ORD-2012-031 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas - Woods Rezoning

Browse Search

d. Zoning Atlas Amendment—Woods Rezoning Michael Harvey with the Orange County Planning Department stated their request was to change the zoning on a parcel on Highway 70 owned by the Woods from Rural Residential (R1) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC2). He referenced a map on the overhead which was also a part of Attachment 2 in the packets. This showed the abstract of the area to be rezoned. This item was presented at the May 291h public hearing where the Staff informed them the property is currently in a split zone with some zoned Rural Residential and some zoned NC-2. The problem this creates for the property owner is that technically, setback landscape buffer requirements, parking requirements, and septic setback requirements, are all taken from the zoning lot line. The huge problem is having these two properties conform to applicable setback and development standards. As was articulated at the quarterly public hearing, this was done based on an interpretation of former County Attorney and former Staff to only zone those areas of property technically utilized to support commercial activities. The installation use of septic systems, the preservation buffer, and also the parking, are components of the commercial activity, and the entire property should be zoned appropriately to insure the protection of the preservation required buffers. It would also insure adequate land areas to support the development consistent with the parameters of the UDO. Mr. Harvey indicated the applicant and engineer consultant were present for questions. Mr. Harvey also stated a couple of comments were made at the quarterly public hearing concerning this item and that information was on page 2 of the abstract. The Planning Board reviewed this item at their June 6th meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Planning Department finds it consistent with the comprehensive plan and believes it's consistent with the goals and policies as articulated by this Board for trying to address similar issues. He noted they have had numerous rezoning cases to address this and will probably have several more. Mr. Harvey reiterated the Board was being asked to receive the Planning Board's recommendation, discuss the matter if any discussion is necessary, to close the public hearing, and to approve the zoning request as articulated in the ordinance in Attachment 3. Frank Clifton, Orange County Manager, said he'd had discussions with the owners of this property. The issue is trying to get the line straightened up with the property boundaries versus the zoning boundaries and related issues. It has been an expensive process for the owners due to having to have the entire property surveyed and the Orange County processing fees. Mr. Clifton suggested they challenge the Staff to look at areas where the zoning boundary and property boundary are off by some amount and initiate rezoning of those properties to correctly fix this type of situation and to help landowners avoid the expense and time involved in correcting these types of problems in the future. Chair Pelissier said they discussed this in agenda review and she was also concerned about these costs and the length of time of the process given there are a number of other properties. After making a motion for this, she said she would entertain a motion from the Board to direct the Manager to do what he is suggesting. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee, to close the public hearing and receive the Planning Board's recommendation, and to approve an owner-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone approximately 0.58 acres of land on two parcels of property from Rural Residential (R1) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC2) in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as contained in Attachment 3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said he would support the idea the Manager articulated. He suggested, however, that before Staff identifies specific parcels, they come back to the Board with parameters of what the parcels are and what they're going to be doing. Anytime someone gets a notice the County will be messing with something on their property, even if it's to help them, they need to be in agreement on what that is and what will be required because in many cases the property owner will still need a survey. He said they did not want to mislead or alarm people but does believe they should be proactive. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to direct the Manager and Staff to review similar properties to this item for amendment and to come back with