OCPB minutes 100814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/5/14 4 163 Tom Altieri: I don’t have that specific information tonight. 164 165 Paul Guthrie: Is there any development on it at all. 166 167 Michael Harvey: Single family residents on those lots and one of the parcels is part of a larger farm. The Hare 168 Krishna part of their temple is on the other side of Dimmocks Mill Road there is a mish mash of existing land uses in 169 that general area. 170 171 Pete Hallenbeck: In my opinion at this point, fairly well developed. Most lots have something on them. 172 173 Tony Blake: One more question, that phantom line seems to bisect a bunch of lots, does that mean that the lots 174 have two land use and zoning classifications? 175 176 Tom Altieri: One base land use classification and correct, two different zoning classifications. 177 178 Tony Blake: This would serve to bring them in line and make them consistent across the lot. 179 180 Tom Altieri: That’s not part of this amendment. If it is something that this Board wanted to recommend to the County 181 Commissioners it would require another public hearing and notification and then we could consider that. 182 183 Tony Blake: I don’t think it’s worth it. 184 185 Craig Benedict: One other thing, this upgraded consistency statement, just something that we can use for future 186 reference. With this consistency statement, you see us referring to previous planning studies. One case was the 187 Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement another planning construct was the water and sewer boundary agreement was 188 another layer of the planning. As we proceed with these rezonings in the future, you’ll see us continue to use the 189 value of our small area planning processes to show consistency. The law has come back around to support what we 190 have been doing in the past by having multiple reasons for changing zoning. Some places around the state would 191 say, just because, so this is a way of incorporating our prior planning and give a good consistency statement. 192 193 Pete Hallenbeck: So to put this concept of the consistency statement into perspective, if we’re talking about taking 194 some parcel there and zoning it for some gigantic store or office complex that would be a consistency problem 195 instead we’re wrestling with AR versus R-1. 196 197 Paul Guthrie: Has there been any commentary from any of these parties that have an ownership interest on this 198 particular activity? 199 200 Tom Altieri: Very little. They all have received first class mail notification and the information. We had one citizen 201 that attended the public hearing that spoke to me after the meeting that just wanted more information. I provide him 202 the information, more detail on his zoning and the permitted uses and Margaret Hauth’s contact information with the 203 Town if he had any interest in how the zoning may have played out had his property stayed within the Town’s 204 jurisdiction. We did have a lot of interest back in January of this year when the Town was looking at both 205 relinquishing and expanding its ETJ, that involved another 200 or so properties and we did have about 50+ people 206 show up at that meeting. All but two were there because they owned property within the areas where the Town was 207 considering expansion. I think a lot of the people dropped off and there have only been a few phone calls, 3 or 4. 208 209 MOTION by Bryant Warren to recommend to the BOCC approval of the rezoning amendment. Seconded by Buddy 210 Hartley. 211 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 212 213 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the consistency statement. Seconded by Tony Blake 214 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 215 216