Orange County NC Website
9- a�- o <br /> C3 6 ` <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the <br /> proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of <br /> Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 2001. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> b. Amend Flexible Development Street Standards <br /> 1. Amend Section IV-13-10 DA <br /> Craig Benedict said that the County Commissioners on October 10, 2000, adopted <br /> amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Appendix A Orange County Private Road <br /> Standards, to reduce the number of lots on a private road from 25 to 12; eliminate the class C private road <br /> provision; and to reduce the number of lots on a class B private road from 9 to 5. Street standards <br /> (Subsection D.4) in Section IV-13-10 Flexible Development that mimic language in the Orange County Private <br /> Road Standards are now not consistent with the newly adopted amendments. Proposed amendments will <br /> make Section IV-B-10 DA consistent with Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to close the <br /> public hearing. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the <br /> proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of <br /> Commissioners no sooner than October 16, 2001. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 4. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT <br /> a. Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone from EC-5 to R-1 <br /> Craig Benedict made this presentation. This item is a request from a private citizen, Ann Joyner, <br /> for a zoning atlas amendment from an EC-5 (Existing Commercial district 5 property)to an R-1 category <br /> (Rural Residential). The property owners are listed in the abstract. The size of the parcel is 1.05 acres. The <br /> property is located on the west side of Dodson's Crossroads. He said that EC-5 designations were added to <br /> the map when zoning went into effect in the various townships. There are approximately 75 EC-5 <br /> designations because they did not conform to an area that would typically be applicable for a commercial <br /> use. The zoning atlas amendment is nestled within a subdivision change, which is not the topic of the public <br /> hearing. There is another request with a suggestion to put a residence on lot 1 of the Blueberry Hill <br /> subdivision along with the extinguishing of the EC-5 to the R-1. The interesting point about this lot is that <br /> when it was recorded in 1986, it was shown as a private park. A homeowner's association was not <br /> developed so there is some question about the purpose of the private park. <br /> Ann Joyner said that she feels that the EC-5 designation is inconsistent with the surrounding <br /> areas and removal of the zoning district from this residential and farming area is a reasonable action. <br /> However, the zoning officer's recommendation that this be done for the private park purposes as shown on <br /> the Board of County Commissioners' approved preliminary plat and existing recording plat of Blueberry Hills <br /> subdivision has nothing to do with her request. She requested the zoning change to only go forward if it <br /> could be simultaneous with removing the park designation. She asked the County Commissioners to <br /> approve the petition to rezone to R-1 without reference to the private park. She said that this problem arose <br /> originally because of a mistake that she made in 1986. She said that the reason the words, "park, private" <br /> were put in there was to buffer the EC-5 parcel because at that point they envisioned using it as commercial <br /> and wanted to buffer it and she did not know the difference between open space and park. She added that <br /> the County did not request the park designation. There are signed affidavits from all of the lot owners in the <br /> subdivision saying that they have no rights to the park. She has been paying $492 per year in taxes on this <br /> lot with which they can do nothing because of the park designation. <br /> Craig Benedict said that no action would be taken on this but that it would be referred to the <br /> 8 <br />