1-3-24 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Third, if our proposed use of our land is in tension with the above Land Use objectives, then several permitted uses of land within the RB must also be in tension. (Conversely, if the permitted uses are not in tension with these LU objectives, then neither is our proposal.) Consider: ●Mindful of the objective to “discourage new intensive non-residential land uses,“ why should a “Large Facility Solar Array” be permitted in the RB but a place to stage saw logs and wood chips for their environmentally responsible usage not be allowed? Or, why should Non-Farm Use of Farm Equipment be allowed but not the parking of tree equipment and vehicles necessary for managing and harvesting of local trees and timber? ●Mindful of the objective to “encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses,” why should it be permissible to build Government Facilities and Office Buildings in the RB but it not be permissible for us to build office space to accommodate our clerical staff? ●Mindful of the objective to “maintain the rural, low density land as Rural Buffer” why should it be permissible to build Kennels, Care Facilities, Recreational Facilities, Group Homes, Family Care Facilities, and Sewer Pumping Stations in the RB, but it not be permissible for us to create indoor and outdoor facilities to train future tree workers? The upshot here is that none of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals or objectives regarding the Rural Buffer prohibit our proposed plan. Such a prohibition must instead find justification in the particulars of our land and of our proposed usage. That justification, moreover, must override the combined weight of the many and diverse considerations in favor of our proposed usage, themselves rooted in the Comprehensive Plan. The particulars of our 10-acre parcel (situated just where it is), as well as the particulars of our local tree care business (both its needs and the distinctive services it offers) are what align so well with the County’s own goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. We cannot make similarly strong arguments for the sorts of developments that readily spring to mind as “urban sprawl.” None of the considerations we have raised in favor of our proposal would give, for example, any support for building a discount retail franchise at Carrboro’s bucolic border. The point is this: should the County find our particular case for rezoning compelling, the Rural Buffer remains safe. No worrisome precedent is set to which subsequent applicants could generically appeal. Rather, the County will decide subsequent cases just as the Comprehensive Plan instructs, balancing its many goals and objectives with which every particular rezoning case uniquely interacts. According to the Comprehensive Plan, protecting the Rural Buffer’s open spaces is about striking the “appropriate balance between the rights of private property owners and the 23 40