Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
(3) Rezoning the extra parcel LC1 will further the zoning <br /> quagmire at this node and subject the county to legal <br /> difficulties because the GC4 designation currently assigned <br /> to P & S sales is illegal in this land use area (Section <br /> 4 .2 .) . The only permitted zones here are LC1 and NC2. <br /> Currently, therefore, the operation of P & S Sales could be <br /> successfully challenged because they stand in violation of <br /> the zoning ordinance. <br /> (4) The intent of the Rural Community and Neighborhood <br /> Activity Nodes as stated in the application criteria of the <br /> ordinance is to limit the total acreage allotted to commerce <br /> to slightly less than 20 acres (NC2 5-9 ac. and LC1 5-9 ac. , <br /> total 10-18) . At present, it is true that there is no LCl <br /> acreage at this node, but this is due to the fact that there <br /> is over 15 acres illegally zoned GC4 there (5 acres for P <br /> S Sales and 10+ acres for Dixon's Garage) . Therefore, the <br /> total amount of commerical acreage at this site, NC2 = <br /> 8+acres (including Talbert's food mart, 5+ ac. and <br /> Tumbleweed 3 ac.) and GC4 = 15+ acres, is well over 20 <br /> acres. <br /> (4) Even if the error in zoning were corrected to rezone P & <br /> S Sales EC4 or 5 (a means we used for "grandfathering in" <br /> non-conforming uses when the ordinance was put in place) <br /> granting an LC1 designation for the additional parcel would <br /> still not solve their problems because again the business <br /> and its parking and sewage facitlities would not have the <br /> same zoning. (EC dsignation cannot be applied to zone new <br /> parcels) . <br /> (5) Some members of the Planning Board argue that the <br /> ordinance is too restrictive because they cannot recommend <br /> rezoning as they see fit, without regard to application <br /> criteria. This aspect of our ordinance, however, is <br /> precisely what makes it a good one. When zoning was issued <br /> in, the then BOCC assured the county that a strong ordinance <br /> was needed to protect the individual owner as well as guide <br /> development sensibly. Safeguarding these small rural nodes <br /> was seen as the surest way to prevent strip development <br /> along Hwy 54. As one of two remaining Planning Board members <br /> who helped to write the current ordinance, I would hate to <br /> see these ambitions abandoned. There are many businesses <br /> around the county who are in a similar boat. At the <br /> initiation of zoning, however, all agreed that limited <br /> growth was a fair exchange for not being zoned non- <br /> conforming. <br /> Finally, I might offer a suggestion to solve this <br /> problem. First, the Planning Board should seek to rectify <br />