Planning Board minutes 050119 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/5/19 Patrick Mallett: Normally, there would be concerns. However, given the fact that the date of this non-residential use 110 well predates the original zoning and Rural Buffer. It does solve the split zoning issue. When we did the cases in 111 2016, there were three other cases that were resolving split zoning in the Rural Buffer. While not common, this is 112 probably a good example of one of the rare exceptions. 113 114 Randy Marshall: So Chapel Hill and Carrboro wouldn’t jump up and down when they found Orange County took 115 some rural buffer land and put it in commercial. 116 117 Patrick Mallett: We sent a courtesy review per the Joint Planning Agreement. 118 119 Hunter Spitzer: Have either Carrboro or Chapel Hill responded to the date? 120 121 Patrick Mallett: Nothing. 122 123 Hunter Spitzer: Are you concerned that haven’t responded?124 125 Patrick Mallett: They acknowledged they got it and that they would respond if they had any issues and no comment 126 or response yet. Maybe I’m reading between the lines here but given the fact that it’s an existing use, it’s a known 127 use and the nature of the time frame and the history of the property. 128 129 Hunter Spitzer: By expanding the entire lot to EC-5, what does that change about what can be done with the 130 property?131 132 Patrick Mallett: In the zoning world, you have typically three types of nonconformities. There are nonconforming lots. 133 This is not a nonconforming lot. You have nonconforming uses. We currently have nonconforming uses that would 134 not otherwise be allowed in the table of permitted uses in the Rural Buffer portion of the property. Then you have 135 nonconforming structures. The original wood working shop is a nonconforming structure because it lies is within 136 what would otherwise be a landscape buffer. This rezoning would solve at least the nonconforming use. This was a 137 nonresidential use that was probably dating back to the early 60s that was never captured. 138 139 Hunter Spitzer: When you say it’s a nonconforming structure, what do you mean by that? 140 141 Patrick Mallett: Along here, you’re required a 30-foot landscape buffer. Along this edge and along this edge you’re 142 required a 100-foot buffer and a 30-foot buffer along this private road here. This would be in the buffer here. So that 143 would still be a nonconforming structure. You can’t really expand that structure in the landscape buffer. 144 145 Hunter Spitzer: I understand.146 147 MOTION by Randy Marshall to recommend from the Planning Board that the County Commissioners consider 148 adoption of the proposed zoning atlas amendment. Patricia Roberts seconded.149 150 Patrick Mallett: I do want to point out one minor thing. This represents the zoning on his lot, the existing commercial 151 zoning and then theoretically, if it changed, the zoning goes to the centerline of the road. It would be customary for 152 the County to also rezone to the centerline of the road. 153 154 Randy Marshall: Do I need to say that we want to rezone the entire 4.08-acre parcel to EC-5? 155 156 Patrick Mallett: Yes. 157 158 Randy Marshall: I change my motion to include that.159 160 Patricia Roberts: Seconded.161 162 Hathaway Pendergrass: I abstain from voting as I have had previous professional dealings with the owner.163 164