Planning Board - 081920 Agenda Packet

Browse Search

D R A F T to go on there, those are like four to six acres lots. Once again, don’t inflate it with the these humongous warehouses 890 that are happening on the west side an especially that 12 acre lot on Davis Road which I’m definitely against. Those 891 are very very different things that are happening on the same night tonight so I just wanted to air my concerns. It 892 would definitely be a setback to me to have that as residential only, I purchased it to build the school on and I’ve 893 been struggling for 20 years to try to get a school on it and I’ve been in conversations with Orange County for 20 894 years about how to build a school on it and believe me it’s not easy to build anything in Orange County without going 895 through lots of red tape. If you are a very large building company and you have lawyers and you have architects and 896 you have designers and you have site planners and you have lots of money to work with you can get things done but 897 as a small mom and pop operation that I have it’s very very very difficult to get anything done so I just want to assure 898 you that there aren’t going to be all these things popping up on the east side of that street. There’s no water and 899 sewer there, it’s almost like it’s impossible to build there the land doesn’t perk well and we don’t have water and 900 sewer. It’s probably going to be sitting there for a good many years still. Ok, that’s all I have to say, thank you very 901 much.902 903 Craig Benedict: Michael Harvey, can you confirm that these rezonings would facilitate him being able to do 904 something on his property besides the Settler Point district two.905 906 Michael Harvey: Yes, as I alluded, if the rezoning is approved then development of the individual parcels would have 907 to compliant with the County Unified Development Ordinance but they would be developed and could be developed 908 independently from one another consistent with the Table of Permitted Land Uses contained in Section 5.2.909 910 Perdita Holtz: Franklin Garland has put his hand up for a second time; it will be up to the Board whether you want to 911 allow additional comments from Mr. Garland.912 913 David Blankfard: I don’t think we need to hear anything else from Mr. Garland on this agenda item. 914 915 Gerald Scarlett: I’m Gerald Scarlett again from West Scarlett Mountain Road. I just have a quick question. I think I 916 know the answer but I want to make sure. Item 9 on the agenda, the only thing that is doing is reverting the zoning 917 for the property on the east side of Old 86 back to its previous zoning before the development for Settler’s Point, is 918 that correct?919 920 Michael Harvey: You are correct sir.921 922 Gerald Scarlett: Thank you.923 924 Randy Marshall: Ready to make a motion if that’s the desire of the Planning Board.925 926 David Blankfard: Yes927 928 MOTION by Randy Marshall this would be an ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as established in 929 Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and whereas the proposed rezoning consists of 930 the eight property owners and whereas the proposal has been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County 931 Comprehensive Plan and whereas the requirement of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete and 932 whereas the Board has found that the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the 933 public health, safety, and general welfare, we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners rezone the areas 934 described above and depicted on the attached maps.935 936 Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, this is Michael Harvey, can I ask for a clarification. Randy so your motion is that 937 you make a recommendation to approve the Statement of Consistency as contained in attachment 3 and the 938 proposed ordinance, which you have just summarized as contained in attachment 4 to the County Commissioners, is 939 that correct?940 941 Randy Marshall: My presumption was we had already approved the attachment 3 by our earlier vote and I was 942 recommending approval of attachment 4.943 944 Michael Harvey: No sir, this is a different item, so it’s both items.945 19