Orange County NC Website
<br />through the packet. This is a general use rezoning request. It has a same format as most cases you see in terms of 56 <br />the abstract with a series of attachments. We have the abstract which starts on page 7 of your packet and ends on 57 <br />page 24 of your packet. It has attachments including the application starting on page 11. Maps of the parcel can be 58 <br />found on page 20, a site assessment on page 21, a statement of consistency which is attachment 4 on page 22, and 59 <br />then the ordinance amending the atlas on page 24. If you have any questions, I can answer them after the 60 <br />presentation. I would also like to note that I sent out an email yesterday regarding the property having a major 61 <br />transportation quarter overlay district in addition to the zoning. They are not proposing to change it or recommended 62 <br />to change it. The subject property is a little over 16 acres with two pieces of frontage. There is a landscaping 63 <br />contracting business on one side, with farm fields and a pond. There are several residential properties along the 64 <br />frontage of West Ten. The existing zoning areas in yellow are residential. The areas to the north of this property is65 <br />zoned (ORM) Office and Researching Manufacturing. There is agricultural and residential zoning on the south side 66 <br />of West Ten and a neighborhood commercial area on this portion of the property. As you saw in the packet, this 67 <br />case is a split zoning case. The direction from the commissioners is to clean up the split zone pieces of property. 68 <br />This neighborhood commercial portion has a contracting and landscaping business on a portion of the property. The 69 <br />applicant, Mr. Doby, lives in this residence here. The site summary is that it is within the Cheeks Township with a pin 70 <br />number and owner, Wayne Doby. The existing zoning is neighborhood commercial and is approximately 1.71 acres. 71 <br />The rural residential on one side is 14.54 acres in the watershed and it would be MTC. The request is to consolidate 72 <br />these two zoning categories into 16.45 acres of General Commercial (GC-4). This is the land-use element of the 73 <br />comprehensive plan. The plan calls and designates this property as a commercial industrial transition activity node. 74 <br />The growth management system of the property is zoned as urban designated. In summary, this property like the 75 <br />other one that you heard in May was part of the batch in 2016 that was split zoned. Mr. Doby like Mr. Lawton, which76 <br />you heard back in May, has asked to be taken off this list and had to ask to reinitiate his zoning in order to resolve it. 77 <br />Staff recommended rezoning this split zoning portion of the property to (GC-4) that is most consistent with the 78 <br />comprehensive plan and the land-use plan designation. Cheeks Township was originally zoned in 1984 and the non-79 <br />residential portion of this property was established at least a year prior to that zoning. The zoning at that time did not 80 <br />capture all of their non-residential use. The planning director recommends that the Planning Board review the 81 <br />proposed zoning atlas amendment, to deliberate on the petition, to consider the director’s recommendation, and then 82 <br />to make a recommendation to the board of commissioners on the statement of consistency and for a proposed 83 <br />ordinance for the atlas amendment in time for the September 3 <br />rd BOCC meeting. I will answer any questions you 84 <br />have about the presentation or the packet and then turn it over to the applicants.85 <br />86 <br />David Blankfard: I think we're good.87 <br />88 <br />Chad Huffine: Good evening; my name is Chad and I am a civil engineer with the project, with 505 E. Davis St. in 89 <br />Burlington. We were contacted by Mr. Doby to look at the potential uses for his property and immediately noticed the 90 <br />split zoning on his property. After several conversations with staff, and taking recommendations, we submitted a91 <br />rezoning application for the (GC-4), which is consistent with the land-use plan you have currently. I do want to 92 <br />reiterate one thing that Pat said, we do not propose any changes to the transportation overlay. We do not have any 93 <br />conditions associated with this rezoning request and we would appreciate your favorable consideration. If you have 94 <br />any questions please feel free to contact me.95 <br />96 <br />Hunter Spitzer: What is it that Mr. Doby wants to do with the property?97 <br />98 <br />Chad Huffine: He’s currently proposing the multiuse of landscaping and mini-storage use, but that is not what you're 99 <br />considering tonight. What you are considering tonight is a rezoning without conditions.100 <br />101 <br />Patrick Mallett: I'll add on to that briefly. This case is a general use case. In some jurisdictions they may have 102 <br />conditional zoning category that could be applied, and you can restrict and eliminate some of the uses. This is a 103 <br />general-use case. They can indicate what they intend on doing, but you have to consider all of the permitted uses 104 <br />that are allowed in the (GC-4) district.105 <br />106 <br />David Blankfard: Do we have any comments from the citizens?107 <br />108 <br />Crystal Gvaldoni: My name is Crystal. I live at 6405 West Ten Rd., which is directly impacted by this change. I built 109 <br />my home in 2010 from the ground up, and I know Mr. Doby personally. I am against what he's planning on doing to 110 <br />6