HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2012-008 (not approved) An Ord Denying an Amendment Request to the Orange County Zoning Atlas -1
Attachment 9 41
Ordinance#: 0o 5 1
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AN AMENDMENT REQUEST TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Carolina Friends School has initiated an amendment to the Orange County
Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), to rezone several parcels of property located attadjacent to 4809 Friends
School Road, specifically parcels with the following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
1. 9892-21-1486
2. 989222-7252
3. 9892-21-6594
4. 9892-31-0894
S. 9892-31-5318
6. 9891-29-1739
7. 9892-33-5224
8. 9892-323662
9. 9891-29-7800
totaling approximately 109.71 acres in area, located northwest of the intersections of Mt. Sinai
Road (SR 1718) and Friends School Road (SR 1719) as denoted on the site plan completed
by Civil Consultants, dated on file within the County Planning Department.
FROM: Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development Housing Rural Buffer(PD-H-RB)
TO: Rural Buffer Conditional Use(RB-CU)
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
have not been adhered to, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted
insufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment will not promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County
Zoning Atlas hereby denies the request to rezone the aforementioned parcels Rural Buffer
Conditional Use (RB-CU) as detailed within the applicant's request.
42
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner , , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
oR,�.
7. Public Hearinas
a. Conditional Use Rezonina and Class A Special Use Permit — Carolina Friends
School
The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public
hearing, and making a decision on the Conditional Use (CU) and Class A Special Use Permit
(SUP) application(s) proposing the expansion of the Carolina Friends School.
The motions for this item were on the pink sheet.
Michael Harvey: Good evening. This is the reconvening of a public hearing, which began on
November 21, 2011, reviewing a Conditional Use Rezoning and Special Use Permit application
for Carolina Friends School, proposing adopting a master plan, proposing to develop a
recreational and new buildings on that property. It is important for the Board to remember that
as we continue to review this plan, and the items that have already been entered into the record
at the November 2181 hearing, the items that we are going to be entering into the record this
evening. As a brief review, during the November 21 public hearing, the application, as
submitted by the applicant, included the formal application form, formal site plans, the required
maps and list of adjacent property owners was entered into the record. The applicant also
entered color renderings of the proposed structures, a traffic impact analysis and transportation
solutions, a biological inventory completed by the Katina Group, an environmental assessment
application, which staff has testified to that Planning staff, DEAPR, and the state determined
that there would be no adverse environmental impact as a result of the approval of the site plan
and the initiation of land-disturbing activities. In fact, it was argued that the Friends School
would actually be addressing existing environmental issues to protect the stream buffer. A solid
waste management plan was also submitted. There was a real estate assessment completed
by Ms. Geraldine Mason,who indicated that it was her professional opinion that the school and
the proposed expansion project would not have a negative impact on adjacent property values.
And of course we had a formal site plan submitted that included a detailed resource
management plan.
This evening what you have in your packet is a revised site plan. One of the key points I want
to remind this Board, a major question came up at the Quarterly Public Hearing as well as the
Planning Board was the location of the proposed ball field. You will note that the proposed ball
field has been moved approximately 90 feet from the western property line to address the local
citizens' concerns. You will also note that additional notes have been added to the site plan
indicating that no athletic field lights shall be erected as requested by the Board. We have a
revised solid waste management plan, which is Attachment 2 of your packet. We of course
have the draft minutes from the November 218`Quarterly Public Hearing, which is Attachment 4,
pages 15-25; the draft minutes from the January 0 Planning Board, which is pages 26-28; the
applicant's written responses to various questions as well as the approval of the recommended
conditions, which is Attachment 6, pages 29-36. I'll also call your attention that in that
attachment, there is a schematic of the proposed ball field relocation that was presented to the
Planning Board at their January 4"' meeting. Attachment 7 contains additional correspondence,
specifically a memorandum from the Orange County Health Department and an email from the
• North Carolina Department of Transportation approving the proposed driveway onto Mt. Sinai
Road with some recommended conditions. That appears on page 37-38. Attachment 8 is an
Then last and certainly not least, Attachment 10 is the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact.
The Planning Board at their January 4°i meeting, as via detailed from the script for you made
affirmative recommendations that the applicant had met all of their obligations for the
application of submittal, had submitted all of the necessary documents to prove that they had
complied with revisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, and they made specific findings
of fact with respect to compliance with the general standards of the ordinance as well as the
required general findings as contained within Section 5.3.2.(A)(2)a., specifically that the use will
maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Planning Board in their
alliterations determined the applicant had met their burden and based this decision on the
applicant's testimony at both the November 21 at Quarterly Public Hearing and the January 4t'
Planning Board meeting, that the application provided the necessary documentation linkage
denoting that it would adhere to this condition. The fact that the project had been approved by
the Fire Marshal's Office, Solid Waste, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and
Planning Staff, and most importantly, that there had been no public comments denoting
opposition to the proposal entered into the record or brought forth in a Quarterly Public Hearing
for the January 4 Planning Board meeting that refuted any of the applicant's claims. They
further made a motion that the project would enhance or maintain adjacent property values,
again, relying on the applicant's testimony at both meetings, the aforementioned real estate
appraisal assessments that were submitted into the record, and of course, most importantly,
that no evidence had been submitted to refute these claims. Last but not least, they made a
finding that the location and character of the school and the proposed expansion plan as
submitted would be in harmony With the area in which it was located; based again on the
applicant's testimony, basect on"the narrative submitted, and based on the fact that no
substantial evidence had been Submitted to refute the applicant's claim.
The Planning Board has recommended approval with the imposition of 12 conditions, which are
located on page 71 of your abstract. These conditions require the applicant to apply for all
necessary permits. It also requires that the County Board of Commissioners approve a
resolution or ordinance submitting the zoning atlas as requested by the applicant. You will also
note that the North Carolina Department of Transportation, one recommended condition is that
the applicant goes through the appropriate driveway application process and that they adhere
to all requirements from the North Carolina Department of Transportation in terns of getting
that approval. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Tony Whitaker, is here this evening. The Planning
staff has recommended this item be approved and the Planning Board has recommended that it
be approved. So the Manager's recommendation this evening is that you convene the public
hearing, accept any additional comments, enter all of the evidence into the record that is
contained in the attachment, you close the public hearing, approve the ordinance contained in
Attachment 8 approving the rezoning of the property, and that you go through the process of
acting on the findings of fact that are detailed for you in the script.
Chair Pelissier: I want to note at this time that there is no one from the public who has signed
up to speak to this item, but I will ask if there is anyone who wishes to do so. There are none.
Commissioner Jacobs: I just wanted to understand since I was the one who brought it up—
. 1__.._ a/__ a a__.__.__.__I...__ !_.
know for future reference to see what the parameters of the Wastewater Treatment
Management Program are.
Michael Harvey: My initial reaction is that would have happened automatically because that is
the standard policy of the Environmental Health Department. As indicated earlier at.the
Quarterly Public Hearing, it is never a bad idea to impose or to reference conditions,especially
with a special use permit.
Commissioner McKee: I'd just like to express appreciation for the consideration that the
school gave to the ball field.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to approve attachment 8, An Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as shown
below. An.
Ordinance
UNANIMOUS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
the"ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Carolina Friends School has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone several parcels of property located attadjacent to 4809 Friends School Road,
specifically parcels with the following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
1. 9892-21-1486
2. 9892-22-7252
3. 9892-21-6594
4. 9892-31-0894
5. 9892-31-5318 ,
6. 9891-29-1739
7. 989233-5224
8. 9892-32-3662
9. 9891-29-7800
4
Totaling approximately 109.71 acres in area, located northwest of the intersections of Mt. Sinai
Road (SR 1718)and Friends School Road (SR 1719) as denoted on the site plan completed by
Civil Consultants, on file within the County Planning Department.
FROM: Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development Housing Rural Buffer(PD-H-RB)
TO: Rural Buffer Conditional Use (RB-CU)
submitted sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the
intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not
limited to, the following:
a. The Land use Element Map.
b. Chapter 5—Land Use Element, including:
1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and
designation of future'land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent
with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
2. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
life.
3. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
And
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably
necessary to promote the,ptfT5lliVh6alth, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning
Atlas is hereby amended f&Y`az669the aforementioned parcels Rural Buffer Conditional Use
(RB-CU) consistent with th plic�nt's request.
"
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINfp'CHAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
SUP
PINK—add here
1. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with
Section 2.9.1 Conditional Use Districts of the UDO as denoted on page(s) 44 through
48 of Attachment 10xof thp abstract.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS;
2. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to affirm the findings_"of 'the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with
Section 3.8.4 Condiflonal Districts — Where Permitted of the UDO as denoted on page
49 of Attachment 1 Q pt the abstract.
VOTE. UNANIMOUS,
3. A motion was made by._Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to affirm the findings-df the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with the
specific standards governing the development of Schools: Elementary, Middle, and
Secondary as detailed within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO, as denoted on page(s) 53
through 67 of Attachment 10 of the abstract.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to affirm the findings of the Planning Board related to the project's compliance with the
specific standards relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the
site
as detailed within Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO, as denoted on page 68 of Attachment
10 of the abstract.
VOTE: UNAN/MOU9"
6. A motion was made`;* mmissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to affirm the fndinoi P "'Planning Board related to the project's compliance with
Section 5.3.2 (A)^(2)(4YV t�10 UDO, specifically that:
The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and 0,evelpped and operated according to the plan as submitted.
(IF THE MOTION `fS"fiW-AFFIRM) This motion to affirm is based on the following
already entered into hii rredbrd:
• The applcanrs testimony at the November 21, 2011 public hearing and
the Januatji 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting,
,'
• The application narrative providing documentation on the provision of
water-and,Wastewater treatment services to the project,
• The approval of the project by the Orange County Fire Marshal, Solid
Waste'NO-DOT, and Planning staff.
• FurtWa' lack of evidence submitted into the record indicating that the
applir I fttl had not met their burden of proof.
VOTE: UNANIMOU r,.r
7. A motion was madeelbyQommissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
affirm the findings otthw Planning Board related to the project's compliance with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)of the LIDO, specifically that:
The use will maintain.or enhance the value of contiguous property