|
F,Xt'F.RPT nF THE APRH: 1.2(!09 PLAN111iNCt Rt?ARTI M[N[1TF,R
<br />1
<br />2
<br />3
<br />4
<br />6
<br />7
<br />8
<br />4
<br />l0
<br />11
<br />12
<br />13
<br />]4
<br />1.5
<br />I6
<br />17
<br />18
<br />19
<br />24
<br />21
<br />22
<br />23
<br />24
<br />25
<br />7&
<br />27
<br />28
<br />29
<br />30
<br />31
<br />3Z
<br />33
<br />34-
<br />35
<br />36
<br />37
<br />38
<br />34
<br />40
<br />4l
<br />42
<br />43
<br />44
<br />45
<br />4fi
<br />47
<br />48
<br />49
<br />50
<br />5l
<br />52
<br />53
<br />54
<br />55
<br />56
<br />57
<br />58
<br />59
<br />MtNUTES
<br />ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
<br />ARIL 1, 2049
<br />REGULAR MEETING
<br />Attachment 2
<br />~-.::/
<br />MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large {Chair}; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks Township; Nathan Chambers,
<br />Cheeks Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough- Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl
<br />McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large;
<br />Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large
<br />MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hitl Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy MCNeilt, Ena Township
<br />STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer,
<br />Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant It
<br />OTrrERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Kim Callemyn, Charles Helgevold, Ethan Hetgevold
<br />AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING AnAS AMENDMENT-294 PHELPS ROAD
<br />To consider a recommendation to the B{?CC regarding this item heard at the February 23, 2009
<br />Quarterly Public Hearing.
<br />•Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
<br />Michael Harvey: Good evening, you have attached to your memorandum a map of the subject propeRy. It is attachment one.
<br />Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan is attachment two. The resolution of rezoning petition approval is
<br />attachment three, attachment faun is Statement of Inconsis#ency with Comprehensive Plan, and finally is attachment free
<br />resolution of rezoning petition denial. As the Board will recall this was presented at the February Quarterly Public Hearing, a
<br />petition to rezone a parcel of property located at 214 Phelps Road. With respect to the current zoning of the property, as staff
<br />testified during the pubi'~c hearing there is approximately a 46,500 sq. ft. portion of the property zoned EC-5, which stands for
<br />Existing Commercial Five, and the remaining acreage of the property is zoned AR, Agricu!#rual Residential. The property is also
<br />zoned Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District. The pet~ian proposes, calling your attention to attachment one which is
<br />the map, to rezone a 46, 500 sq. ft. portion of the property to Existing Commercial 5. This is the area of the property currently
<br />utilized to support an existing commercial landscape operation. Further, the petition call for the rezoning of the existing portion of
<br />property zoned Existing Commercial 5 back #o Agricultural Residential as there is no non-residential land use an that portion of
<br />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 />mapping error. Existing Commercial Five is a zoning designation That was imposed on properties during initial zoning of
<br />townships to ensure that existing non-residential operations were not made non-conforming and to ensure consistency with the
<br />Comprehensive Plan. For some unknown reason, the property was not properly designated on the official zoning atlas that we
<br />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 />where there is no commercial activity and the portion of the property that there is commercial activity is zoned residential making
<br />it technically illegal land use. As we discussed during the 4uarterly Public Hearing, the original official zoning atlas for the
<br />township as approved by the County show their entire parcel zoned EC-5. As denoted on the official zoning atlas utilized in
<br />1994, the entire property was zoned Existing Commercial Five. You will also note on the o~ zoning atlas references to an
<br />amendment that was done in 2001, to r:orrect a map error that resulted from a subdivision of property that was approved in 1993.
<br />Somehow this designation was not property shown on the current, legaNy utilized zoning atlas that staff digitized and produced
<br />several years ago. What we're trying to do is correct that mistake. As the Board may remember during the Public Nearing, local
<br />residents commented that there was not a commercial operation on the property prior to them moving there in the late 1970s,
<br />They expressed concern they did not understand how there could be commercial zoning allowed in this area. They suggested
<br />that it would be better to move the commercal operation to the rear of the property where there is Existing Commercial zoning
<br />and they expressed that they were not supportive of the proposal. As staff had testified to at a Quarterly Public Hearing, at! we
<br />can indicate is that in the Minutes, as well as the official zoning map adopted during that time, there was a landscape operation
<br />inexistence, which is why the property was zoned as such. As we testified during the Public Hearing there was correspondence
<br />#rom Mary Willis, who was the current planning supervisor at the time, indicating that this is one of the EC-5 properties that was
<br />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 />
|