ORD-2009-009-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area-

Browse Search

Approved 2/4/09 16 Samantha Cabe said she was in favor of the proposal due to the fact that it would represent a viable solution to the problems created with smaller its within the Hillsborough EDD being re-developed for non-residential use. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if one (1) of the houses along the corridor was for sale. Michael Harvey said there was a residence along the corridor; approximately two hundred (200) feet north of the Cornwallis Hills subdivision entrance, was for sale. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if this structure was going to be used to support a commercial operation. Michael Harvey said the interested buyer wanted to use the structure as a legal office. There was general discussion on this point. Brian Crawford asked how this. proposed amendment came about. Michael Harvey said it was developed in response to the potential hardships that would be faced by a developer attempting to redevelop smaller parcels within the Hillsborough EDD for non-residential land uses. There was general discussion on this point. Larry Wright said he was unclear as to where the Board was with respect to the review of this item. Larry Wright said he was extremely concerned about reducing the buffer given the impact it might have on adjoining property, and property to the south, relating to stomtwater runoff. Larry Wright said by reducing the required landscape and buffer areas we would be eliminating the natural area that captured runoff and contributing to a flooding problem to the south along Old NC Highway 86. Larry Wright said he took issue over the large parcel in front of the Cornwallis Hills subdivision not being totally within the flood plain. Larry Wright said he had drive through the area after storm events and the property in question was always flooded. Lary Wright said he was concerned with any proposal that was increase the likelihood that flooding would be prevalent within the area. Michael Harvey said this proposal would not, in his opinion, have a demonstrative effect on the parcel of property Lary Wright was referring to and suggested that 'rf Larry Wright had a concern then he could make a motion relating to requiring that developers address stormwater runoff issues when redeveloping property. There was general discussion on this point. Jeff Schmitt said he wanted clamcation on the impact this proposal would have. Michael Harvey reviewed the impacts of the Ordinance. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said the amendment, if approved, would require a twenty (20) foot landscaped buffer along each side of an existing structure. Michael Harvey said yes. Jay Bryan asked how many properties this amendment would impact. Michael Harvey said there were approximately five (5) existing parcels that had residential structures upon them. Mr. McNeil asked where these structures were located. Michael Harvey said that four (4] of them were along Old 86 and one (1) of them was located on New Highway Bti. Jay Bryan said he agreed with some of the points originally made by Jeff Schmitt in that there appears to be little to preserve within the corridor but that this proposed amendment seemed to provide some measure of flexibility to ensure what was still in existence could still be preserved. There was general discussion on this point. Jay Bryan said he did not want to jump ahead but asked how this proposed amendment would be impacted by Item Fourteen (14) on the agenda, specifically the rezoning of several properties within the corridor to ED-LNR. Michael Harvey said this amendment was independent from the rezoning in that it applied to any adaptive reuse of a single- family residential structure zoned to any of the existing Hillsborough ED designations. Michael Harvey said that Mr. Davis would be explaining the rezoning request. Brian Crawford asked if there were any other questions or motions relating to this item. MOTION by Samantha Cabe to approve the proposed amendment as presented by staff. Samantha Cabe said she felt the amendment was reasonable and would only apply in instances where an individual proposed to reuse an existing single-family residence for non-residential purposes established appropriate safeguards. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke.