The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Board - 030321 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �� frro 4 I z ra ;�Qrrri �as 6'l�0 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, March 3, 2021 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm Due to current public health concerns, the meeting will be virtual. Members of the Planning Board and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. Interested members of the public can view and participate in the meeting by following the instructions at the end of the agenda. (Please note that pre-registration no later than 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting is required to speak at the meeting). No. Page(s) Aggnda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 2 5 - 6 a. Planning Calendar for March and April b. Acknowledgment and thanks to Patricia Roberts as she finishes her second term and rotates off the Board effective 3/31/21 3. 7 — 14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 6, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS No. Page(s) Agenda Item 7. 15 — 56 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (GENERAL USE DISTRICT) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone 2.72 acres from Rural Residential (R-1) to General Commercial (GC-4). The parcel (PIN 9873-54-6387) is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 (no physical street address) across from Fletcher Road and south of an existing self-storage business, within the Hillsborough Township. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on April 6, 2021. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 8. ADJOURNMENT Public Comments / Participation There are two methods for public comment: • Written submittals by email or drop-off • Speaking during the virtual meeting Written Public Comments Members of the public are encouraged to provide written public comments by emailing comments to plan ningboard ,orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/q/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). If a staff member is not available, please leave your comments in the drop-off box near the front counter. Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Verbal Public Comments Members of the public must contact Planning Department staff via email at ocpbpubliccommentCc)_orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting and indicate they wish to speak during the meeting. When submitting the request to speak, please include the following: • The date of the meeting • The title of the agenda item you wish to speak on • Your name, address, email and phone number o The phone number must be the number you will call in from if participating by phone During the meeting, speakers will be called upon in the order in which requests to speak were received. Each speaker may speak once per agenda item and has 3 minutes to address the board. Ceding time to another speaker is not permitted. In the event a meeting is continued to a future date due to the length of public comments, the date for the continued meeting will be announced before the meeting adjourns. No additional requests to speak will be taken for the continued meeting, only the speakers who signed up to speak at the original meeting and were not called upon will be able to speak at the continued meeting. Written comments continue to be encouraged and can be sent to the email address indicated in the "Written Public Comments" instructions above. Zoom Meeting Registration Both members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting and those who wish to only view the meeting must register to receive a link to the meeting. Persons wishing to speak must register with the same name provided in the email that notified staff you wish to speak. The link to sign up for the meeting is: https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN 5gUkght STOOG5FJDfe6ng If you do not have internet access, you may participate in the meeting via phone. Please call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours to receive information on the number to call-in to, the meeting ID, and a password. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the entire review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. :\�I 5 1 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 BOCC Planning Board Business 7:00 pm* Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BOCC Work Session 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BOCC OUTBoard Business Meeting Meeting 6:30 p.m. 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: *Planning Board Member Attendance Required Virtual Meeting 6 � • 1 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOCC Planning Board Business 7:00 pm* Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BOCC Budget Work Session 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BOCC OUTBoard BOCC Business Meeting Work Session Meeting 6:30 p.m. 7 p.m. 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 25 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: Planning Board Member Attendance Required 7 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JANUARY 6,2021 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 6 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 7 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar 10 Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township 11 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Alexandra 12 Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham 13 Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo,At-Large Representative(arrived at—7:35); 14 15 MEMBERS ABSENT:Vacant-At-Large Representatives (2) 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current 18 Planning Supervisor;Tina Love,Administrative Support 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Darrell Chandler, Chad Abbott 21 22 23 Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules for the virtual meeting 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 27 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 28 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2021. 31 a. Term Expiration Dates and Reappointment Eligibility by Member 32 33 MOTION by Melissa Poole to reappoint David Blankfard as Chair for 2021. Seconded by Patricia Roberts. 34 35 ROLLCALL VOTE: 36 Randy Marshall: Yes 37 Alexandra Allman Yes 38 Kim Piracci: Yes 39 Susan Hunter: Yes 40 Adam Beeman: Yes 41 Patricia Roberts: Yes 42 Carrie Fletcher Yes 43 Melissa Poole: Yes 44 David Blankfard: Yes 45 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 46 47 Adam Beeman: I'll put myself out there for Vice-Chair again. 48 49 MOTION by Patricia Roberts to reappoint Adam Beeman as Vice-Chair for 2021. Seconded by Carrie Fletcher 50 51 ROLLCALL VOTE: 52 Randy Marshall: Yes 53 Alexandra Allman Yes 54 Kim Piracci: Yes 55 Susan Hunter: Yes 56 Adam Beeman: Yes 8 DRAFT 57 Patricia Roberts: Yes 58 Carrie Fletcher Yes 59 Melissa Poole: Yes 60 David Blankfard: Yes 61 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 62 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 65 b. Planning Calendar for January and February 66 c. Buckhorn Small Area Plan Study — At the February 3, 2021 Planning Board Meeting, the 67 Planning Board is expected to receive an overview of the Plan, update on Mebane's planning 68 process, and provide input to the Orange County BOCC for its consideration on any 69 subsequent County implementation actions. 70 71 72 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 73 November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 74 75 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approved the November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minute. Seconded by Susan Hunter. 76 77 ROLLCALL VOTE: 78 Randy Marshall: Yes 79 Alexandra Allman Yes 80 Kim Piracci: Yes 81 Susan Hunter: Yes 82 Adam Beeman: Yes 83 Patricia Roberts: Yes 84 Carrie Fletcher Yes 85 Melissa Poole: Yes 86 David Blankfard: Yes 87 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 88 89 90 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 91 92 93 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 94 95 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 96 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 97 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of the County. 98 The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. 99 OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and 100 businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, 101 and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive 102 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 103 104 PUBLIC CHARGE 105 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 106 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 107 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will 108 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 109 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 110 to this public charge is observed. 111 112 9 DRAFT 113 114 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 115 116 117 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(REDA—CZ-1) —ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE—To review and make a 118 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant initiated zoning atlas amendment to expand an existing 119 conditional zoning district called REDA-CZ-1 (NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic 120 Development Area Conditional Zoning). The proposed expansion is located at 8927 Mile Branch Road in 121 Little River Township on a 21.54 acre parcel of land. The parcel is currently zoned REDA-CZ- 1 and 122 Agricultural Residential. The applicant is seeking to rezone the Agricultural Residential acreage so that 123 the entire parcel is in the REDA-CZ-1 district allowing for an expansion of the existing self-storage 124 operation. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on February 2, 2021. 125 Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor 126 127 Michael Harvey Presented a PowerPoint Presentation to the Planning Board. 128 129 Chad Abbott: Good evening everyone, I'm Chad Abbott of C3 Design and Engineering and I represent Mr. Chandler,the 130 applicant, on this project. I also worked on the previous project. I feel like what you have before you is a pretty 131 straightforward project. It is an expansion of an existing use so the typical questions that come up about allowing a use in 132 a certain area have already been decided upon in the past and have had no negative impacts on the surrounding 133 properties and no negative input from any surrounding property owners either first-hand or at the Neighborhood 134 Information Meeting (NIM). We have adhered to all the previous conditions imposed on the original development and will 135 continue to adhere to those same conditions upon development on this property as proposed. We respectively request 136 your recommendation for approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. 137 138 David Blankfard: Did anyone show up from the neighborhood at the NIM? 139 140 Chad Abbott: No Sir. 141 142 Melissa Poole: If I may,this is in my district and I'm very familiar with this area and I am familiar with the storage facility 143 there. There are not a lot of homes that are sitting directly adjacent to this project. I am good with moving forward. 144 145 Kim Piracci: I have a question, it looks like there is a pond across the street,what is that. 146 147 Chad Abbott: It is a farm pond, it's across the road. It's agriculturally zoned land, I don't know what they use it for. 148 149 Michael Harvey pulled up the GIS system to view the area/pond in question and clarified it is believed to be an amenity or 150 recreation pond as available data does not indicate there is a stream or other water feature connecting the pond to the 151 Chandler property east of NC Highway 57. 152 153 Kim Piracci: That's not going to be affected by the septic system? 154 155 Michael Harvey: No, it shouldn't. As indicated on the map, there does not appear to be a water feature identified in 156 County GIS connecting the pond to Mr. Chandler's property east of NC Highway 57. The Environmental Assessment work 157 also did not indicate any water connectivity between the property and the aforementioned pond. We have some of the 158 existing stormwater control measures that were required for the first phase of the project when we began working with Mr. 159 Chandler, he has determined it would be in his best interest and would help with his stormwater as well as shielding his 160 property,to preserve this area of existing foliage. Pointed out other features, septic fields, residents, rock quarry. 161 162 Michael Harvey concluded his PowerPoint Presentation 163 164 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Statement of Consistency indicating that the Zoning Atlas Amendments are 165 reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 7 and recommend approval that the ordinance amending 166 the Zoning Atlas as well as the imposing development conditions for the identified parcel as contained in Attachment 8. 167 Seconded by Melissa Poole. 168 10 DRAFT 169 Randy Marshall: Yes 170 Kim Piracci: Yes 171 Patricia Roberts: Yes 172 Carrie Fletcher Yes 173 Adam Beeman: Yes 174 Melissa Poole: Yes 175 Susan Hunter: Yes 176 Alexandra Allman Yes 177 David Blankfard: Yes 178 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 179 180 David Blankfard: Craig when do you think we will get the vacant positons filled? 181 182 Craig Benedict: The BOCC is having a Work Session in February and will be discussing all of the Advisory Boards. 1 183 would say probably either late February or March we could get something on an agenda in front of them. One of the topics 184 of discussion is should the BOCC round out the various boards to have multiple interests so that boards do not get overly 185 weighed, to try to keep it diverse whether it's the Economic Development Advisory Board or Commission for the 186 Environment or Planning Board to try to round out the applicants. It will be a general discussion at that Work Session. 187 188 Alexandra Allman: How does that work? Do they go to you and then you give them to us and we choose or does the 189 BOCC choose them, how does it work? 190 191 Craig Benedict: They have never come to Planning Staff or the Planning Board. They have always been advertised by 192 the County Clerk's office and then decided by the BOCC. The Planning Board can,off line, take a look at the applications 193 that are always available through the Clerk's office and speak with one of your Commissioners if you think it viable. We 194 may formalize that. Some boards actually do review applications and make recommendations. 195 196 Gio Mollinedo Arrived 197 198 199 AGENDA ITEM 9: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To discuss annual input form which informs the 200 BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall County work 201 planning. 202 PRESENTER: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 203 204 Craig Benedict presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Board members 205 206 Kim Piracci: I'd like to go back to something you said. I don't see it written down but I think you said something about the 207 Board would have to agree on suggestions before we submit them to a developer? Can you tell me what that is and what 208 that means? 209 210 Craig Benedict:We have used this process already with the Planning Board, so when we review conditions that have been 211 suggested to be imposed on a conditional zoning proposal, if one of those modification or conditions is to be amended,we 212 look for the Board to deliberate amongst themselves on what the amendment may be and vote internally on it. We don't 213 want to go to the developer and ask for conditions until we know that the Board wants to collectively say they want that 214 condition. This is a process we have used to try to get some sort of concensus from the Board and then ask either at that 215 meeting or at the next meeting if that is a condition that is agreeable by the applicant. 216 217 Kim Piracci: Would that exclude one of us from making a suggestion on the spot? 218 219 Craig Benedict: No, if for example you said Buc-ee's should have 50 EV electric charging stations instead of 50 gas 220 pumps,we would want to see if the rest of the Board thought that was a viable condition/amendment before we ask the 221 applicant if they would agree to something like that. It's up to you to present your rationale for your amended condition or 222 new condition and then if there is consensus amongst the Board that it can be one of your recommendations. 223 224 Kim Piracci: Is that the sort of thing that happens before we meet with the developers or during? 11 DRAFT 225 226 Craig Benedict: That can be during an open meeting in one of our virtual meetings. You can take a look at the conditions 227 that have been proposed in the application and proposed by staff and seek to make amendments if you think that it is 228 viable to you to think that would address the impacts of the project. 229 230 Kim Piracci: I'm not comfortable with that. That is a change in what we've been doing. Right? 231 232 Craig Benedict: No,this was what we used at both the RTLP meeting and at the Efland Station meeting. For example 233 during the RTLP meeting, a Board member made a suggestion and that suggestion was agreed to by the Board 234 collectively and was included in the conditions voted on by the Planning Board. It is not new and it is a process that the 235 Commissioners will probably use so that new suggestions will at least have some context that the whole Board is 236 collectively interested in pursuing. 237 238 Kim Piracci: I actually don't like this at all. What if everyone on this Board had a one-sided opinion? If the Board has to 239 agree on conditions before we ask the developers to do something then it might never happen. 240 241 Craig Benedict: All we are saying is that the member would propose to the Board a condition and the Board would then 242 decide if there was a consensus to move forward. It doesn't restrict suggestions. It just asks the Board to have consensus 243 and that goes into a request to the developer. 244 245 Kim Piracci: I still am not comfortable with that. To have to come to consensus as a Board. To have to get the whole 246 Board to agree before a suggestion can be made.... 247 248 Melissa Poole: When we put conditions on a project,we still have to vote on it in the overall package, so whether we 249 come to consensus prior to asking or you come to a consensus with the vote,the outcome is not going to change. 250 251 Kim Piracci: It's very different. It's really different. 252 253 David Blankfard: Ok, moving on. 254 255 Craig Benedict: What we are proposing in 2021, is something we had done in previous years in the development of our 256 Comprehensive Plan,we had some joint meetings with other advisory boards. In preparation for an update using our 2020 257 Census data,we are going to suggest that we use that process again. That will be one of the suggestions we will bring up 258 to the Commissioners and since the other advisory board chairs will be at this virtual meeting, there may be time to 259 discuss how that interaction will happen as we move forward. 260 261 Craig Benedict continued presentation of annual work plan/goals for 2021 262 263 Craig Benedict: We can either amend some things to the annual report or add to the plan to submit to the Clerk's Office. 264 265 David Blankfard: We probably need to circle back on how we deal with conditions,there's a lot of debate about that. 266 267 Craig Benedict: We'll add that to the work plan. The UDO does not state how that happens but the Board can have it's 268 own rules on how that is done so we'll add that the Board will be deliberating on a process or not a process. 269 270 Kim Piracci: I would like to add something to the actions/considerations for 2021. Just as there needs to be long-term 271 planning for potable water, I think that this spring there was some concern with COVID there about transportation,there 272 was only 2—3 days'worth of food in grocery stores. I think it would be worthwhile for Orange County to consider if there 273 was a breakdown in transportation, how would the County feed itself. Number 9 for me would be long-term planning for 274 feeding the County,for food and food distribution. 275 276 David Blankfard: Anyone want to second that? (no response) Sorry Kim. 277 278 Adam Beeman: What is number 7? 279 12 DRAFT 280 Craig Benedict: We have noticed that cities have the ability to ask to clean up areas that become eyesores. Counties do 281 not have that ability. We're going to take a look at 160D which takes Counties and Cities makes them more similar.This 282 something that Michael Harvey and I will take a look at and it would be implemented, if possible, in areas that are intended 283 to have urban or city-like activities. 284 285 Carrie Fletcher: I live out in the country and you talk about a nuisance ordinance,trailer parks and old cars and letting 286 properties fall apart is always an issue. I'm not against farmers not being able to keep up with property but still there are a 287 lot of people that don't want to have the neighbor that has 20 or 30 cars. Are you saying this won't come out to rural 288 Orange County? 289 290 Craig Benedict: We do have certain ordinances about cars,junk cars. There is an ordinance about that. This is more like 291 if the grass is too long or the storage of material becomes what is known as an eyesore. There could be some standards 292 that go to the rural areas but we have to be cautious with that for enforcement reasons. 293 294 Perdita Holtz: Just to be clear that 160D has to do with zoning, it does not have anything to do with the nuisance 295 ordinances. Nuisance ordinances are not going to be something that a county can necessarily do outright under 160D. 296 On the last two pages of the agenda materials,there are detailed explanations on these emerging issues and also the 297 work plan. This is just a list on the PowerPoint,the more detailed list is in the packet. 298 299 Carrie Fletcher: On the climate change issue,the collaboration between the Commission for the Environment(CFE)and 300 our Planning Board; I would love to see furtherance of those two agencies getting together. I think it could be a lot less 301 disagreement because there are a lot of people on CFE that would like a lot of things furthered in Orange County but I also 302 understand the roles of the commission and of the Planning Board. The Planning Board has a very specific role and 1 303 understand the distinction between the two. Maybe if there were more understanding and cohesion between the two it 304 would be something to entertain going forward. 305 306 Craig Benedict: We'll make note of that. 307 308 Kim Piracci: I would like to speak out in favor of the nuisance ordinance even though I have eight plus acres out here in 309 the county and I don't really want people telling me what I can do with it. However,there is a house down the road that 310 basically, uses their yard as a dump and it looks like a dump and it smells like a dump and there is not really anything that 311 can be done about it. While they have the freedom to use their place as a dump, it is affecting my property value. 312 313 Craig Benedict: It's an energized topic, it's a tricky issue especially for counties that have such a wide range of activities. 314 We'll keep it on the list. 315 316 Perdita Holtz: David, you mentioned something about post-COVID, it sounded like it was something about evaluating 317 changes that emerge post-COVID and respond appropriately. 318 319 David Blankfard: Right, based on changing how offices work, how people gather. 320 321 Randy Marshall: I'll second that. 322 323 Perdita Holtz: We probably need to get buy-in from the Planning Board on that and on Carrie's request to work jointly with 324 the CFE on climate change issues. 325 326 Carrie Fletcher: To clarify, it wouldn't be just for climate change issues it would be for collaborative issues regarding any 327 kind of expansion within the County itself. Maybe some kind of collaborative interaction that we could have that would find 328 out about watershed issues that maybe someone more educated in that matter would be good to know prior to voting on 329 things like this. That's where I was headed with it. 330 331 Craig Benedict: We could add it to the list. To talk about collaborative relationships with particular boards. We think there 332 is a need for that. We will move this topic about collaboration with other advisory boards as one of our applied topics. 333 334 David Blankfard: Can you put down, for example, the board that Carrie is referring, Commission for the Environment. 335 13 DRAFT 336 Carrie Fletcher: I think we have different roles so therefore our role here on the Planning Board is totally different than my 337 role on Commission for the Environment so even though they are intertwined,they are a different direction. 338 339 Craig Benedict: With the amendments suggested tonight,do you want to make a collective vote on the Board Plan as 340 amended? 341 342 Randy Marshal: I had one other thought; I am continually surprised by the number of people who live in economic 343 development areas that are surprised when any development projects occur. Can we reach out to neighborhood groups to 344 educate them on what is allowable within these economic development districts and talk about having a conversation 345 before something comes in so we can be more proactive. Is there a process that would allow us to invite neighborhood 346 groups adjacent to some of these economic development areas to have a conversation or forum? 347 348 Craig Benedict: I would say yes, I would agree to that. We could add that to the work plan if the Board wants. Call it 349 Planning 101 Outreach. 350 351 Alexandra Allman: You could solidify that with using Facebook to put all that information so anytime anyone is interested 352 they can go to Orange County Planning Department or Planning Board page and all that information is there so they know 353 what is going on up to date on each project. It demystifies what is going on. 354 355 Perdita Holtz: If I could address the Facebook issue,from a planning perspective, one of the reasons the Planning 356 Department has not embraced Facebook is because there are rules about what government needs to retain, record 357 retention. It has been some government's experience that when you start talking about development projects it devolves 358 very quickly. It becomes a question of what, if any posts,you can delete and retaining all the posts that were put there. 359 What happens when someone deletes their own posts? It sounds very simple to do a Facebook page but it isn't as simple 360 for a government agency that is involved in controversial things. We might be able to put something on our website that 361 people wouldn't be able to directly comment on but we have talked about Facebook in the past and there are some fairly 362 significant issues with the Planning Department having a Facebook account. 363 364 Craig Benedict: It could be that if we do a presentation about Planning 101 in the County,we could YouTube it and have it 365 available online. Let me work on a PowerPoint and bring it to this Board and then how to get that out to the general public. 366 367 Randy Marshall: I have one more,there was a lot of discussion about Mobile Home Parks being disrupted for 368 development which would displace large tracts of affordable housing and uproot communities in order to create areas for 369 development. Is that something that we want to look at in terms of affordable housing and affordable housing 370 communities? 371 372 Craig Benedict: That can be covered under working with the housing department—affordable and senior housing 373 including co-housing—we could add that under number 9. One of Perdita's staff has been working with the Housing 374 Department about possible amendments to some of the codes, including mobile homes that could promote their long-term 375 viability. 376 377 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Planning Board Annual Report and Work Plan as amended. Seconded by 378 Melissa Poole. 379 380 Randy Marshall: Yes 381 Alexandra Allman Yes 382 Kim Piracci: Yes 383 Patricia Roberts: Yes 384 Carrie Fletcher Yes 385 Gio Mollinedo Yes 386 Adam Beeman: Yes 387 Susan Hunter: Yes 388 Melissa Poole: Yes 389 David Blankfard: Yes 390 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 391 14 DRAFT 392 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 393 Meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:49 p.m. 394 395 396 397 398 David Blankfard, Chair 15 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 3, 2021 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Review of Request to Change Future Land Use Designation and Zoning Atlas Amendment DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application Package Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 2. Current County Zoning Map and Future Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592 Land Use Map 3. Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Map 4. Staff Review Letter dated January 6, 2021 5. Staff Review Comments 6. Notification of Mailing 7. Statement of Consistency 8. Ordinance on Rezoning PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on an applicant-initiated request to modify the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Atlas. Specifically, Ms. Gary Carleen Richardson is seeking to rezone an approximately 2.72 acre parcel of property within the Hillsborough Township, further identified using Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9873-54-6387: FROM: Rural Residential (R-1); Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (Higher Intensity Development Area) TO: General Commercial (GC-4); Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (Higher Intensity Development Area) The applicant is requesting modification of the FLUM changing the parcels current land use designation from Rural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). The basic facts concerning this application (Attachment 1) are as follows: Applicant: Ms. Gary Carleen Richardson PO Box 4186 Burlington, NC 27215 Parcel Information: A. Parcel and Size: PIN 9873-54-6387. An approximately 2.72 acre parcel; B. Township: Hillsborough; 16 C. Current Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1) and Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (Higher Intensity Development Area). The parcel is not located within a Watershed Protection Overlay District; D. Requested Zoning: General Commercial (GC-4). STAFF COMMENT.- Action to approve this request will not impact the parcels location within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District. E. Current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: The parcel is located within the Rural Residential designation. Please refer to the maps contained in Attachment 2 for more information; STAFF COMMENT: Applicant has requested the FLUM be changed to CITAN. The change is necessary to allow for the rezoning to be approved. As detailed in Attachment 2, the parcel to the north is located within the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) while property to the west, across NC Highway 86, is located within the Economic Development Activity Node as detailed on the FLUM. Parcel(s) to the south and east are located within the Rural Residential land use category. F. Growth Management System Designation: Rural Designated; G. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: The parcel is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded with varying topography; H. Roads: The parcel has approximately 360 ft. of frontage along NC Highway 86 to the west; I. Water and Sewer: Development of the property will rely on individual well and septic systems. The Property is not in an area served by public water/sewer. Surrounding Land Uses: North: 4 acre parcel zoned General Commercial (GC-4) supporting a self-storage business; South: An undeveloped 2.7 acre parcel zoned Rural Residential (R-1); West: NC Highway 86, parcels ranging in size from 2.6 to 30 acres in area zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EHD-2). The 30 acre parcel is developed and utilized to support a single-family residential land use; and East: An approximately 235 acre parcel zoned Rural Residential (R-1) owned by Duke University School of Forestry. 17 Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a General Use Rezoning and Zoning Atlas amendment is: • FIRST ACTION — Submission of a General Use Rezoning application with required supporting documents by the property owner. STAFF COMMENT: Ms. Richardson provided required document(s) on November 6, 2020. This was supplemented in January of 2021 with additional information providing support for the requested change in the FLUM designation. • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board will begin its review on March 3, 2021. • THIRD ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing. STAFF COMMENT: Earliest public hearing date is April 6, 2021. If the public hearing is held remotely, there is a 24-hour waiting period required before a decision can be effective, as per State legislation regarding virtual/remote meetings. The purpose of the 24-hour waiting period is to allow for submission of written comments. General Use Rezoning: Zoning promotes development of land uses that can co-exist in proximity to one another consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Regulations establish opportunities/constraints associated land development in an attempt to ensure one person's `reasonable use' of property does not impact another person's ability to make reasonable use of their property. This request involves a property owner seeking to change the zoning designation of their property from a residential general use zoning district (R-1) to a district allowing for the development of non-residential land uses (GC-4). In acting on this request, the County is unable to impose conditions and the applicant is not required to define what type of development (i.e. land use) is anticipated. If approved, all land uses permitted within GC-4 could be developed on the property consistent with applicable regulations. General Use Rezoning applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's determination the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposal: The applicant is requesting the general use zoning designation be changed from R-1 to GC-4 arguing: ... changing this (property's) zoning to General Commercial (GC-4) will be more in line with the Character of the area. There is a shopping center approximately one mile down the road that includes a Walmart, Home Depot, and various other chain stores and fast food restaurants. On the other side of the road from the shopping center is a newly built Sheetz, which also has space to have another tenet beside them. The applicant is also asking the land use designation for the property be changed from Rural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). STAFF COMMENT. This change is necessary if the rezoning request is to be approved. 18 The applicant suggests current development trends along NC Highway 86, as well as existing land use designations on parcels to the north and west, support changing the designation of the subject property to CITAN. Other pertinent information concerning the property is as follows: • Comprehensive Plan: The subject parcel is currently located within the Rural Residential land use category. Per Appendix F, "Relationships Between Land Use Categories and Zoning Districts Matrix" of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, GC-4 is not an allowable general use zoning category for property located within a Rural Residential land use category. It would be allowed within the Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). Per Appendix G Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, CITAN is intended for location in areas meeting specific criteria including, but not limited to: o In areas which are currently, or could be reasonably and efficiently, served by centralized public services and utilities; o Located at the intersection of arterial and/or collector highways or in proximity to other major transportation networks; o In areas near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services, which are appropriate for non-residential and higher density residential uses. As detailed by staff (Attachment 5), the subject parcel is not located in an area currently or planned to be served by public utilities (i.e. water and/or sewer). For this parcel to be served by public utilities, the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) would have to be amended first. For more information on the definition of CITAN, and to review the allowed zoning designations permitted within same, the Comprehensive Plan can be accessed utilizing the following link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/1242/2030-Comprehensive-Plan. • Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: The FLUM can be accessed utilizing the following link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4054/Future-Land-Use-Map-PDF. • Growth Management System Map Designation: The property is Rural Designated. STAFF COMMENT: The Growth Management System Map is a tool utilized by staff to identify permit review thresholds for residential (i.e., subdivision) projects. • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan: COCA is a joint land use document defining the locations of future land use categories to help achieve a desired and coordinated pattern of development. Implementation of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency with the 19 County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and a coordinated approach to rezoning. The subject parcel is outside of the Town's Urban Service area. Consistent with COCA, the Town may not extend utilities outside the service area. The applicant approached the Town in 2012 about moving the Urban Service boundary to include this parcel. In recommending approval of COCA, Hillsborough's planning board supported the concept of amending the boundary but no action was taken to do so. COCA can be accessed utilizing the following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/l 4011/Central-Orange- Coordinated-Area-COCA-Land-Use-Plan-PDF. Please refer to the map in Attachment 3 for more information. • Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA): Property is located within the Town of Hillsborough Long-term Interest Area. Public utilities (i.e. water and sewer) would only be available if the property owner sought voluntary annexation into the Town and the WASMPBA Primary Service Area boundary is amended to include the parcel. WASMPBA can be accessed utilizing the following link: http://www.orangecountVnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4190/Water-and-Sewer- Management-Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF. Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8.3 of the UDO; 2. The Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) is defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan as: Land near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses; manufacturing and other industrial uses; office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses. 3. The property is not eligible for service by public water and wastewater services based on the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). As a result, extension of CITAN is not viable at this time as the parcel is ineligible for public water and wastewater services; 4. The requested rezoning, while potentially representing a logical extension of existing GC- 4 general use zoning as well as a logical extension of the CITAN land use category along NC Highway 86, is inconsistent with applicable planning document(s) are detailed herein. Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcels providing the date/time of the Planning Board meeting where the proposal is to be reviewed. These notices were mailed on February 16, 2021, 15 days before the Planning Board meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with signs indicating the date/time of the Planning Board's review of the rezoning request on February 19, 2021, 12 days before the Planning Board meeting. 20 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends the request be denied due to the following: a. Extension of the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) is not viable at this time as the property cannot be provided with public water and wastewater services; b. The requested rezoning (i.e. R-1 to GC-4) cannot be approved without the extension of CITAN; c. The requested rezoning is inconsistent with the current policies of the adopted County Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). It is possible if amendment(s) to COCA and WASMPBA occur, specifically amendments making the subject parcel suitable for service by public utilities, an affirmative recommendation on the requested rezoning to GC-4/extension of CITAN can be made by staff. Unfortunately, this will have to occur first. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate on the proposal and accept public comments, 2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 8) in time for the April 6, 2021 BOCC meeting. 21 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department r ORANGE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT GENERAL USE REZONING REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION: Date: / (� e4� / �(�f Applicant: Phone: ��1 �� - U T Address: r Cell Phone: E-mail: PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REQUEST: Parcel Identification Number(PIN): Address of property: Owner of property: Future Land Use Designation for Property: Current Zoning Designation: Requested Zoning Designation: ** If Applicant/Owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants right to file on their behalf. ** SUBMITTAL INFORMATION - Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 1)A Map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule 2)A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning 3)A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000'feet of the subject property. 4)A detailed narrative denoting the following: a. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request. b. The changed, or changing, conditions (if any) that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, 22 5) The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule in affect as of the date of the application. I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a LIDO Zoning Atlas Amendment application and understand only completed applications, containing all information required by the Orange County LIDO shall be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from County staff in preparing this application in no way guarantees a favorable recommendation by staff on the merits of t 's proposal nor does it guarantee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by the County. Appli an Date: Applicant Date: C O U N T Y , N C 23 2017 Imagery ---- ---------- ---- I I '1 x I FLETCHER 3 , - - - - - - - - - - - - -� I y � I - I I I - I _ 7 wlt I� E a, N 1 in=too feet rZAN C't PIN 9873-54-6387 ouNTY Feet 0 100 Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Parcels 1/4/2021 Misc\9873-54-6387\9873-54-6387.aprx\2017Imagery GRAN c 24 Zoning I I I I I l I FLETCHER RD ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 86 ■ ■ ■ 9873546387 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I r : PIN 9873-54-6387 Stoney Creek Basin Overlay EDH-2 FA G C4 N / ,in=,00 feet ORANGE iP D-O I Feet EE / couNrr a ,aa R 1 NJ Planning and Inspections Department(BC) ,14/zoz, i Mi sc�9873-54-638719873-54-6387.a prx\Zoni ng 25 Future Land Use I I I I FLETCHER RD ■ ■ ■ ■ 86 ■ 9873546387 PIN 9873-54-6387 Rural Residential �, N tin=too feet ORANGE k Feet Commercial-Industrial Transition SaIM o too Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Economic Development Transition 1/4/2021 Misc\9873-54-6387\9873-54-6387.aprx\Future Land Use 26 Rezoning Narrative Gary Richardson is requesting her property which is currently zoned Rural Residential (R1) to be changed to General Commercial (GC-4). This property is located to the South of Wood Brothers Storage.The Parcel Identification number(PIN) is 9873-54-6387. Ms. Richardson believes that changing this zoning to General Commercial will be more in line with the Character of the area.There is a shopping center approximately one mile down the road that includes a Walmart, Home Depot, and various other chain stores and fast food restaurants. On the other side of the road from the shopping center is a newly built Sheetz, which also has space to have another tenet beside them. 27 RICHARDSON REZONING — JUSTIFICAITON FOR REQUESTED ATLAS AMENDMENT AND CHANGE IN COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP: 1. The parcel has frontage on NC Highway 86, a heavily travelled State roadway. In my opinion, residential development on this 2.7 acre parcel is not the highest and best use of the property; 2. There are parcels north and west of this property zoned to allow for non- residential development. According to the County zoning atlas, the parcels are zoned: a. General Commercial (GC-4); and b. Economic Development (lot across NC Highway 86). 1 believe the area is already zoned to allow for non-residential development and my request is consistent with this existing classification/trend for the area with respect to existing development to the north and anticipated development to the west; 3. As I understand it, there will also have to be a change to the land use category designation of my property based on the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff has explained that my parcel is located within a Rural Residential land use category, which is intended to promote/allow for residential development activities. The GC-4 commercial zoning is not allowed within this land use category. Based on the maps provided to me, the parcel to the north (developed as a self- storage business) is within a Commercial Industrial Node, which is how the parcel to the north was able to be zoned GC-4. Given current development trends in the area, and the high volume of traffic on NC Highway 86, 1 believe my property is better suited for commercial development. I also think it is appropriate to expand this Commercial land use category to include my property as the parcel to the north is already located within this land use category. I should also point out, according to the Comprehensive Plan, property to the west of my parcel are within an Economic Development Transition Node, which also allows for commercial development. I am, effectively, surrounded by property classified as being suitable for commercial development activities. As part of my request, I respectfully ask that my parcel's future land use designation be changed from Rural Residential to Commercial-Industrial Transition as I believe commercial development is the most appropriate land use for this property; 4. 28 PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST OWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST 9873432226 HARMONY AT WATERSTONE TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 9873435958 DRYSDALE STEVEN M DRYSDALE CYNTHIA R 9873435965 OMOLE DEJI 9873437743 TERRY MARY 9873445041 ALCID ROMEO HERMINIO JR 9873445246 FLOWERS SYLVIA DENISE 9873445276 TOMFOHR JOHN KARL 9873445296 DIAZ CAROL DIAZ DAVID 9873445477 HOUSTON SARA 9873445497 OATLEY MARGARET C TRUSTEE 9873445708 DONOVAN TERENCE E 9873446426 BENJAMIN SAMUEL 9873447724 BULLOCK WAYNE THOMAS BULLOCK NANCY H 9873449629 WHITTEMORE AUDENRIED 9873455195 NESBIT SAMUEL PAUL NESBIT LINDA RUTH 9873457193 SIMEONSSON RUNE SIMEONSSON NANCY E 9873458459 SALLARD BENJAMIN W JR MARLES CANDACE A 9873459190 RIDDLE STEPHEN KELLER 9873459438 CONRAD RITA MAE 9873533681 WOODS ERIC L 9873534207 WOODS ERIC L 9873536772 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 9873537326 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 9873541969 DISHNER LYNN MARIE ANDERSON 9873543114 LYNN SUSAN R ETAL MCGUIRE GARY W TRUSTEE 9873546064 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 9873546387 RICHARDSON GARY C 9873547960 WOODS BROTHERS INC 9873550926 CARTER JASON P CARTER RENEE M 9873551405 SCHNEIDEWIND BRIAN C SCHNEIDEWIND EMILY M 9873551494 HARPER BRIAN S HARPER KATHLEEN A 9873552457 WOODS BROTHERS INC 9873552485 MAYHEW KAREN FOREHAND MAYHEW STEVEN B 9873553062 WOODS BROTHERS INC 29 9873553638 MANDAL ANIRBAN 9873554336 WOODS BROTHERS INC 9873554432 CENTEX HOMES RALEIGH DIVISION 9873554509 SMITH JODY D 9873554566 FLOYD JANE E 9873555556 HALL KEITH 9873556425 NGUYEN CHINH T 9873556587 MALONEY MARY E 9873556614 GASSEN ANKE M 9873557414 NEWBY WILLIAM ANDREW NEWBY SHARON S 9873557567 LEMMERMAN MARC D LEMMERMAN DEBORAH S 9873558615 EDWARDS GEORGE E 9873646782 JONES RICHARD W JONES THELMA W 9873656477 PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP 9873727869 DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY 30 ADDRESSI ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE 4112 BLUE RIDGE RD STE 100 C/O ELITE MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL INC RALEIGH NC 27612 625 GREAT ENO PATH HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 629 GREAT ENO PATH HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2909 NC 86S HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 382 CURRY AVE ENGLEWOOD NJ 7631 178 WALKING PATH LN HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 212 5TH AVE#20B NEW YORK NY 10010 186 WALKING PATH PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 181 WALKING PATH PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 185 WALKING PATH PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 727 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 189 WALKING PATH PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 809 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 821 FLETCHER DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 800 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 2.73E+08 PO BOX 1120 HILLSBOROUGH NC 2.73E+08 2804 BECKETTS RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 814 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 2.73E+08 2806 BECKETT'S RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 P 0 BOX 1882 ALBEMARLE NC 2.8E+08 P 0 BOX 1882 ALBEMARLE NC 2.8E+08 909 OAKDALE DR BOX 38 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 909 OAKDALE DR BOX 38 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 828 FLETCHER RD Hillsborough NC 27278 2571 LOVETTE LANE GRAHAM NC 27253 909 OAKDALE DR BOX 38 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 PO BOX 4186 BURLINGTON NC 2.72E+08 2707 NC 86S HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2808 BECKETTS RIDGE DR Hillsborough NC 27278 2810 BECKETT'S RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2812 BECKETTS RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2707 NC HWY 86 S Hillsborough NC 27278 2814 BECKETTS RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2707 NC 86S HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 31 2520 SUMMIT DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2707 NC HWY 86 Hillsborough NC 27278 1225 CRESCENT GREEN DR STE 250 CARY NC 27518 2615 WADE HAMPTON RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2614 WADE HAMPTON RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2612 WADE HAMPTON RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 242 AURORA DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1203 BRAXTON BRAGG CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2610 WADE HAMPTON HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2821 BECKETTS RIDGE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1205 BRAXTON BRAGG CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 2.73E+08 1204 BRAXTON BRAGG CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 2.73E+08 1642 COSMOS DRIVE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 PO BOX 1179 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DURHAM NC 27701 GRAN c 32 Zoning I I I I I l I FLETCHER RD ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 86 ■ ■ ■ 9873546387 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I r : PIN 9873-54-6387 Stoney Creek Basin Overlay EDH-2 FA G C4 N / ,in=,00 feet ORANGE iP D-O I Feet EE / couNrr a ,aa R 1 NJ Planning and Inspections Department(BC) ,14/zoz, i Mi sc�9873-54-638719873-54-6387.a prx\Zoni ng 33 Future Land Use I I I I FLETCHER RD ■ ■ ■ ■ 86 ■ 9873546387 PIN 9873-54-6387 Rural Residential �, N tin=too feet ORANGE k Feet Commercial-Industrial Transition SaIM o too Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Economic Development Transition 1/4/2021 Misc\9873-54-6387\9873-54-6387.aprx\Future Land Use ■ 1 — �» �1�1 � - _ - � ;,fir ��►�. r r L I • �� ;� _ �� 'ry:: .�ir■ter MOM OMNI affi Natural Resources Urban Service Boundary Attached Residential Light Industrial Employment Education Medium-Density Residential Mixed Residential Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Permanent Open Space • • r' r r r r r • • ■ • r •. • .r r • r • r r r r r Retail Services _ Rural Living .. . _Small Lot Suburban Office Town center rr r r rr • -• r .• . Urban - 'rr r -r r :■ Working Farm •-. r .. • . . C• 1 . 1 35 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 644-3002 FAX ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 Am ®. ® Ale JAW January 5, 2021 Gary Carleen Richardson PO Box 4186 Burlington NC 27215 Re: STATUS and PROCESS — Review of General Use Rezoning request MA20-0006: Rezoning of property on NC Highway 86 S (PIN 9873-54-6387) Dear Ms. Richardson: On or about October 8, 2020 staff received an incomplete application and check associated with a proposed zoning atlas amendment for a parcel of property off NC Highway 86 within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. At the time, staff informed you the submittal package was deemed incomplete as the required narrative outlining the justification for the request was not included. On or about November 6, 2020, a narrative outlining your justification for the request was submitted to this office for review. Staff began processing the request over the following 2 weeks, and on December 4, 2020 formally accepted same for processing. The delay was caused by staffing shortages and the Thanksgiving Holiday. The request involves rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel of property, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9873-54-6387: FROM: Rural Residential (R-1) TO: General Commercial (GC-4) The parcel is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded, with approximately 360 ft. of frontage along NC Highway 86. There is an existing GC-4 zoned parcel, developed as a self-storage center, to the north, property zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EDH-2) to the west, and parcels zoned R-1 to the south and east. The parcel is located within the Rural Residential Land Use Category, as defined within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Attachment 1 for maps denoting the subject parcel (hereafter 'the Property'). 36 In reviewing your submittal, staff has the following comment(s): 1. REZONING — REVIEW PROCESS: a. The Planning Board will review your request at its February 3, 2021 regular meeting and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC); b. The BOCC will be required to hold a public hearing to review the request, which at this time the earliest hearing date would be March 2, 2021. Due to the COVID pandemic, advisory board and elected official meetings are being held virtually. You should verify you have the ability (i.e. have a computer with reliable internet access) to attend each meeting and be prepared to participate in the review of your request. As with all zoning atlas amendment requests, the applicant has the burden to provide an argument/documentation on the `changing conditions' justifying approval of the request. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: a. As part of this request, the future land use designation of the Property will have to change in order to allow the requested rezoning to be approved. The requested zoning designation is inconsistent with the Property's current land use designation of Rural Residential; b. The request appears to represent the logical extension of an existing Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN), located north of the Property, defined within the Comprehensive Plan as: Land near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses; manufacturing and other industrial uses, office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses. c. CITAN allows for the rezoning of property to GC-4. Your application will need to be modified to include a request to change the land use designation of the Property, ideally to CITAN. This modification will need to include your argument(s) supporting the request. 3. PROVISION OF UTILITIES: a. The parcel is outside of the Town's primary utility service area as depicted on the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA), which can be accessed utilizing this link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/l 3804/Water- and-Sewer-Management-Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF. As a result, the parcel is currently not able to be served by Town utility services (i.e. water and sewer); b. Successful rezoning of the property to a County non-residential general zoning district designation does not guarantee provision of utility services; 37 c. According to Town of Hillsborough staff, the Property will have to be formally annexed in order for utility services to be made available. Once annexed, the property would be zoned in accordance with the Town's land use regulations and policies. As you may already be aware, provision of utility services east of NC Highway 86, including your Property, have been reviewed by the Town. Provision services, however, will require modification of several existing plans/agreements to change the primary utility service area boundary for the Town. At this time, there is no timeline on initiation of these required modification(s). If your ultimate goal is to market and/or develop the Property with the ability to connect to utilities, it might be prudent for you to pursue annexation/zoning with the Town rather than continuing with the currently submitted zoning atlas amendment through Orange County. Absent the extension of utility services, development of the Property will be served by private utility systems (i.e. well and septic system). Staff is concerned you are, effectively, paying to rezone the Property twice if you continue with the process through Orange County given the Town will have to formally annex and rezone the property for utility services to be provided. 4. Presuming successful rezoning of the Property, development will need to be consistent with applicable land use regulations as detailed in the County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) including, but not limited to: a. Preservation of an undisturbed 100 ft. vegetative land use buffer along with western and southern property lines, adjacent to R-1 zoned property, consistent with Section 6.8 of the UDO. Staff will, of course, be more than happy to continue processing the request and is available to offer guidance on how you can prepare for the aforementioned meetings. Unfortunately, we are unable to make arguments on your behalf to either the Planning Board of BOCC. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached via email at mharvey@orangecountync.gov or my direct line at (919) 245-2597. Sincerely, l� Mi ha- H y AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County CC: Craig Benedict, Director James Bryan, Staff Attorney Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough File 38 Attachment 1 2017 Imagery u �, 4 A 4 i FLETCHER RD A 86 z 9873546387 " a' i a - t r ,t I v N t in=too feet PIN 9873-54-6387 vu rNf\ETYTY Feet o too a _ Planning and Inspections Department(130 Parcels 1/4/2021 M i sc 19873-54-638 A9873-54-6387.a p"x;', 39 C Zonin --- -------- -- r FLETCHER RD I 86 , 9873546387 - r i PIN 9873-54-6387 a N M ® Stoney Creek Basin Overlay EDH-2 ® GC4 N 1 in=ioo feet ORANGE A Feet EM PD-OI COUNTY o ioo Planning and Inspections Department(BC) R1 i/4/zorn 40 Future Land Use i i -- FL TC►HE= R ss 9873546387 PIN 9873-54-6387 Rural Residential ,,. N 1 in=ioo feet ORANGE Feet Commercial-Industrial Transition COt1"'r'; o too Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Economic Development Transition 1i4i2021 _ � Misd.9873-Sq-63�7A9879-54-n;87_ap. 41 HILLSBOROUNW- -TOW February 19, 2021 Michael D. Harvey AICP,CFM, CZO Orange County Current Planning Supervisor PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Courtesy Review comment(s)-General Use Rezoning request Dear Michael: Thank you for sharing this request, although it is below the threshold necessary under our courtesy review agreement.The provision of water and sewer service seem somewhat central to this application. The Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement for the Central Orange Coordinated Area adopted in 2009 placed this parcel (and the east side of NC 86) outside the town of Hillsborough's Urban Service area. Under that agreement the town may not extend utilities or annex properties outside the service area. The town developed the Future Land Use Map to be consistent with the interlocal agreement and reflect the Urban Service area.That service area is also memorialized in the Water and Sewer Boundary and Planning Area agreement approved by the three municipalities,the county and Orange Water and Sewer Authority. As the map was being developed in 2012, Ms. Richardson approached the town about moving the boundary to include properties on the east side on NC 86. In their motion to recommend plan approval,the planning board supported the concept of amending the boundary.The final action by the town board to adopt the map in 2013 did not move the boundary. No direction has been provided to staff to amend the boundary, despite two subsequent boundary adjustments in 2017 and 2020.The town is updating models to understand its water and sewer capacity at the present time. Extending the boundary prior to the completion of those studies is not in the town's best interest. The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (paraphrasing) indicates that water and sewer service should be available at the time of rezoning, made available at the time of development, or the lot should be sized to accommodate the needed on-site services.The referenced agreements prevent this property from meeting the first condition.The other two conditions are uncertain as no development is proposed at this time. The town has not been recently or formally approached by Ms. Richardson to adjust the boundary in this area. While the property and decision are wholly in Orange County's jurisdiction,this request does appear to conflict with long standing and adopted interlocal agreements. Sincerely, AJL) A"Alij Margaret A. Hauth,AICP Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager 919.296.9471 margaret.hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov 42 Michael Harvey From: Tom Altieri Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:59 AM To: Perdita Holtz; Craig Benedict; Michael Harvey Cc: Elaina Cheek Subject: CP Locational Criteria, Appendix G -- RE: Ready for Craig's Review - Richardson rezoning - March 3, 2021 Planning Board I have reviewed the application, abstract and materials as well and have added a comment to the Abstract on S: I find the info Michael has provided to be accurate and I agree with his assessment and conclusion. Michael, if you wish to add my name to the Abstract,feel free. I am not sure I feel strongly either way but I think you are looking for indication that I have reviewed and that there is concurrence. While a Memo as an attachment to the materials could do that,the Comp Planning Division is internal to the Dept and obviously, not an outside agency or other County Dept. Just thinking that it is the Abstract that show's that Craig's Dept is speaking of one voice. Anyway, trying to provide you with what you need in a way that makes sense to me. I'm open to ideas and this email is me thinking out loud after reviewing the rezoning request and how best to offer input. Feel free to call me, if I can be more helpful. Following are the pertinent aspects (yellow highlight) of the Comp Plan to which I have made note on the Abstract and have included here for Craig's benefit and to help inform his PD Recommendation:. Appendix G:Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria The land use classifications and overlays are determined by a set of locational criteria specific to each classification. i 43 ■ Land/Slope: Located on land with slopes of less than 15%grade. Where slopes of 15%or greater are present, protection shall be provided through proper site design and construction practices. ■ Hydrology: Located outside of 100-year flood areas as identified by Corps of Engineers. Where special flood hazard areas and wetlands exist, protection shall be provided through proper site design and construction practices in accordance with County, State and Federal requirements. ■ Flora and Fauna: Located away from sites that would, if developed, create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the state or federal government. ■ Soil Conditions: Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of good drainage characteristics and load bearing capacity for site development. Commercial-Industrial ■ Public Services/Utilities: Located in areas which are or could be reasonably Transition Activity and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. Node ■ Transportation System: Located at the intersection of arterial and/or collector highways or in proximity to other major transportation networks. ■ Energy Use: Located within less than a 10 minute commute from an Urban area. ■ Placement: Located in areas near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services, which are appropriate for non-residential and higher density residential uses. ■ Agriculture and Forestry: Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on productive agricultural uses and managed forest land. ■ Population Density: Located in areas with moderate to high population densities. ■ Historic and Cultural: Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on state or federally acknowledged historic- cultural sites or County identified Public Interest Areas. Thank you, Tom From: Perdita Holtz<pholtz@orangecountync.gov> Sent:Thursday, February 18, 2021 9:28 AM To: Craig Benedict<cbenedict@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Elaina Cheek<echeek@orangecountync.gov>;Tom Altieri <taltieri@orangecountync.gov>; Michael Harvey <mharvey@orangecountync.gov> Subject: Ready for Craig's Review- Richardson rezoning- March 3, 2021 Planning Board Craig, The abstract and available materials on the GC-4 rezoning are available for your review on the S: drive. Please complete your review no later than noon on Monday, Feb. 22. Thanks, Perdita z 44 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration . - 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 644-3002 FAX ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING AND SIGN POSTING- PLANNING BOARD MEETING MS. GARY CARLEEN RICHARDSON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) CHANGE: CHANGING PARCEL FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE (CITAN) AND GENERAL USE REZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC-4) PIN 9873-54-6387 I, Michael Harvey, Planner III / Current Planning Supervisor with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), I mailed, or caused to be mailed, via first class mail a notice of Planning Board Meeting to review and make a recommendation on an applicant modification of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and a general use rezoning request and on February 16, 2021. This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property that the applicant is seeking a FLUM and Zoning Atlas Amendment change to the subject property. A notice was also sent to the affected property owner via certified mail on the same date stated above. This notice was mailed on February 16, 2021, 15 days before the Planning Board meeting. The property owners within 1,000 feet were identified according to the Orange County Tax Records as required by the LIDO. The mailed notice included the date, time, place, and subject of the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with signs indicating the date/time of the Planning Board's review of the request on February 19, 2021, 12 days before the Planning Board meeting. WITNESS my hand, this 22nd day of February, 2021. o, Michael Harvey, AICP, CFM, CZO Planner III/Current Planning Supervisor 45 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 ra`n_r' Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 MAo February 16, 2021 Notice of PLANNING BOARD MEETING Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to notify you of an upcoming Planning Board meeting pertaining to proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas and Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). BACKGROUND: On or about November 6, 2020 the Orange County Planning Department received a Zoning Atlas amendment request for a parcel of property off of NC Highway 86 in the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. Specifically, staff received a request from Ms. Gary Carleen Richardson to rezone an approximately 2.72 acres of property in the Hillsborough Township, further identified using Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9873-54-6387 (hereafter `the Property'): FROM: Rural Residential (R-1); Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (Higher Intensity Development Area) TO: General Commercial (GC-4); Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (Higher Intensity Development Area) The applicant is also requesting modification of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the County's Comprehensive Plan changing the parcels current land use designation from Rural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). 46 (map of parcel) I Fletcher Road Woods Self Storage , Subject Property (PIN) 9873-54-6387 NC Highway 86 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the general use zoning designation be changed from R-1 to GC-4 arguing: — changing this (property's) zoning to General Commercial (GC-4) will be more in line with the Character of the area. There is a shopping center approximately one mile down the road that includes a Walmart, Home Depot, and various other chain stores and fast food restaurants. On the other side of the road from the shopping center is a newly built Sheetz, which also has space to have another tenet beside them. The applicant is also asking the land use designation for the property be changed from Rural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). The applicant suggests current development trends along NC Highway 86, as well as existing land use designations for parcels to the north and west, support changing the designation of the subject property to CITAN. As a general observation, the requested changed to the FLUM is necessary if the rezoning request is to be approved. WHY YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS LETTER: As previously indicated, you are receiving this letter as your property is located within 1,000 ft. of the Property subject to a rezoning petition. Per Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, staff is required to send written notice, via first class mail, to property owners within 1,000 ft. informing them of the date/time of 47 the Planning Board meeting where the application is to be reviewed. This notice is required to be mailed 15 days before the date of this meeting. The County Planning Board will consider making a recommendation on the Zoning Atlas amendment at its March regular meeting, scheduled for: 7:00 p.m. Wednesday March 3, 2021 As a reminder, the Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the entire review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. Consistent with COVID-19 protocols, and to ensure the health and safety of all participants, the meeting will be virtual. HOW CAN I PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OR MAKE COMMENT(S): There are two methods for public comment, namely: ® Written submittals by email or drop-off at Planning offices ® Speaking during the virtual meeting Detailed instructions for submitted comments and signing up to view the Planning Board meeting will be available on or shortly after February 24, 2021 as part of the agenda posted for the March 3, 2021 Planning Board meeting. The agenda can be accessed utilizing the following link: hftps://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 Once you are on the agenda center page, simply click on the March 3, 2021 agenda package link. If you do not have internet access, you may participate in the meeting via phone. Please call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours after February 24 to receive information on the number to call-in to, the meeting ID, and a password. If you have any general questions on the processing of the application, or require assistance, you may call me at (919) 245-2575 or e-mail me at mharvey@orangecountync.gov. Sincerely, Mich el D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County 48 G R A N Cl E C 0 U M l Y ICI C 2017 Imagery r e �p�` .; of is FLETCHER RD ." ,��- r�• ��. •� -• '`"_ `R 9873546387 v OJT .F s;<• �. � +` \ • I Y. t .4 s • �. N t In=too feet Lr_ t PIN 9873-54-6387 :• i�{ • �' tt* �:`' CoulviY A o 1ooeet r `. =� Y Planning and InspectionsDepartment(BC) 0 Parcels 1/412021 Misc19873.54{38719873-54-F3n7.Apr.xlzoi7lmag;rr: 49 O R A N G E C O U N T Y N C Zonin I -f� �If i i FLETCHER RD 86 9873546387 _ I I r i PIN 9873-54-6387 Stoney Creek Basin Overlay - EDH-2 ® GCi4 N t In--too feet ORAN6E Feet PD-OI CO NTY 0 100 R1 Planning and Inspections Department(Bc) 1 /4/2021 iViic,igA,'�54-77Ri1q>i3-54-n38;.aprxyZoni�.g 50 Future Land Use T FLETC•HER -D 86 9873546387 PIN 9873-54-6387 Rural Residential N t In-too feet ORAN E Feet COUNTY Commercial-Industrial Transition 0 - 100 w Planning and Inspections Department(8C) Economic Development Transition 11412.02.' MisdgST-5 ^3 A9ki .54-638,,.aprx\Fuhvz 51 HARMONY AT WATERSTONE STEVEN M DRYSDALE DEJI OMOLE TOWNHOMES HOA INC CYNTHIA R DRYSDALE 629 GREAT ENO PATH C/O ELITE MANAGEMENT 625 GREAT ENO PATH HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 PROFESSIONAL INC HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 4112 BLUE RIDGE RD STE 100 RALEIGH, NC 27612 MARY TERRY ROMEO HERMINIO ALCID JR SYLVIA DENISE FLOWERS 2909 NC 86S 382 CURRY AVE 178 WALKING PATH LN HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 ENGLEWOOD, NJ 7631 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 JOHN KARL TOMFOHR CAROL DIAZ SARA HOUSTON 212 5TH AVE#20B DAVID DIAZ 181 WALKING PATH PL NEW YORK, NY 10010 186 WALKING PATH PLACE HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 MARGARET C OATLEY TRUSTEE TERENCE E DONOVAN SAMUEL BENJAMIN 185 WALKING PATH PL 727 FLETCHER RD 189 WALKING PATH PL HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 WAYNE THOMAS BULLOCK AUDENRIED WHITTEMORE SAMUEL PAUL NESBIT NANCY H BULLOCK 821 FLETCHER DR LINDA RUTH NESBIT 809 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 800 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272788737 RUNE SIMEONSSON BENJAMIN W SALLARD JR STEPHEN KELLER RIDDLE NANCY E SIMEONSSON CANDACE A MARLES 814 FLETCHER RD PO BOX 1120 2804 BECKETTS RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272788737 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272781120 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RITA MAE CONRAD ERIC L WOODS LYNN MARIE ANDERSON DISHNER 2806 BECKETT'S RIDGE DR P O BOX 1882 828 FLETCHER RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 ALBEMARLE, NC 280021882 Hillsborough, NC 27278 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC WOODS BROTHERS INC BRIAN C SCHNEIDEWIND 909 OAKDALE DR BOX 38 2707 NC 86S EMILY M SCHNEIDEWIND HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 2810 BECKETT'S RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 SUSAN R LYNN ETAL JASON P CARTER GARY C RICHARDSON GARY W MCGUIRE TRUSTEE RENEE M CARTER PO BOX 4186 2571 LOVETTE LANE 2808 BECKETTS RIDGE DR BURLINGTON, NC 272150902 GRAHAM, NC 27253 Hillsborough, NC 27278 BRIAN S HARPER ANIRBAN MANDAL KAREN FOREHAND MAYHEW KATHLEEN A HARPER 2520 SUMMIT DR STEVEN B MAYHEW 2812 BECKETTS RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 2814 BECKETTS RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 52 DIVISION CENTEX HOMES RALEIGH JODY D SMITH JANE E FLOYD 1225 CRESCENT GREEN DR 2615 WADE HAMPTON RD 2614 WADE HAMPTON RD STE 250 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 CARY, NC 27518 KEITH HALL CHINH T NGUYEN MARY E MALONEY 2612 WADE HAMPTON RD 242 AURORA DR 1203 BRAXTON BRAGG CT HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 ANKE M GASSEN WILLIAM ANDREW NEWBY MARC D LEMMERMAN 2610 WADE HAMPTON SHARON S NEWBY DEBORAH S LEMMERMAN HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 2821 BECKETTS RIDGE 1205 BRAXTON BRAGG CT HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272789541 GEORGE E EDWARDS RICHARD W JONES PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP 1204 BRAXTON BRAGG CT THELMA W JONES CORP HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272789541 1642 COSMOS DRIVE PO BOX 1179 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DURHAM, NC 27701 53 Attachment 7 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) • Rural Residential General Commercial (R-1); (GC-4); Ms. Gary • Stoney Creek Basin 9873-54-6387 Hillsborough Carleen Stoney Creek Basin Richardson Overlay District Overlay District (Higher Intensity (Higher Intensity Development Area) Development Area) The Planning Board finds: 1. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, 2. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section(s) 1060D-604(d) and 160D-605 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Planning Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is not consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan based on the following a. The General Commercial (GC-4) is not an allowable general use zoning designation within the Rural Residential land use category as defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has sought to change the land use designation of the property from Rural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN), which would allow for the parcel to be rezoned to GC-4. The CITAN is defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan as: Land near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses; manufacturing and other industrial uses; office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses. b. Per Appendix G Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, CITAN is intended for location in areas meeting specific criteria including, but not limited to: i. In areas which are currently, or could be reasonably and efficiently, served by centralized public services and utilities; Staff has determined the subject parcel is not located in an area currently or planned to be served by public utilities (i.e. water and/or sewer). 54 As a result, the parcel is not suitable for location within CITAN at this time as it does not comply with locational criteria. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider denial of the proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) modification and Zoning Atlas Amendment as proposed by the applicant. David Blankfard, Chair Date 55 Attachment 8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Ms. Gary Coleen Richardson (hereafter `the Applicant') seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO); and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning consists of the following; and Parcel Owner of Identification Township Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Record • Rural Residential • General Commercial (R-1); (GC-4); Ms. Gary , Stoney Creek Basin 9873-54-6387 Hillsborough Carleen . Stoney Creek Basin Richardson Overlay District Overlay District (Higher Intensity (Higher Intensity Development Area) Development Area) hereafter`the Property'; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the proposal has not been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Board has not found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the request to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby denied. 56 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2021. I, Laura Jensen, 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 , 2021 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 2021. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners