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