Minutes - 20011126 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

judgement and a civil action suit were filed whereby NCDOT obtained the additional right-af-way. Subsequently, there was a procedure where the owner was paid an additional $136,875 aver the $88,125 that was originally paid for the tract. The owner was paid a total of $225,000 for the acquired right-of-way. The new text amendment that went through a year ago has a statement that, "not withstanding the intent and the application criteria and the EC-5 district, an EC-5 district eliminated ar reduced to anon-functional zoning lot as a result of a public entity, condemnation, or partial taking, may be amended by the Board of County Commissioners' legislative action provided the following criteria are met." A) The amended district acreage shall not be increased in size by more than 10% of the existing parcel. The use shall be the same primary use as listed in the EC-5 inventory when the district was originally created. Staff is not recommending the additional 10°l0. The original taking was enough to reestablish should the Board decide. B) The new district shall be contiguous to the existing district. C) Land not rezoned or not included within the new petitioned district shall be petitioned, by the owner, to be returned to the zoning classification of the surrounding land. In the event there is mare than one adjacent zoning district, the tract shall be returned to the lower use category of the surrounding adjacent property provided anon-conforming situation is not created on the subject or adjacent parcels. This does not apply in this case because the land was taken. D) Additional property added to an existing parcel shall be recombined by deed into one zoning lot prior to issuance of zoning or building permits. The property added to the existing parcel will be recombined by deed into one zoning lot prior to issuance of zoning or building permits. E) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan shall not be mandatory when considering a rezoninglrelocation of an EC-5 district, but shall be evaluated. The EC-5 districts are not mentioned in the comprehensive plan at this time. F) If a condemnation results in less than or equal amount of property being taken for public right-of-way than is specified in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (transportation element) for typical right-of-way dedication, then this section shall not be used. More right-of-way was taken by NCDOT than was recommended in the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The staff recommendation is to refer the zoning petition to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 19, 2002. The Planning staff recommendation is approval to allow the original sized district to be reestablished with the rezoning. Questions from the Board of County Commissioners Commissioner Gordan made reference to page 009, K and the recommended conditions. She asked why it said, "only the portion of a sign for fuel pricing may be internally eliminated" because we are not supposed to know with respect to the zoning petition what use it will be. Robert Davis said that these criteria would be applied during the building permit, assuming that this is approved. Commissioner Jacobs asked for an explanation of item I and what the EDD standards might be. Craig Benedict said that the EDD standards have to do with architecture, parking lots, and site planning to make sure that there are additional standards that can be garnered from the EDDs to make sure that those higher standards for the reconstruction of EC-5 are used. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the EDD standards would apply to all the EC-5 districts in the County and Craig Benedict said that the EDD standards could only be used where land has been taken by eminent domain. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a similar instance on Erwin Road and asked where that is in the process and Craig Benedict said that they have worked on this for the last 8-10 months and there are issues with water and sewer.