Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-16-1996 - IX-B i ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 16, 1996 Action Agenda Itetm # =-13 SUBJECT: Z-7-95 VERNON P. & BARBARA S. DAVIS -- ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X-No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley X2584 Findings of Fact Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Site Maps Public Hearing Minutes 11-29-95 Hillsborough 732-8181 Planning Board Minutes 12-18-95 Durham - 688-7331 General Information Memorandum Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Staff Findings PURPOSE: To consider a request to rezone a 4.67-acre portion of a 10.01-acre lot owned by VERNON P. and Barbara S. Davis from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service in Bingham Township. BACKGROUND: 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. .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. Property to the south and west is zoned AR Agricultural-Residential. 2 1 The intent of AS Agricultural Services zoning district is to provide for rural non-farm, non- residential uses which support horticultural- silvacultural 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 the attached 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 in the AS district, particularly warehousing, was expressed by the owner and a 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. f 3 t 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 AS district be reviewed by the Planning Board. A report is expected to be presented to the Board of Health at its February meeting. Comments will be referred to the Planning Board. Recommendations of both Boards can then be presented to the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board Review The Planning Board considered the proposed rezoning on December 18, 1995, and recommended denial of the rezoning request by a 10 to 1 vote. The dissenting vote was based on the Planning Board Member's feeling that the Davis's followed the law as spelled out and that the Planning Board is unable to make changes to the zoning by application. He felt that the Davis's attempted to meet the requirements. The Planning Board also recommended by a 10 to 1 vote that: ( 1) 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) 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 n t land use plan for the node. The vote of the dissenting Planning Board Member was based on her concern that actions to review permitted uses in the AS District and to establish a small area planning group could be stalling tactics. Applicants' Request to Table The applicants have requested that a decision on the proposed rezoning be tabled until issues related to permitted uses in the AS District are resolved, and the Small Area Planning Process is completed (applicants' letter attached) . RECOIrONDATION: The Administration recommends that a decision on the proposed rezoning be tabled as requested by the applicants. The Administration further recommends the following: ( 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 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 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. 5 0 a x x COD r 1 � x 0 6V � � 8 ryH► W � o� t6 w W v' � E AO ' Oar cm p p � o ° La A-1 v. WAa�,1 '„ � �� a ¢ 'yea .-.� •-°• ° moo i d3 ' y ee cn ca O 3 r 3 r / 6 � x N c7 A a �,1 � d•nA 2 ton s a .a J ✓ v ;� y .i w Q ✓ y J y. � d Qa v r ,s��' � � '�,o C� W GP � �' •nn .y W A � d d� o°o.� �,�, A�o•. c U a ° 0 � R •a p• W � Wp Y w � x � CA � d d En ZS ta N � W ¢ � A i '"�+, G '� • Rya N W �¢ Moa6 d d / • M O a ✓� A � � wQ � 8 Ile a o A � � A y N w w W 9 d a r o N w v ,,,,, �+ � •rte � T Q .O.A us , u. d �y ✓ O � � G�i '�d 4 NGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLI V--'-' • APPLId . ON FOR CHANVE OF ZONItYti t -TRICT 8 r ate: OCTOBER 9,: 1995 YO THE BOARD OF COUNTY CONNISSIONERS *Mtc",Chgftg§ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make apptic the Zoning Atlas of Orange County of hereinafter requested . 3 . The property is Located on the WES-,T„side of, $.R.p1952 WRITE CROSSROAD Iteset/Road) between .R. # NC 54 and It is known as Lot i al -,, Stook Orange County Tax Nap BINGHAM Tcwnship . It has a frontage of 550 test and a depth of 4-,-,00_feet , and contains square feet or scree . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from AR to AS 9.• Tho fotLwing Information has ban* attached in . support of the apptiostion for changing the Zoning Attes (• - required on ait app tlaaslsnsl . _.. ea. A fatty alessaiesed oat sit a seats of not tags seen Sts (I) logo sia#te smla-kdssred tiMl test nor 80" than ass ti) 1066 naval e eo tssti' tai fees"shewiva-1 to toad wRies . i6 Proposed to 6a resssed. Ob. A Least doweripslos of LAO Land Proposed so be retained. •s. A statement of jsetiflestien eddee60186 des a? More at the fs I t#w1 Mt t (1) The etteted errs? is tks 204189 oprlasess, it say, Nose Wlaetd As serpeased by Ike peepaoed amendment wish a detailed esplseetisn of Sash &tree i6 toe teal*$ Atlas and detailed possess how she prspseed seessesot wilt depress the area?. (t) The lakes**ed or gasoline sandisl#ne, if say. 14 the area or in the Cas8ty 9enepattyt whisk- oaks she Prooessd oseelameos »esssebty seassalre to Site promotion of the ve0tis heaLth, safety tied 9Stspet setters. 'tal The gasser is Wkvsk the presseed amendment WILL ferry Net she intent see purpose of the armsod Land Use Pies or pars thenet. -- •(sl Olt -#thee tlpeeofsoos", fasters and posies• wki6k the 400tesati off$" iR svppsrt Of $%a trtpesor 006sdlasnt 1nstvalas, ads dos Limited s#, toosasolosion free serviae :9080104 ts.t. firs, Pettis, re$0V@ and stitittas 61#861061 assuring sorvlaea prevision espelitity so the development. i. A Liss at sit I%tividset&, firs& av e41rPa►g111900 &WS/ag ppgsny edje/wiad or w/data five %*moved tote) feet of ass property 8sw� r Srosep6.n Is elteeaed. The ties to etivvees an e? sfe I certify that att information furnished in this spptieation is accurst* e the best of fly knowledge. • ppteoattttsl : � BARBARA S. DAVIS ddrewas. 1310 Hwy Nr CHAPEL , hones - - 9 m r J d �D J r � © N a a o Vol t.l �► p1 •e� d G G fa � u A. too s o w v o w N tn w � to N da `� •g too 4 iA w w O p. fA oft aG •o• M o � d 2 N lot Z J o • +� tdi v G v __ H15 ARTHUF? MINNIS 10 Qv 17 91. OranO �.G 151 rn s A Mads cow Il(0)O FORD T5 1175 TE ER RD--'-'* jr W FEI DA15 r 1103 C. 41 54 • v IWhite C %9 7 IN NI 2: OLD ROL GREENSBORO RD. 1 j 1005 L4S AVMVDMFdVT REQUEST ZOATV Z-7-95 GA T Vernon A Barbra S. Davis Scale ]"=4,0000 PRELIMINARY PLAT ' Not for Recordation, ' Conveyance, or Sales. /VC• S 5 a -4. "79 ?, S 4 C r4,y 25.1,6 E Edstfng S 76'14'00' E 60,00' 4. 67 Ac. Proposed 4�S Zone/ Glenda A. Tilley 90—E-261 !b b.eoms n.r pivp r{y IN 41J.71' Q N 8542'00" W j W 60' —ter (n Rte, N CatQge O V SEE: Plat D-071 Property of GREGORY MOD Z� TIUAr P8 53 R9 90 Vernon Davis (5.34 Ac. remaining) M��r JL.r'f�..G 1&=100" 100 0 100 200 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT REQUEST Z-7-95 Vernon P. & Barbara S. Davis f r 12 1 2 (b) CP-3-95 Land 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. Biological 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 Supoly 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 _ 27 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. 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 2. ZONING Atlas Amendments 33 (a) Z-7-95 Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis (AR to AS) 34 This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a Zoning 35 Atlas amendment request submitted by Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis. The Davis' request 36 rezoning of a 4.67 acre portion of a 10.01-acre lot from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to 37 Agricultural Service (AS). The property is located in the southwest comer 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. 6.30.713. 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 i 13 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/OR COMMENTS 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 empowerment project. The 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 20 then pursue either of these options simply by applying for a building permit. He asked that the 21 Commissioners reject this request. 22 23 David Kasper, lives across the street from this property, and does not support this 24 proposal. It appears likely that 4 acres of self-storage units are an option and that would not be 25 in line with the community vision. He requested that the Board of Commissioners reject this 26 request. -_- 27 28 Barbara Trent stated that she lives in the immediate community and does not support 29 this proposal. She asked that the County send out another notice and include all residents as 30 well as land owners. 31 -- - - 32 Weldon Rigsbee spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He felt that this would 33 greatly detract from the value of the surrounding land. He also mentioned that the sewage lines 34 run though the field. He asked if it was permissible to put a building in the same location as the 35 sewer lines. 36 37 Mary Willis stated that only the rezoning and the variety of allowed uses are being 38 considered now. Even if the property were to be rezoned, a site plan would still have to be 39 approved prior to the start of construction. The site plan would have to comply with all county 40 zoning regulations. It is not permissible to build over septic systems. The Zoning Ordinance 41 also requires buffering that would be adjacent to residential zoning. 42 43 Stan Lewis, a White Cross property owner, spoke against this proposal. He felt that it 44 would be an eyesore. He requested that it not be rezoned. 45 14 f 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. 7 8 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to 9 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than 10 January 16, 1996. 11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 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 (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. 27 The Planning Staff requests the rezoning of a 1.54-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 during-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 34 QUESTIONS 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 AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. 41 Marie 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. � 15 b. Zoning Atlas Amendments ( 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 horticultural- silvacultural 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 16 _ 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 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. The Planning Staff recommends denial of the rezoning per the findings (an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . The Planning Staff also recommends: 17 ( 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 felt that the agricultural uses is not specific enough to address only those uses. Hinkley responded that with the node A 18 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, . . . " . 19 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 20 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. Be 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 21 opposition prom 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. 22 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 plan 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 23 area planning group would ce=tainly 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, horticulturee 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. 24 MOTION: Katz moved approval of the recommendation for referral of the issue of permitted uses as suggested bl 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 2, 100 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 is 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 t 01/09/1996 13:44 942-4436 DAVIS CnNSTRUr.TION C PAGE 02 25 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 are'.3o6king 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 understnnd 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, Ver n P. and arba a S. Daaviss,I' VPD:bad