Agenda - 09-15-20; 5-b - Zoning Atlas Amendment – Parcels off Old NC Highway 86 (District 2 of Settlers Point MPD-CZ)

Browse Search

DRAFT 11 110 parcels have been zoned Economic Development for several decades. That it is not something that I am comfortable 111 with recommending or supporting. If you have an interest in restudying the area, that statement needs to be made to 112 the County Commissioners who would need to take it under consideration. What I will say is that, as with other 113 projects in this general area, there has been an interest in expanding our current Hillsborough Economic 114 Development District and increasing economic development opportunities in this area. I also do not think it's the best 115 planning idea to put low intensity residential right up against an Interstate. I think that the current land use categories 116 and zoning that we have recommended would allow for purposeful development and expansion consistent with 117 current County policy. 118 119 Hunter Spitzer: I have another, more of a comment and this is pertaining to the analysis section of the introduction of 120 this amendment. `It finds that this is consistent with land use goal 3, a variety of land uses that are coordinated within 121 a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, 122 supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system." This is not mentioned again in the actual motion or 1 123 believe the resolution we have to recommend to the Board. So if that will not be included over in summary words 124 those things that we've accomplished then I have no further objections but I do find that land use goal in itself a little 125 bit contradictory and not applicable to this situation. 126 127 David Blankfard:All right, anybody else have any comments? Ok, again I'd like to ask people from the community to 128 say if they received a letter from the planning department. 129 130 Stephen Williams: I did receive a letter from the County Planning Board. I just want to reiterate something that the 131 gentleman just said that was speaking. He said that he didn't think that the residents or the owners, I'm sorry, the 132 owners of the property that we are discussing now would appreciate a rezoning that would devalue their property and 133 1 think that that's something that every resident here is concerned about. It's interesting that we're concerned about 134 these particular parcels and the owners of them and worried about decreasing the value they have in their property 135 but I think it should be noted that rezoning these areas and putting in this development which is the goal here, is also 136 going to devalue the properties of the residents that are around those areas. Thanks. 137 138 Bob Bundschuh: I have a question if these go back to their old zoning and they're allowed to develop independently, 139 two questions. Is water and sewer does the loop have to be supplied to them before they can do that and secondly, if 140 someone decided to develop again can you reiterate what steps they would have to take. Would it go through zoning 141 and then the County Commissioners again or since it is zoned does it just go to the zoning board? 142 143 Michael Harvey: I think I can answer that question. Any development of this property will have to be done in 144 compliance with the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Development would be under staff's 145 administrative review, it would not go back to the Planning Board or the County Commissioners. If these properties 146 remain Settler's Point, MPD-CZ it would also not have to go back to the County Commissioners or the Planning 147 Board it would develop under site plan review. There are standards in the Unified Development Ordinance dealing 148 with shared driveway access that any development on these properties would have to abide by, but the rezoning of 149 these parcels would mean that the concept access management strategy developed as part of the Settler's Point 150 MPD-CZ would not have to be followed and from our standpoint, it is more appropriate to give these individual 151 property owners a path forward to development of their property as compliant with the various 18 or so pages of 152 conditions associated with the Settler's Point MPD-CZ would be difficult for them to abide by. 153 154 Bob Bundschuh: And water and sewer? 155 156 Michael Harvey: I'm sorry sir; I forgot the water and sewer(question). These parcels are not intended nor are they 157 slated to be served by water and sewer. In order for any of these eight parcels to get water/sewer, it is my opinion 158 they would have to request annexation of the Town of Hillsborough. My apologies for that. This rezoning does not 159 somehow give them the ability to tap onto water/sewer inconsistent with what the Town's original reaction was back 160 when Settler's Point was being reviewed. 161 162 Franklin Garland: So, Mr. Harvey, it's my understanding with these eight parcels and pretty much everything else out 163 there that what you decide goes and even though the ethics part of our webpage out here says that you can't do that, 164 you just gonna railroad everything through no matter what as you saying this is not going to go to the Board of