Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4.52 <br /> DRAFT PPM fIflUTEE 12-1r--. <br /> PAGE 22 <br /> • Yuhasz irEire- red .thy the r:nti re tract could not t <br /> rezoned EC-5 . Sr i ::h netec: that this could not b . <br /> done as t �4 0C--4 portion wes not €dve rti sed . <br /> Pearson, notes.' that he felt the existir:c} use was no• <br /> subject to decision -ir tEis application . <br /> Kizer expressed concern with keeping down the <br /> amount of c.ar, r,s•r•cie l property . <br /> Jacobs inquired as to the staff <br /> meeting of the requirements . Smith respondednthatt <br /> staff felt that the requirements of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance for LC-1 had been met . Kizer responded <br /> he did not feel that the intent to develop and <br /> expand meets the intent of the ordinance . Pearson <br /> inquired if the Board could base •its decision on <br /> what it thought the applicant intended to do once <br /> he received the rezoning . <br /> Collins stated the applicants evere informed of the <br /> various ways to apply ; they chose to consider <br /> Alamance County due to the time period involved In <br /> processing the application for rezoning . Jacobs <br /> asked if staff recommended LC-1 . <br /> yes , considering the Limitations ofoNC?2. responded <br /> Pearson asked if the rezoning was granted could <br /> Limits be set on the size of the business to <br /> correspond with the l <br /> Collins re spo., unit on the market area . <br /> nded that it was his opinion that once <br /> the property was rezoned , the criteria at the time <br /> of rezoning was the deciding factor not the <br /> development of the tract . <br /> Best inquired what options the applicants would <br /> have if the rezoning were not granted . Smith <br /> responded that they could immediately come back <br /> with an application for another type of rezoning . <br /> Kizer noted again that the GC-4 designation was <br /> illegal and the property should have been zoned EC- <br /> 5 from the begiririing . <br /> Smith reminded the Board that Article 20 <br /> requirements are simply requirements that the <br /> applicant must address in his application and not <br /> issues to be decided . The issues to be decided are <br /> in Article 4. <br /> MOTION : <br /> PiLkey r.toved positive findings on 20 .3 .2 a) and hi . <br /> Seconded by Jacobs . <br /> Vf;TE. <br /> h'rar, inous . <br />