Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
A <br /> 18 <br /> being "maxed out" , the possibility is great that <br /> there could be some commercial uses that are not <br /> specifically agricultural related. Katz <br /> continued, asking how the node became "maxed <br /> out" . Hinkley responded that the acreage set <br /> aside for the activity node by the Comprehensive <br /> Plan has been met. However, because of the lack <br /> of clarity, an AS district could allow for more <br /> commercial development. <br /> Reid asked if the owner's intent for rezoning is <br /> known. Hinkley stated that if the property is <br /> rezoned, the owner could not be held to one <br /> specific use; he could have any of the uses <br /> allowed in an AS district. Waddell reminded the <br /> Board that the rezoning would go with the <br /> property, not the owner, should the property be <br /> sold at some point. <br /> Vernon Davis, applicant, indicated he would like <br /> to make comments regarding his request. Mr. <br /> Davis referred to the map•.of his property <br /> indicating other property he owns in the White <br /> Cross area. He noted that the proposed entrance <br /> to the requested AS district is from White Cross <br /> Road rather than NC 54. It is an existing <br /> driveway where the County, in the past, had a <br /> solid waste collection site. <br /> Mr. Davis distributed copies of a letter prepared <br /> by attorney, Michael Brough. The letter stated <br /> that the property is not appropriate or likely to <br /> be used for agricultural or residential purposes. <br /> The letter also stated that the portion of the <br /> tract that contains the septic system which <br /> serves the small furniture store on the .11 acre <br /> tract zoned NC-2 can be removed from this <br /> rezoning request and added to the lot--which it - — <br /> serves. <br /> Brown referred to the neighbors' concerns <br /> regarding storage, mini-storage or warehouses and <br /> asked if that was the plan for this property. Mr. <br /> Davis responded that all types of businesses <br /> require some storage. He noted he would be <br /> willing to delete storage as a permitted use if <br /> that would help with his efforts for rezoning. <br /> Katz asked for clarification of the last <br /> paragraph of the letter from Michael Brough which <br /> states: "the tract in question clearly is <br /> inappropriate for the residential or agricultural <br /> uses permissible under the existing zoning, . . . " . <br />