Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
O <br />64 commercal operation in existence in the 70s, we just say there was a commercial operation prior the initial zoning of the <br />61 township in 1994. With respect to moving the commercial operation, as this Board is already aware, we're dealing with a similar <br />62 problem about the commeraal use of residentially zoned property now, which is something that is prohibited by zoning <br />63 ordinance. ff we require Mr. HelJevold to move his operation to the rear of the property that would mean that the entrance and <br />b4 the main drive access to the commercial land uce would be on residentially zoned property. That's not consistent with the zoning <br />6S ordinance and is currently not consisten# with the Comprehensive Flan. In our estimation the best and most prudent course of <br />66 action is to amend the existing ordinance so it reflects what was supposed to exist on the ground, what was identified as existing <br />67 ~ the ground, wi#h the zoning atlas and correct the problem. We have recommended that this Board, after deliberation, approve <br />68 rezoning petition and through attachment two approve the Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Flan and with <br />69 attachment three approve the resolution of rezoning petition of approval and forward your recommendation back to the County <br />74 Commissioners.. I'll answer any question you may have at this time. <br />7I <br />72 Jeff Schmitt: How long has this existing operation been in effect that`s there currently? <br />73 <br />74 Michael Harvey: We have documentation that staff rximpleted inspections in 1998, 2401, and 2003 and identified that the <br />75 operation was in existence at that time. There is testimony saying that the landscape operation was in existence prior to the <br />76 comprehensive zoning of the township back in 1994 so it`s been a continuous operation at least since 1994, we have done <br />77 inspections to prove that it has been a continuous operation. <br />78 <br />79 Jeff Schmitt; is it the same property owner? <br />$4 <br />$1 Michael Harvey: Yes. <br />$2 <br />$3 Jeff Schmitt: So he's had-this since the 70s. <br />$4 <br />$5 Michael Harvey: tJa, he`s had it since 1994. He purchased the property in 1991. He began the business in 1993. <br />$6 There was no zoning of this property until 1994. He purchased ti and began the business prior to our zoning of the township. <br />87 <br />$$ Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Does he own all the land outlined in red? <br />89 <br />90 Michael Harvey: Looking to attachment one, yes he does. He also owns the property to the west which shows the residential <br />91 house. <br />92 <br />93 Larry Wright: Do buffers apply to this.. <br />94 <br />95 Michael Harvey: In most normal arcumstances, the direct answer #o your question is yes buffers do apply. The problem in this <br />96 case is since this area was technically already zoned EC-5, what was there is there. By moving the zoning designation, he <br />97 actually brings the rear of his pro~rty in further wmpliance with existing buffer regulations because that whole area is going to <br />9$ be left in a natural state. Has to be buffered. Mr. Helgevold has already been working with staff to work on buffering issues on <br />99 the front of the property running akx-g Phelps Road and around an existing mulch pile. IYs something we're going to be pursuing <br />144 with him but the problem Mr. Heigevold is going to have is that #echnicalty he can't do anything until we resolve the zoning issue. <br />141 <br />142 Larry Wrigh#: Right, l was just wondering if the buffers were there. it wouldn`t leave him much roam to do much. <br />143 <br />14~ Michael Harvey: It doesn't but he is going to be establishing some buffers to address same concerns his neighbors have <br />145 expressed at the Quarterly Public Hearing but he voluntarily suggest some buffering to address some of our concerns. <br />146 <br />147 Lany Wright; Sa the County would work with him on that? <br />148 <br />149 Michael Harvey: Yes, the County is not going to get the 100 ft. buffer normally required for this type of deve~pment. We`re not <br />114 going to try to oppose it on him but we are going to require buffering. <br />111 <br />112 Morrow made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to approve rezoning consistent with staffs recommendation as detailed on page 24 and 25 <br />113 of the abstract including recommending approval of attachment two and attachment three, the Statement of Consistency and the <br />114 Statement of rezoning approval. Seconded by Larry Wright, <br />1 I S VorE: unanimous <br />11.6 <br />1 i 7 Michael Harvey: The applicant is here, I just wanted to make the Board knew they were here. <br />] l 8' <br />2 <br />