Agenda - 09-08-2015 - C1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 within the EDE-2 general use zoning district in accordance with Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO. Such a land use, however, is not permitted within the EDE-1 general use district. Currently, the EDE-1 and EDE-2 zoning district boundaries do not coincide with existing lot lines creating problems for the property owner with respect to compliance with established landscape standards as well as limiting the ability to integrate supporting uses. Please refer to the vicinity map within Attachment 2 for additional detail. Approval of the zoning atlas amendment would align the EDE-2 zoning district boundaries with the boundaries of the recorded lot and allow for the proposed expansion. It should be noted that further development of the property would be required to comply with established land use buffers, including the 100 ft. perimeter EDD buffer required under Section 6.8.12 (C) (1) of the UDO along the eastern property line, as well as applicable setbacks/land use buffers from NC 751 and the existing railroad right-of-way. Approval of the zoning atlas amendment would not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to apply for a Zoning Compliance Permit to allow for the expansion as required within Section 2.5 of the UDO. Staff Analysis: In accordance with Section 2.8 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to cause an analysis to be made of the application'and pass that analysis on the reviewing body. In that respect the Planning Director states the following: 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO. 2. The property is of sufficient size, and location, to be rezoned to EDE-2. 3. The request will allow for the logical extension of the EDE-2 zoning district. 4. The proposal is consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Eno EDD Small Area Plan. 5. The site has no environmental encumbrances or significant features. Note, however, the site was designated as "Resource Protection" on the Future Land Use Map because it had been a portion of Duke Forest. It was sold by the University because it does not contain any resources value and is physically separated from the remainder of Duke Forest properties by the Southern Railroad. 6. The proposed zoning would complement the existing adjacent uses. 7. Staff is supportive of eliminating the split zoning of the property, which creates zoning, land use, enforcement and permitting difficulties. The request is also consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Eno EDD Small Area Plan. Notification Procedural Requirements: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, the public hearing for this item was advertised consistent with the requirements of the UDO. Legal ads were placed in two newspapers of general circulation in the County for two (2) successive weeks; notices were mailed to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties; and a sign was posted on the US Highway 70 frontage of the affected property in accordance with applicable regulations. Attachment 3 includes the following: • A copy of notification letters for property owners within 500-feet of subject property; and • An affidavit attesting to the mailing of the notification materials.