Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br />Ben Lloyd said that late today some changes were made to the recommendations and he <br />approves of the new amendment. He said that the property in question was purchased in 1958. In <br />1960, he built a building that has always been used as automotive repair. In 2010, he had several <br />offers from people to rent this property for automotive repair. He said that he is very particular about <br />what goes on there and he was not impressed by the people that had approached him that wanted to <br />rent the building. He does not want vehicles sitting around the property. In the fall of 2010, someone <br />else approached him that wanted to lease this property who is an elderly car dealer. He rented his <br />property to this gentleman and everything was fine until he went to the County office to get his permit. <br />He was told that auto sales were not allowed on the property. He said that this property has always <br />been used for automotive repair, but it is much more acceptable to him and the community to have <br />automobile sales. He said that the building has been vacant long enough and must produce an <br />income. This is the most acceptable use that he has found for it. He read his petition that was <br />signed by every adjoining property owner. <br />"To Whom It May Concern: <br />Re: Text Amendment change on Ben Lloyd commercial property at 3228 US 70 W, Efland, NC. <br />We, the undersigned owners or controllers of property adjoining the Ben Lloyd property at 3228 <br />US 70 W in Efland do hereby offer no objection to and support the text amendment change to allow <br />automobile sales on this property as is being requested. We feel that the service provided by this <br />business would be very beneficial to the residents of our community." <br />PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />Robbie Riley said that he is right across from this property and he and his wife do not have a <br />problem with car sales in this area. He supports this text amendment. <br />Loren Peters said that he supports this text amendment. He lives directly across from this <br />building. <br />Benny Cecil said that he supported this text amendment and a comer of his land adjoins this <br />proposed shop. He said that a car lot would be better for this property. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to revisit his comments about the commercial <br />transition activity node and commercial industrial transition activity node and what he would <br />recommend as zoning. <br />Michael Harvey said that a condition was discussed between himself and the applicant. This <br />has been discussed for about a year. The easiest option is to use a text amendment. Regarding the <br />activity nodes, the definitions are more geared to allow this type of development. He said that the <br />rural community activity and the rural neighborhood activity node are not intended to have this type of <br />development. As a compromise, this text amendment was suggested. <br />Michael Harvey said that if this is approved, it is a countywide amendment. There are broader <br />implications. <br />Discussion ensued and Michael Harvey further clarified the recommendation. <br />Commissioner McKee said that he is glad to see discussion on this. He said that this is the area <br />in his mind where accommodations need to be made in order to bring in some more economic <br />development. He is glad that there is some accommodation. <br />Michael Harvey made reference to page 345 and said that there are two rural community <br />activity nodes and he pointed these out on a map. <br />