Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~ 5 l Comprehensive Plan. Attachment S is e Resolution of Inconsistency for the 2O3O 2 Comprehensive Plan. 4 Chair Pelissier declared the public hearing re-convened and asked staff to make their 5 presentation. 7 Michael Harvey: You also have a script that was produced by staff, providing you with an 8 outline of the actions that staff will be taking this evening and to aid you in making your 9 motions. Please remember that this is a two-sphered process. You're going to be taking action 10 of modification to a Class A Special Use Permit, specifically removing this lot as shown on the I I overhead proje'ctor from the confines of an existing Class A Special Use Permit. The second 12 action you're going to take this evening is a legislative action to rezone the subject property to 13 Rural Buffer. As you will remember from meetings past, we have had a new procedure that we 14 had to follow as a result of the State Supreme Court decision on rezoning. Previously,we had 15 combined Statements of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the Ordinance 16 Amending the Zoning Atlas. According to a recent State Supreme Court case,we can no 17 longer do that, which is why you now have two attachments. In this case, I am referring to 18 Attachment 6 and Attachment 8. Attachment 8 states that you are adopting outlining how this 19 project is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please remember that previous to 20 this, or previous to the last meeting when we looked at the Eno Economic Development District, 21 we put this information in one central resolution. We now have to split it out. The cadence for 22 adoption is also specified by the State Supreme Court and that you must adopt an ordinance 23 amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas first, and then adopt a Statement of Consistency to 24 the Comprehensive Plan. 25 Having said that, what I would like to do this evening is briefly review with you the 26 actions of the Planning Board. As you will note from Attachment 5 of your abstract packet,the 27 Planning Board went through the Findings of Fact and determined that the applicant had met 28 his burden with respect to compliance with the individual requirements of the Orange County 29 Unified Development Ordinance for the approval of this request. They also made specific 30 Findings of Fact on the compliance with Section 5.3.2 (8) 2 a, b, and c, with respect to this 31 project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, with respect to this proposed amendment 32 would not have a negative impact on adjacent property, and last but not least, the applicant had 33 met his burden of proof that the proposal was consistent with surrounding land use. The 34 Planning Board is recommending unanimous approval of this process and of the proposed 35 rezoning. The applicant specifically in Attachment 4 has indicated his support for the conditions 36 with one exception—the applicant requests that that the Board not impose a condition about 37 the wooded access from this lot of the Pathway Court. As you will recall from the Quarterly 38 Public Hearing, and this is detailed within Attachment 2 of your abstract packet, concerns were 39 expressed by adjacent property owners about the potential for a road or a drive access from 40 this property and ultimately the existing camp property to the east operated by Mr. Dickinson 41 onto Pathway Court. Staff recommended the imposition of the condition at that time. Staff still 42 recommends the imposition of this condition. The applicant respectfully requested in writing 43 that you not impose it. Unless you have any questions, that is the end of my presentation at 44 this time.