Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
t <br /> 8 i <br /> DRAFT There were no comments at the public hearing from the public,County <br /> Commissioners,or Planning Board. <br /> The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning per the findings(an <br /> attachment to these minutes on pages <br /> Barrows expressed concern that the property is in an AR district and that at some <br /> point it would be inappropriate for such a use. Hinkley emphasized that an error <br /> was made with respect to this property when zoning was adopted for Cedar Grove <br /> Township January 1,1994. There had been a commercial use on this property for <br /> more than thirty years. <br /> Waddell asked what would be allowed on the property if the error had not been <br /> made when zoning was adopted. Hinkley referred to the list of uses(an <br /> attachment to these minutes on pages )that would be permitted as a right or <br /> with a Class A or B Special Use Permit. <br /> Reid expressed concern that the amount of road frontage,two hundred feet, may <br /> not be sufficient for some of the permitted uses. Hinkley responded that .82 <br /> acres has been the zoning lot of record for forty years or more. Hinkley noted <br /> also that the existing commercial designation goes with the property in perpetuity; <br /> however, the size of the lot cannot be expanded. <br /> MOTION: Waddell moved findings on page 49 in the affirmative. Seconded by Katz. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Reid moved findings on page 50 in the affirmative. Seconded by Walters. <br /> VOTE: 9 in favor. <br /> 1 opposed(Barrows-outside of a node and would be more in keeping with the <br /> Comprehensive Plan if inside the activity node). <br /> MOTION: Waddell moved findings on page 51 in the affirmative. Seconded by Barrows. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Reid moved approval of the rezoning as recommended by the Zoning Officer. <br /> Seconded by Waddell. <br /> VOTE: 8 in favor. <br /> 2 opposed(Rosemond and Barrows-reasons already stated by Barrows). <br /> Katz expressed concern with the long list of permitted uses for an EC-5 <br /> designation. He asked that this be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee <br /> for review to determine whether changes or reduction in the list could occur. <br /> c. Zoning Ordinance Amendments <br /> (1) Article 6.23.11 Watershed Protection <br /> Overlay Districts(Administration) <br /> Presentation by Jim Hinkley. <br />