Orange County NC Website
.~. <br />concerns that resulted from the review o <br />Because of the size of the property, <br />generation of traffic. This would also <br />Development request. <br />f the site plan of the request. <br />there could be considerable <br />be addressed through a Planned <br />.Commissioner Lloyd .inquired why Planning Staff would recommend <br />Planned Development when the applicant met all the criteria for a <br />straight rezoning. Collins responded that the rezoning process is a <br />more open-ended process in that the Commissioners have more latitude in <br />making a determination as to whether or not to approve or deny the <br />request. The Special Use or Planned Development process is more closed <br />in that if certain findings-of-fact are made, then the Commissioners <br />must issue the permit. Through the straight rezoning process the <br />County loses the ability to mitigate any negative impacts that result <br />from the project whereas a Special Use Permit or Planned Development <br />approach would allow the County to address those impacts while at the <br />same time allowing the citizen to use the property as he wished. <br />Collins submitted photographs showing the present condition of the <br />property. <br />Ken Embree, attorney representing the Turners, indicated he had <br />more information regarding the. letter from DEM concerning the non <br />compliance. He stated that Mr. Turner did receive a notice of the <br />violation in May. When the investigator came out and pointed the <br />violation out to Mr. Turner, he stopped washing the heavy equipment <br />immediately in such away as to cause the discharge and has refrained <br />frc~~ doing so since that time. Mr. Embree continued that there is a <br />special type of collection basin that can be constructed under design <br />specifications from DEM to prevent the discharge from occurring again. <br />He noted that Mr. Turner will comply with those regulations in order to <br />request a permit from DEM; this would enable Mr. Turner to address the <br />concern noted by Collins. Embree continued that before Staff knew <br />about the discharge violation, they had recommended approval of the <br />rezoning request. Embree indicated on a map .that there are areas <br />surrounding this property that are zoned GC-4 (General Commercial-4) <br />near the intersection of US 70 and I-85. This is the only tract on the <br />south side of the access for US 70 which is not zoned GC-4. Embree <br />continued that Turner has submitted an Erosion Control Plan which has <br />been approved and has also submitted a site plan. which shows the <br />see_d_ing of the property and the planting of trees. <br />Mr. Embree noted that Mr. Turner had responded to all the <br />regulations as he was informed and encouraged the straight rezoning of <br />the property. <br />Commissioner Lloyd inquired why, with the problem of discharge <br />solved, did Planning Staff not go back to its original recommendation <br />of straight rezoning. Collins responded that the size of the tract and <br />the potential for development and traffic generation were concerns of <br />staff. Collins continued that the ~.etter from DEM added to the <br />concerns for potential for impacts with the development of the site, <br />particularly if the major part is to be developed for the paving <br />company. <br />Yuhasz inquired if the traffic impacts from this property would be <br />any greater than that from the adjoining properties currently zoned GC <br />4. Collins responded that they may be lesser than or greater than but <br />there is little that can be done about those tracts already zoned GC-4. <br />