Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />2. Analysis <br />As required under Section 2.3.9 of the Orange County Unified Development <br />Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the <br />application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for <br />consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. In <br />analyzing this proposal, the following information is offered: <br />1. The adjacent and eastern area in question is predominately zoned <br />Agricultural Residential (AR) and is located within the Agricultural <br />Residential Land Use Category as detailed within the <br />Comprehensive Plan, <br />2. Field inspections have been conducted by staff verifying that there <br />_ do not appear to be any existing land-uses inconsistent with the <br />aforementioned zoning or land use categories. In one instance, <br />staff determined there is a private recreational facility (i.e. a <br />swimming pool) for members use only on a parcel slated for <br />inclusion within the County's planning jurisdiction. Staff has <br />determined that the use of .property closely resembles a <br />Recreational Facility, Non-profit, as defined within the UDO, which <br />is a permitted use of property within the AR zoning district subject <br />to the issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit. Given the <br />wording to Section 8.6 of the UDO, the use will be considered a <br />conforming use of property. <br />3. Staff did not find any non-residential land uses on property that <br />could qualify for zoning as Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) as <br />detailed within Section 3.4 of the UDO. <br />In order to be consistent with the existing development patterns in the area, staff is <br />recommending that all subject properties be zoned AR and assigned the Agricultural <br />Residential Land Use Category consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive <br />Plan and Land Use Element Map. <br />During the public hearing, 2 citizens spoke concerning the relocated Orange- <br />Alamance County line. Both individuals indicated confusion over the actual location <br />of the adopted Fine and how it impacted their property. As staff explained during the <br />hearing, issues related to the location of the line had been resolved with the approval <br />of Session Law 2011-88 in May of 2011. This specific item could not be a forum for <br />local property owners to continue to debate the location of the line or request that <br />their property be moved into either Orange or Alamance County. <br />The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed amendments as <br />detailed herein. _ _ . _ <br />3 <br />