Agenda - 02-02-1999 - 8e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 'a , An error in zoning was discovered when the company applied for a building permit to add a 60' X 100' fleet maintenance shop to the complex. 'The fain was unable to build the new facility because the property is zoned AR. It is the intent of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to allow businesses existing oa the effective date of zoning to be given the right to continue to exist, grow, and expand by being zoned EC-5 Existing Commercial. That same right is applicable in this rezoning request. A joint public hearing was held by the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board on November 23,1998. There were no public comments. Planning Board. Member, Barry Katz, asked how the error. occurred. Hinkley responded that it probably was a staff oversight during the field survey of the summer of 1993. While the parcel lies within the Back Creek Watershed, the Erosion Control Staff and engineers on the project have determined that the extensive area around the parcel is more than sufficient to address impervious surface and Best Management Practices (BMPs) concerns. The area surrounding the parcel is more than 200 acres of paswreland and two ponds in the same ownership. The Planning Staff recommends approval of an EC-5 zoning lot of 5.5 acres as delineated on the site map and findings of fact. The findings are attached to these minutes on pages Barrows expressed concern about possible future subdivision of the 200 acres and impervious surface requirements. Hinkley responded that should there be plans for subdivision, those concerns would all be addressed at that time. In regard to Barrows concern, Lincoln responded that in calculating impervious surface requirements, existing impervious surface (existing at the time the Watershed Protection Regulations were adopted) is subtracted from total acreage. Any proposed impervious surface is limited to the percent allowed based on the remaining acreage. Also, the Zoning Ordinance provides procedures for applying far a variance from minimum Statewide Water Supply Watershed Protection rules. Further discussion indicated the business had all been in existence over twenty years prior to zoning being applied to Cedar Grove Township. The consensus was that it was a very straight forward correction of an eaor made in 1994 when zoning was applied. MOTION: Sellark moved agreement with findings of fast as presented by the Planning Staff for Article 20.3.2a - 20.3.2e and Article 4.2 (a) and (b). Seconded by McAdams. VOTE: Unanimous.