ORD-2001-029 Clarified Amendments to Orange County Private Road Subdivision Regulations: Section IV-B-3-d-1 and Appendix A Private Road Standards

Browse Search

A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 2001. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Amend Flexible Development Street Standards 1. Amend Section 1V-B-10 D.4 Craig Benedict said that the County Commissioners on October 10, 2000, adopted amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards, to reduce the number of lots on a private road from 25 to 12; eliminate the class C private road provision; and to reduce the number of lots on a class B private road from 0 to5: Street standards (Subsection DA) in Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development that mimic language in the Orange County Privatc Road Standards are now not consistent with the newly adopted amendments. Proposed amendments will make Section IV-B-10 D.4 consistent with Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards. There were no public comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 16, 2001. VOTE- UNANIMOUS 4. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT a.. Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone from EC-5 to R-1 Craig Benedict made this presentation. This item is a reques,t from a private citizen, Ann Joyner, for a zoning atlas amendment from an EC-5 (Existing Co in m e rcial,district 5 property)to an R-1 category (Rural Residential). The property owners are listed in the abstract. The size of the parcel is 1.05 acres. The property is located on the west side of Dodson's Crossroads. He said that EC-5 designations wereadded to the map when zoning went into effect in the various townships.. There are approximately 75 EC-5 .designations because they did not conform to an area that Would typically be'applicable for a commercial use. Th6 zoning atlas amendment is nestled within a subdivision change,which is not the topic of the public hearing. There is another request with a suggestion to put a residence on lot 1 of the Blueberry Hill subdivision along with the extinguishing of the EC-5 to the R-1. The interesting point about this lot is that when it was recorded in 1986, it was shown as a private park. A homeowner's association was not developed. so there is some question about the purpose of the private park. Ann Joyner said that she feMs that the EC-5 designation is inconsistent with the surrounding areas and removal of the zoning district from this residential and farming area is a reasonable action. However, the zoning officer's recommendation that this be done for the private park purposes as shown on the Board of County Commissioners' approved preliminary plat and existing recording plat of Blueberry Hills subdivision has nothing to do with her request. She requested the zoning change to only go forward if it could be simultaneous With removing the park designation. She asked the County Commissioners to approve the petition to rezone to R-1 without reference to the private park. She said that this problem arose originally because of a mistake that she made in 1986. She said that the reason the words, "park, private" were put in there Was to buffer the EC-5 parcel because at that point they envisioned Using it as commercial and wanted to buffer it-and she did not know the difference between open space and park. She added that the County did not request the park designation. There are signed affidavits from all of the lot owners in the subdivision saying,that they have no rights to the park. She has been paying$492 per year in taxes on this