Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
16 <br /> Searles asked what options were available to Mr. Bradley. Hinkley <br /> responded that it is a Ten-Year Transition Area primarily residential. <br /> However, being a transition area, the allowable density would be higher. <br /> Price asked why the driveway was not included in the EC-5 <br /> designation noting that the lot appeared to be landlocked. Hinkley <br /> responded that the lot has access and is all in one ownership;this is a <br /> zoning lot,not a property lot. <br /> Strayhorn asked how it would have been handled in 1984 in <br /> preparation for the zoning of Cheeks Township. Willis responded that <br /> the area that was in use at the time would have looked at to determine <br /> what zoning lot should have been placed there to accommodate the use <br /> as it existed at the time. Also,efforts are made to consider small changes <br /> and improvements that would need to be made over time. She continued <br /> that there was no information or evidence that the three additional acres <br /> being requested by Mr. Bradley was a part of the use prior to zoning in <br /> 1984. The purpose of an EC-5 district is to accommodate business that <br /> existed and allow for reasonable growth and not have them become non- <br /> conforming. <br /> Discussion continued regarding the amount of acreage that was actually <br /> involved in the business. Barrows noted that the purpose of this rezoning <br /> request was to correct an error and she felt that the recommendation by the <br /> Planning Staff would address that concern. <br /> Price expressed the concern with possible further subdivision of the tract <br /> and the need for access. Hinkley responded that, if the property were <br /> subdivided at a later date,there would be a requirement for access to US 70. <br /> Price continued asking if the driveway could be included in the EC-5 <br /> designation. Collins explained that, if the driveway were included in the <br /> EC-5 designation and there were further subdivision, there would be a 50- <br /> foot strip where equipment and materials could be stored. This would not <br /> be in keeping with surrounding residential development to have such a <br /> strip, and it could be used for whatever EC-5 allows. At the present time, <br /> this is only used as a driveway. <br /> MOTION: Brooks moved agreement with Planning Staff findings on Article 20. <br /> Seconded by Hcecke. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Brooks moved agreement with Planning Staff findings on Article 4. <br /> Seconded by Hcecke. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Allison moved to accept the Planning Staff recommendation to rezone <br /> 3.2 acres to EC-5. Seconded by Katz. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments <br />