Minutes - 19860527 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-~ r~~ Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed rezoning request submitted by James and Myra Kirkman. The Kirkmans .are requesting a rezoning for 1.18 acres of land located on a state .maintained unpaved access road leading to U.S. 70 at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and Interstate 85 in Eno Township. The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification of the property is Rural Residential. The applicant is requesting the lot be rezoned to General Commercial-IV (GC-4). Approval of the request would allow development of the full range of commercial uses at this location. Rezoning of the property would allow for the expansion of the commercial uses in the area as a single commercial development or, alternatively, through the subdivision of the property into individual lots for commercial development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer services. An impact statement which addresses water and wastewater services, roads/traffic, police, fire and rescue services, relationship between land use plan and zoning ordinance and permitted uses was presented and is included zn the permanent agenda file. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the general rezoning. COMMENTS OR UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING.BOARD In answer to a question from Chair Willhoit about the annexation policy of the City of Durham, Smith responded that the City has no active annexation plans in the area. The City does not require annexation for the extension of public water and sewer service. An existing well and septic system serves the property. Planning Board member Peter Kramer inquired about annexation proposals in the Durham 2005 Plan. Smith indicated that no firm annexation proposals had been proposed by the City of Durham. Planning Board member Chris Best asked the difference between this request and the North Carolina 751 rezoning case. Smith indicated that this site utilizes an access road which funnels traffic in the area to one point on U. S. 70 rather than resulting in individual drives and points of conflict. Best inquired about the applicant's statements of justification. The_applicant James Kirkman noted he had reviewed as much information as possible in making the statements, including the Hillsborough 70l Plan a The land adjacent to his property has been submitted for commercial rezoning. There is anpuexisting houseeon this property. He stated that the adjoining property has been purchased by an equipment company which currently leases property down the road. In answer to Commissioner Cary's question about the sixty-foot accessway, Kirkman stated that it runs to the adjoining property and is in use. Commissioner Marshall asked if the Kirkman's occupied the residence. and Kirkman affirmed that he does adding that it is an undesirable home site given the changes of the adjoining property. PRESENTATION. OR COMMENTS BY THE APPLICANT He reiterated the comments made above. He emphasized that the property is no longer suitable for residential purposes. He would like to get the property rezoned and sold.