ORD-2009-011-Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) – 4115 Old NC 10 (Jones)

Browse Search

Attachment 10 2 5 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes Jay Bryan: My motion was a statement of consistency, Robert, regarding tract number one. I am not making a motion that there's a statement of consistency regarding tract number two. Tommy McNeill: I'm afraid that if we look at them individually that there's a high probability that tract two will not pass. Robert Davis: Just to give you clarification, when I prepared the legal description, I made tract one and tract two to stand independent. You can approve one, you can approve both, you can approve neither. They can be separated on the recommendation based on the gal description that's in your packet. Tommy McNeill: Staff is suggesting both? . Robert Davis: We're recommending that they both be rezoned to implement what is on the comprehensive plan. That's our recommendation. Brian Crawford: I understand your concerns, Tommy, there's a motion that has been seconded. We're bound to vote on it. You can come back and make a motion for the second tract. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I just have a question as to why you decided to separate them. Jay Bryan: I don't support a rezoning of tract number two. Forme, rather than voting against the whole thing, because I do want to honor the issue, frankly I don't like to do rezoning that specifically address individual properties in the manner that we're doing for tract one but in the spirit of trying to help those people, I'm supporting that. Even though in principle I wouldn't support doing either. But to address their concerns, I'm certainly going to vote to support tract number one. MOTION by Jay Bryan to approve a statement of consistency regarding tract one and a resolution to approve ordinance for zoning amendment for rezoning tract one. Seconded by Larry Wright. VorE: Unanimous MOTION by Samantha Cabe to accept the staffs recommendation with regard to tract two. Seconded by Tommy McNeil. . Samantha Cabe: I can tell you the basis of why I support doing the amendment. I'm always opposed to making property unusable by the person who owns it and basically in its current zoning state it's unusable. From the planning staff, I think they've thoroughly explained that the post development runoff will not be allowed to exceed what it is currently and in its current undeveloped state, it's a very low amount of runoff. So whoever does decide to develop this property is going to have a very high bar with regard to controlling its runoff. The net effect on those properties behind should not be any more. The third reason is I've had a recent entanglement with the flood plain ordinance and it is very expensive and difficult to do anything in or near a floodway. So the fact that there are these floodplains and the stream buffers that apply, are going to not only increase the costs and require whoever does develop this to really thread the eye of the needle with regard to what they do near streams and floodways. They're going to have a high bar to get through . our planning department with regard to that as well. I feel like our current planning departmen# in the language of the new linear office designation has the protections that will not increase the runoff with regard to the property behind. 1 feel like our County errs on the side of caution in protecting things like that and I feel certain that our planning department and our current ordinances do that. Tommy McNeill: I'd like to make a comment in addition, staff spends an enormous of time doing research on issues such as this and knowing that this is a flood plain, staff still supports the fact that it should be rezoned. Therefore, I'll support and endorse their recommendation based on their experience.