|
Attachment 2
<br />FXC:FRPT nF THE APRiL 1.2009 PLANNiNC~ RnARD MTNiJTFS
<br />1 MINUTES
<br />2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
<br />3 APRIL 1, 2009
<br />4' REGULAR MEETING
<br />5
<br />6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks Township; Nathan Chambers,
<br />7 Cheeks Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl
<br />8 McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large;
<br />9 Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large
<br />10
<br />11
<br />12 MEMBERS AesENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township
<br />13
<br />14 ~ '
<br />15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer;
<br />16 Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
<br />17
<br />18
<br />19 OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Kim Callemyn, Charles Helgevold, Ethan Helgevold
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT- 214 PHELPS ROAD
<br />23
<br />24 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the February 23, 2009
<br />25 Quarterly Public Hearing.
<br />26
<br />27 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
<br />28 .
<br />29 Michael Harvey: Good evening, you have attached to your memorandum a map of the subject property. It is attachment one.
<br />30 Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan is attachment two. The resolution of rezoning petition approval is
<br />31 attachment three, attachment four is Statement of .Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan, and finally is attachment five
<br />32 resolution of rezoning petition denial. As the Board wll recall this was presented at the February Quarterly Public Hearing, a
<br />33 petition to rezone a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road. With respect to the current zoning of the property, as staff
<br />34 testified during the public hearing there is approximately a 46,500 sq. ft. portion of the property zoned EC-5, which stands for
<br />35 Existing Commercial Five, and the remaining acreage of the property is zoned AR, Agricultural Residential. The property is also
<br />36 zoned Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District. The petition proposes, calling your attention to attachment one which is
<br />37 the map, to rezone a 46, 500 sq. ft. portion of the property to Existing Commercal 5. This is the area of the property currently
<br />38 utilized to support an existing commercial landscape operation. Further, the petition call for the rezoning of the existing portion of
<br />39 property zoned Existing Commercial 5 back to Agricultural Residential as there is no non-residential land use on that portion of
<br />40 the property. As we testified to you at the Quarterly Public Hearing this is an attempt by staff and the property owner to correct a
<br />41 .mapping error. Existing Commercial Five is a zoning designation that was imposed on properties during initial zoning of
<br />42 townships to ensure that existing non-residential operations were not made non-conforming and to ensure consistency with the
<br />43 Comprehensive Plan. For some unknown reason, the property was not properly designated on the official zoning atlas that we
<br />44 currently utilize today. What is shown and reflected on attachment one is a 46,500 sq. ft. portion of property that is zoned EC-5
<br />45 where there is no commercial activity and the portion of the property that there is commercial activity is zoned residential making
<br />46 it technically illegal land use. As we discussed during the Quarterly Public Hearing, the original official zoning atlas for the
<br />47 township as approved by the County show their entire parcel zoned EC-5. As denoted on the official zoning atlas utilized in
<br />48 1994, the entire property was zoned Existing Commercial Five. You will also note on the old zoning atlas references to an
<br />49 amendment that was done in 2001, to correct a map error that resulted from a subdivision of property that was approved in 1993.
<br />50 Somehow this designation was not properly shown on the current, legally utilized zoning atlas that staff digitized and produced
<br />51 several years ago. What we're trying to do is correcf that mistake. As the Board may remember during the. Public Hearing, local
<br />52 residents commented that there was not a commercial operation on the property prior to them moving there in the late 1970s.
<br />53 They expressed concern they did not understand how there could be commercial zoning allowed in this area. They suggested
<br />54 that it would be better to move the commercial operation to the rear of the property where there is Existing Commercial zoning
<br />55 and they expressed that they were not supportive of the proposal. As staff had testified to at a Quarterly Public Hearing, all we
<br />56 can indicate is that in the Minutes, as well as the official Toning map adopted during that time, there was a landscape operation
<br />57 in existence, which is why the property was zoned as such. As we testified during the Public Hearing there was correspondence
<br />58 from Mary Willis, who was the current planning supervisor at the time, indicating that this is one of the EC-5 properties that was .
<br />59 going to be zoned as such when this township went under initial zoning back in 1994. We don't contest the fact that wasn't a
<br />
|