 02/02/07) 1 inch=155.48 feet
OC Updated Water Feature School System Boundary ETJ 500 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02/07)
Water Body Contours Conservation Easements Buildings
Held by Others
River Basins -----County
ty �Z Orange County Water and Sewer Boundary
Watershed Soils —"",� Conservation Easements -
,it
Attachment Two (2) 1 4 '
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
4 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
5 May 24, 2010
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
9 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, May 24, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
10 Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
13 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the
17 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members
19 Pete Hallenbeck, Tommy McNeill, Earl McKee, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Mark Marcoplos, Judith
20 Wegner, and Rachel Phelps Hawkins
21
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: May Becker, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Larry
23 Wright, and Samantha Cabe
24
25 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
26 T
27 1. REZONING - 3300 NC 54 West - To receive public comments on a proposed rezoning of a
28 parcel of property at 3300 NC 54 West (TMBL 6.30B.8 / PIN 9749-50-0366) from Rural
29 Residential One(R-1)to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2).
30
31 Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford introduced this item.
32 Commissioner Yuhasz noted that he is involved in a professional relationship with the
33 applicant in this manner and he had no part in preparing this application.
34 Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation.
35
36 AGENDA ITEM: C-1
37 PUBLIC HEARING
38 Review of a petition to REZONE a portion property at 3300 NC 54 West from
39 Rural Residential One (R-1)to
40 Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2)
41 Property Vicinity Map:
42 APPLICATION SPECIFICS:
43 •Applicant: Vernon Davis
44 •Address: 3300 NC 54 West
45 •TMBL/ PIN: 6.306.8/9749-50-0366
46 •Size of Total Parcel: 2.04 acres
47 •Zoning: Rural Residential One (R-1) (1.36 acres) and Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2)
48 (.68 acres)
49 •Proposed Zoning Parcel: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2)— 1.36 acres
50 •Township: Bingham
Attachment Two (2) 2 5
1 •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: White Cross Rural Community Activity Node
2 Surrounding Land Uses:
3 •NORTH:
4 •Across NC 54: several commercial operations
5
6 •SOUTH/EASTNVEST:
7 •Predominately single-family residential land uses
8
9 Node Boundaries
10 Request:
11 •The septic system, and required repair area, supporting an existing non-residential general
12 retail operation on the subject property are located on the residentially zoned portion of
13 property,
14 •Mr. Davis is concerned about his continued ability to have the septic system supporting his
15 commercial operation on the residentially zoned portion of property,
16 Request (continued):
17 •Mr. Davis is seeking to rezone approximately 1.36 acres of the subject parcel to NC-2,
18 •If the request is approved, the entire property will be zoned NC-2,
19 •If the request is approved, the existing septic system and repair area will be properly zoned to
20 support the existing non-residential operation.
21 Zoning Officer Analysis:
22 •Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance limits the amount of land zoned NC-2
23 permissible within a Rural Community Activity Node to ten (10) acres,
24 •There is currently 5.5 acres of NC-2 zoned property within the Node,
25 •If approved this request will add 1.36 acres of additional NC-2 zoned property within the Node,
26 expanding the total to 6.86 acres,
27 •The Zoning Officer has determined there is sufficient available area to allow for the approval of
28 the rezoning while complying with acreage limitations established within Section 4.2.9
29 Zoning Officer Analysis (continued):
30 •The Zoning Officer agrees that the request is reasonable given the issues relating to the
31 location of the septic system and further finds that the request is consistent with the
32 requirements of the Ordinance.
33 •Staff recommends approval of the request.
34
35
36 Staff Recommendations:
37 •Receive the rezoning petition,
38 •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
39 •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County
40 Board of Commissioners no later than August 17, 2010
41 •Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 17, 2010 in order to receive the Planning Board's
42 recommendation.
43
44 Planning Board member Tommy McNeil arrived at 7:25 PM.
45
46 Public Comment
Attachment Two (2) 3 6
1 Perdita Holtz was speaking as a citizen. She said that she lives in the White Cross node
2 and she is concerned about what Mr. Davis will do with the property. She does support non-
3 residential development in this node, provided the uses serve predominantly the surrounding
4 area. She said that the zoning ordinance states that LC-1 and NC-2 zoning districts are for
5 limited commercial uses designed to serve the population at the neighborhood and rural level
6 with convenience goods and personal services. It also states that the NC-2 zoning district
7 would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not
8 serve commuters or persons outside the existing neighborhood. She said that recently a U-
9 Haul operation was started on the Shell station property across NC 54. She said that U-Haul
10 vans and trailers are being stored on the south side of NC 54 on the property zoned R-1 and is
11 under consideration for the rezoning. She questions whether a U-Haul operation fits the state of
12 intent of the LC-1 and NC-2 zoning districts. She said that she removed herself from the
13 discussions in the Planning Department because she has a personal interest in this matter.
14 Regarding her view as a citizen and an owner of fairly adjacent property, she said that sales and
15 rentals of durable and convenience goods are permitted in those finro zoning districts, however,
16 sales and rentals of new and used motor vehicles are allowed only in GC-4 and the industrial
17 districts. She said that if it is determined that a U-Haul rental operation is a permitted use in an
18 NC-2 zoning district, she would like some sort of vegetative screen to be required to mitigate the
19 impact of that outdoor storage component of the business.
20
21 Teresa Smith is the owner of the retail business on land owned by Mr. Davis and the
22 building that is designated as NC-2. She said that the U-Hauls were brought up as a concern
23 and she believes that Mr. Davis has addressed this by moving them off the property. Right now,
24 her understanding is that they really are just looking at the opportunity for the septic. She said
25 that they are trying to build a community activity center there and this requires adequate septic.
26
27 Commissioner Jacobs asked whether the Board was considering uses when it considers
28 rezoning and Michael Harvey said no. Any use within the NC-2 zoning designation can be
29 developed on any parts of the property being rezoned.
30
31 Commissioner Yuhasz asked how much of this property would be required for a septic
32 system and if this land (for septic system) is dedicated to the non-residential use, would there
33 be any land left over or any possibility of using this for residential purposes.
34
35 Michael Harvey said that there are existing septic lines and a repair area. He said that
36 staff will be working with Mr. Davis on many different issues and septic will be one of them.
37
38 Mark Marcoplos said that it would make sense for the Planning Board to just say at this
39 meeting that everything is ok with this instead of bringing it back at another meeting. He said
40 that this would save time.
41
42 Commissioner Gordon explained the reasoning behind the process. The reason for
43 more meetings is so that there are notices and public hearings. This is so that the process
44 would remain transparent.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
47 receive the zoning petition, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
48 recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the August 17,
49 2010 BOCC regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until August 17, 2010 in order to
50 receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
ATTACHMENT THREE(3)—APPROVED
MINUTES Approved via•an email vote
the week of July 26, 2010;
scheduled to be affirmed
at the 8/18/10 meeting
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 2,2010
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PReseNr: Brian Crawford (Chair), At-Large, Eno Township; Judith Wegner (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township
Representative; Larry Wright, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Tovmship Representative; Peter
Hallenbeck, At-Large,Cheeks Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; May Becker,At-Large Chapel Hill
Township;Mark Marcoplos,At-Large,Bingham Township;Rachel Hawkins,Hillsborough Township Representa6ve
MEMBERS AeseNr: Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township
Representative;Jeffrey Schmitt,Cedar Grove Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supenrisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love,
Administrative Assistant II
AGENDA ITEM 7: REZONING AT 3300 NC 54 WEST:
To make a recommendation to the BOCC for the rezoning request at 3300 NC 54 West heard at the
May 24,2010 Quarterly Public Hearing.
Presenter.� Michael Harvey,Planner 111
Mor�oN: Mark Marcoplos made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed zoning atlas amendment and make a
recommendation for the approval of Attachment(s)Two,Statement of Consistency, and Three, Resolution of Rezoning Petition
approval,for the item. Seconded by Rachel Hawkins.
VOTE:Unanimous
Mark Marcoplos: We discussed for another lot 200 yards up the road from this one about a storage facility. It was apparent
there was no problem among the Planning Board members and we didn't need to take another month to look at it so I made a
proposal to the Board of County Commissioners that if it was a no brainer,IeYs save the time and paper and tum it right back to
them. Alice Gordon,with her focus on due process said she was uncomfortable with that kind of quick turn around. Bernadette
Pelissier came to me after the meeting and gave me an idea,why don't you tum it back to us if there are no questions and you
feel there are no problems and we can approve it at the next meeting which means it may be a week or two rather than months.
That would be my motion. We need to be on the same page and have read the informabon and even if we have to take a few
minutes at the public hearing to confirm we are okay. We don't want an issue to move ahead if there is a legitimate reason
discuss it further so if we can be prepared to take an action on these issues and send it back to the Board of County
Commissioners then at their next meeting that gives the public that little extra 6me.
Brian Crawford: I think I heard from Alice that she was also concerned about the public's opportunity to make additional
comments. This proceeding is the public's opportunity to make additional comments before it goes back to the Board.
Mark Marcoplos: It was unclear what she really wanted because the Public Hearing is the opportunity to make their comments.
Brian Crawford: Technically this is a public hearing.
Mark Marcoplos: It is a judgment call. They could come back to the Board of County Commissioners meeting and ask a
question.
Larry Wright: You two have had experience on this Board and there are things that come before us that people do come and this
current Board, the new members, have not really seen much of this but there are issues that come before us that people do
come in and make comments and comments to us as well as to the Board of County Commissioners.
Brian Crawford: Comments that have also swayed some of the Board members decisions in here.
1
8
Approved via an email vote
the week of July 26, 2010;
scheduled to be affirmed
at the 8/18/10 meeting
Larry Wright I would be hesitant to push something through like that because we are here to represent the people not just as
Pianning Board members. We have a charge.
Judith Wegner: I would take what Mark said to be if you don't have any more comments or complications we should refer things
at the first available date to the Board of County Commissioners and not assume there has to be tuvo or three months because
during that period,it is not like anyone is getting more information.
Mark Marcoplos: In both of these incidences no one thought there would be any problems. If there is any hint of a problem, I
would say we defer for further discussion but both of these incidences,we came to the meeting with no discussion and it was a
no brainer.
Judith Wegner: I have never understood the cycle of what we hear when the hearing date is set up months ahead of time. If it is
unclear to me you can imagine how it is for a ci6zen. In some way,it seems we should be consistent about these timeframes.
We should ask ourselves what the point is of the extended period. There have been times where we have had pressures with
changing documentation when we had the Buckhom situation where we had things thrown at us at every mee6ng while we were
working on the comp plan and other things. It was very fnistrating because it was as though we were being forced to act more
quickly than warranted. Whereas if things are simple and we have the documentation what is wrong with moving ahead
promptly.
Larry Wright: LeYs say we chose to get out heads together after the Quarterly Public Hearing and we did choose to consider an
equipment building or something. Who registers,who voted and who descended and that sort of thing?
Judith Wegner: I think we can't literally decide that if this is a hearing opportunity we have to honor it and see if anybody comes
to it;but we can have our own understanding and when we prepare for the next meeting we can take that into account.
Brian Crawford: It has to be in the public. The question is,we deliberated first and made the recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners and have the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. I don't know if there is anything in the law
that prevents us from deliberating that night at the public hearing for referral to the Board of County Commissioners at their next
scheduled meeting as opposed to coming back here and then missing another month.
Judith Wegner: We are not set up in that meeting to have someone to take our comments or be on the record. Either way the
deliberations need to be recorded and we need to be clear about that and decide we will have a meeting that we stay longer.
Michael Haroey: There are reasons the process operates the way it does. A lot of it has to do with staff's responsibility in getting
memorandums, documentation completed and into the queue to be reviewed by the County attomey, manager and planning
director, etc. I don't disagree with Mark that there may be a better way to do this. My fear is over making the decision that a
pa�icular item was a"no braine�"and what items are not potentially puts this Board at a disadvantage or a situation where they
are making judgment call. Applicants can then argue that they should have been'fast tracked'or neighbors could argue we did
not give an item proper review. It is a catch 22 when we try and determine what items are and are not a'no brainer'. Staff has
certain obligations from an administrative processing standpoint to get things done in a certain manner of time so they can be
reviewed by all necessary parties.
The ordinance guarantees the Planning Board 90 days of review time on a given item. If you don't make a recommendation in
90 days,it goes back the Board of County Commissioners without recommendation. It is very rare that I have seen this Board to
take the fult 90 days if they are comfortable with what has been presented. Buckhorn was an exception that took longer because
the Board requested more time. My concern is that it puts the Board in an awkward position of determining what constitutes and
easy application to review and comment upon.
Mark's suggestion has a lot of validity. You could discuss this matter further with the Board of County Commissioners when you
do your annual retreat on how you can speed the process up. That fits in nicely with the next phase of the UDO that is sta�ing
sometime this fall and early spring.
Brian Crawford: For instance,would we have been able,through Mark's process,would these have been able to be ready for us
to decide. Given what you said,would this have been available to use the evening right after the public hearing.
2
9
Approved via an email vote
the week of July 26, 2010;
scheduled to be affirmed
at the 8/18/10 meeting
Michael Haroey: That is a form that you plug additional data into. It is really the question of completing the whole abstract
package for internal and extemal peer review and comment. After you make a recommendation, it goes back to the Board of
County Commissioners it is technically the manager's office making the recommendation of what to do next, not the zoning
officer. Planning has already made their recommendation. One of the reasons we have that delay is to ailow that time for the
Couniy Manager to articulate and certify his recommendation to the Board. The direct answer is that a lot of the stuff we produce
here is a form. We are plugging in data into existing forms the County attorney has already blessed.
Another reason for the delay is the fact that we are obligated to adjoum the public hearing to a specific date and time for it to re-
convene. We need to build time into the process to allow you the opportunity to review and comment on a proposal and meet all
of our regular deadlines for abstract submittal for review and comment so that the item can be brought back to the County
Commissioners for their final action.
Judith Wegner: Let me ask this. I think when we first saw this we thought it was going to be non-controversial. If we had a
consent calendar,we could recommend an expedited process because it is consistent with what has come before. Staff would
be aware of it if they thought it wasn't suitable...is it complicated or is it simple.
Brian Crawford: Much like the Board of County Commissioners have.
Mark Marcoplos: I think it is key to see who shows up at the public hearing.
Judith Wegner. Sure.
Mark Marcoplos: To me,that is the test. If someone steps up and has a legitimate or even a whiff of conUoversy,we don't do it.
Only those items where there is no controversy. That is the final step for me is to hear what people say.
Brian CrawFord: Mark,do you want to make that a work item of this Planning Board to develop an expedited process or suggest
something in a forma motion to the Board of County Commissioners?
Mark Marcoplos: I meant to write something up and circulate to see what people want to add or change. If it is okay,I will write
a proposal.
Brian CrawFord: An item on the next agenda?
Mark Marcoplos: Yes.
3
10
Attachment FOUR (4) — QPH Legal Ad
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, May 24, 2010, at
7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or
against the following items:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. REZONING of a parcel of properly at 3300 NC 54 West (TMBL 6.30B..8 / PIN 9749-
50-0366) from Rural Residential One (R-1) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-
2).
The property owner, Mr. Vernon Davis, has initiated this request. The 2.04 acre
parcel of property is currently split zoned, with approximately 1.36 acres of the
property zoned R-1 and the remaining portion Zoned NC-2. There is an existing
structure on the commercially zoned portion of property that is used to support a
general retail operation. The septic system supporting the existing commercial
operation is located on the portion of properly that is currently zoned residential. Mr.
Davis is concerned about his continued ability to have a septic system supporting his
commercial operation located on the residentially zoned portion of property and is
seeking to rectify the problem.
Purpose: To receive citizen comment on the rezoning request.
Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the request
is made to the Director of Planning at least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by
calling the one of the phone numbers below. The full text of the changes may be
obtained after May 14, 2010 from the Planning Department. The text may also be
obtained at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Meeting Aqendas link prior
to the meeting.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, North Carolina. O�ce hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and
you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH:
News of Oranqe Chapel Hill Herald
May 12, 2010 May 12, 2010
May 19, 2010 May 19, 2010
ATTACHMENT FIVE (5)—Staxement of Consistency: � 1
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 thirty-six (1.36) portion of a two
point four (2.04) acre parcel of real property located at 3300 White Cross Road from Rural
Residential One (R-1) 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 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 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of ,
2010.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT SIX(6)—Resolution of Rezoning Approval 1 2
oRP - oI.D - o� �
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: August 17, 2010
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: Rural Residential One (R-1)
TO: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NG2)
The property is further identified by the following legal description as provided by the
Applicant within the Application:
Beginning at an existing iron pipe on the southern right-of-way of NC
Highway 54, a corner common to Armin Leith and Timberidge Rentals
LLC, said pipe also being located N 87°23'42"E 884.92' (Grid) from NCGS
Monument "Lloyd" having NC Grid coordinates of N=790516.1617 and
E=1944417.4858; thence leaving said southern right-of-way and with the
western line of said Leith S 09°52'08" E 269.99' to a set iron pipe, a corner
common to Timberidge Rentals, LLC #2 Vernon P. Davis; thence, with the
northern line of said Timberidge S 83°19'00" W 347.94' to a set iron pipe
on the eastern right-of-way of Vernon Drive, thence, with said eastern
right-of-way N 02°45'23" W 270.96' to a set iron pipe on the southern
right-of-way of the aforementioned NC Highway 54; thence, with said
southern right-of-way with the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of
3879.72 (chord N 83°27'13" E 314.38') for a length of 314.47' to the point
and or place of beginning containing 2.04 acres more or less
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;
13
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 2030 Comprehensive
Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
a. The Land Use Element Map.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
, 2010.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
ATTACHMENT SEVEN (7�Statement of Inconsistency: 14
STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY
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 thirty-six (1.36) portion of a two
point four (2.04) acre parcel of real property located at 3300 White Cross Road from Rural
Residential One (R-1) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2). T'he 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 will
be inconsistent with Orange County's adopted comprehensive plan and that the Board of
Commissioners proposed action on the amendment applied for is reasonable and 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 2030 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 Cou.nty Zoning Ordinance
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of ,
2010.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC
15
ATTACHMENT EIGHT(8)—Resolution of Rezoning Denial:
dR�-aol�- 0� 5
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: August 17, 2010
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: Rural Residential One (R-1)
TO: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NG2)
The property is further identified by the following legal description as provided by.the
Applicant within the Application:
Beginning at an existing iron pipe on the southern right-of-way of NC
Highway 54, a corner common to Armin Leith and Timberidge Rentals
LLC, said pipe also being located N 87°23'42"E 884.92' (Grid) from NCGS
Monument "Lloyd" having NC Grid coordinates of N=790516.1617 and
E=1944417.4858; thence leaving said southern right-of-way and with the
western line of said Leith S 09°52'08" E 269.99' to a set iron pipe, a corner
common to Timberidge Rentals, LLC #2 Vernon P. Davis; thence, with the
northern line of said Timberidge S 83°19'00" W 347.94' to a set iron pipe
on the eastern right-of-way of Vernon Drive, thence, with said eastern
right-of-way N 02°45'23" W 270.96' to a set iron pipe on the southern
right-of-way of the aforementioned NC Highway 54; thence, with said
southern right-of-way with the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of
3879.72 (chord N 83°27'13" E 314.38') for a length of 314.47' to the point
and or place of beginning containing 2.04 acres more or less
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 2030
Comprehensive Plan or part thereof.
16
This Ordinance shali become effective upon approval.
Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of
, 2010.
Ayes:
Noes:
Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC