Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br />of the property and that the density would need to be increased to make it <br />workable from a financial standpoint. They also took into account the <br />discussion of the transit corridors. They focused on the need for high <br />density developments because the higher density would help support the transit <br />system. The density of 1.74 is much lower than any kind of density required <br />to support a transit system. The village itself may have the density that can <br />support a system but when spread out over the entire development it would not. <br />Commissioner Insko asked for a fiscal impact analysis on the tax <br />base that a development like this would have. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner <br />Halkiotis to adjourn this item to November 23, 1992 for the purpose of <br />receiving additional public comments and additional information. The <br />transition area change portion of the public hearing will be advertised. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />D. Z-3-92 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - BRENDA CAROL AND DONALD WAYNE COMBS <br />This rezoning request is being made to correct an apparent error <br />in the Zoning Atlas. The applicant alleges the rezoning will correct an error <br />in the Zoning Ordinance, in that the property was used for the storage of <br />junked motor vehicles prior to the zoning of Bingham Township in 1981. <br />Planning Staff has been unable to substantiate the applicant's claims through <br />the examination of aerial photos. The Planning Staff recommended to the <br />Planning Board that they recommend to the Board of Commissioners the <br />disapproval of the request to rezone 1.84 acres. The Planning Board <br />recommends that the 200' x 200' lot be rezoned to Existing Commercial (EC-5). <br />The day following the Planning Board meeting, they received a letter from a <br />person unable to attend the public hearing. The administration feels that the <br />substance of this letter is enough to recommend to the Board of Commissioners <br />that the Combs rezoning request be referred back to the Planning Board for <br />them to consider the new information that has been received. <br />Bart Lloyd, Jr., stated that four of the five who own property <br />directly adjacent to the Combs' property have signed a petition which states <br />their opposition to the rezoning. They petition the Board of Commissioners <br />to uphold the Planning Staff findings and recommendation. They feel that the <br />absence of automobiles in the photographs taken in 1981 and 1982 is sufficient <br />evidence to repute claims that the property was used for commercial activity. <br />He questioned the use of a garage on the property and the use of paid labor. <br />Linda R. Noonan stated that she sees no reason for granting the <br />rezoning. The area that is proposed for rezoning is not directly adjacent to <br />her land. However, the land that has been cleared of topsoil and trees is <br />directly adjacent to her land. It was suggested to Mr. Combs that he could <br />not store automobiles there and that he needed to replant that area. As of <br />today, there are automobiles on that area and no vegetation. There are cars <br />stored in an area on this property that is not considered for rezoning. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Chair Carey to <br />refer this rezoning request back to the Planning Board to consider new <br />information received, and that the public hearing be continued to November 2, <br />1992, at which time a Planning Board recommendation will be considered. <br />VOTE ON THE MOTION: UNANIMOUS <br />