RZ_Pope_CC SRSTAFF REPORT Page 1 of 7
REZONING STAFF REPORT
Case: 15-181
Jay Sikes, Mgr. of Planning Services
jsikes@harnett.org
Phone: (910) 893-7525 Fax: (910) 814-8278
Planning Board: June 1, 2015 County Commissioners: June 15, 2015
Requesting rezone a portion of the Conservation to RA-30
Applicant Information
Owner of Record: Applicant:
Name: William R. Pope Name: SAME
Address: 70 Swan Ln Address:
City/State/Zip: Angier, NC 27501 City/State/Zip:
Property Description Within two parcels
PIN(s): 0692-29-9363 & 0692-39-3045 Acreage: ~10.0
of11.4
acres
Address/SR No.: Pope Lake Rd
Township:
(09) Johnsonville
(10) Lillington
(11) Neill’s Creek
(12) Stewart’s Creek
(13) Upper Little River
(01) Anderson Creek
(02) Averasboro
(03) Barbecue
(04) Black River
(05) Buckhorn
(06) Duke
(07) Grove
(08) Hectors Creek
Vicinity Map
STAFF REPORT Page 2 of 7
Physical Characteristics
Site Description: Most of the area is currently
vacant and wooded, except for a storage bldg.
Per the U.D.O., The purpose of the Conservation
District is to encourage the preservation of and
continued use of the land for conservation
purposes in its natural state, and to prohibit
intrusive development of the land in areas with
alluvial soils, perennial streams, or that are
subject to flooding or considered wetlands.
This Conservation District is determined to be
300 ft. as measured from the center of Black
River, north of intersection with SR 1552,
Abattoir Rd.
Surrounding Land Uses: Surrounding land uses
include single-family homes and vacant land.
Services Available
Water:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Well)
Other: Unverified
Sewer:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Septic Tank)
Other: unverified
Transportation:
Annual Daily Traffic Count:
N/A
Site Distances: Good
Zoning District Compatibility
The following is a summary list of general uses,
for actual permitted uses refer to the Zoning Ordinance.
CURRENT REQUESTED
CONS & RA-30 RA-30
Parks & Rec X X
Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X
Single Family X* X
Manufactured Homes,
Design Regulated
Manufactured Homes X
Multi-Family X
Institutional
Commercial Services
Retail
Wholesale
Industrial
Manufacturing
*single family residences that utilize public water &
sewer can reduce the Cons buffer by 50%
Existing zoning & proposed new Conservation boundary; which
would follow floodplain &/ or wetland boundary.
STAFF REPORT Page 3 of 7
Land Use Classification Compatibility
ZONING LAND USE
RA-30 MDR
Parks & Rec X X
Natural Preserves X
Bona Fide Farms X X
Single Family X X
Manufactured Homes,
Design Regulated X
Manufactured Homes X X
Multi-Family X X
Institutional
Commercial Services
Retail
Wholesale
Industrial
Manufacturing
Additional Information
On June 1st, the Harnett County Planning Board voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of this
Rezoning application based on the geography and the protection of the known environmentally sensitive
areas.
Evaluation
Yes No The IMPACT to the adjacent property owners and the surrounding community is
reasonable, and the benefits of the rezoning outweigh any potential inconvenience or
harm to the community.
REASONING: The impact to the adjacent property owners and the surrounding
community is reasonable. The existing zoning district of Conservation is to protect the
natural environment as well as citizens and their property from flood hazards.
However, the area requested to be rezoned is not located within any flood hazard area,
or any noted wetlands, and should cause no harm or inconvenience to the community.
Yes No The requested zoning district is COMPATIBLE with the existing Land Use Classification.
REASONING:
The requested zoning is compatible with the existing land use classification of Medium
Density Residential. Medium Density Residential is meant to encourage stick built and
manufactured residential developments.
Yes No The proposal does ENHANCE or maintain the public health, safety and general welfare.
REASONING: This request will maintain the public health, safety and general welfare since the area
that is being requested does not lie within a flood hazard area or delineated wetlands,
and will not interfere with the remaining conservation area.
Yes No The request is for a SMALL SCALE REZONING and should be evaluated for
reasonableness
REASONING: This request does not need to be evaluated for a small scale rezoning,
because the area abuts existing RA-30 zoning.
STAFF REPORT Page 4 of 7
Suggested Statement-of-Consistency (Staff concludes that…)
As stated in the evaluation, the requested rezoning of a 10.0 acre portion of the Conservation district to
RA-30 would not have an unreasonable impact on the surrounding community and will maintain the
public health, safety, and general welfare because of the existing residential uses within the area and the
compatibility with neighboring zoning districts. It is recommended that this rezoning request be
APPROVED.
Supplemental Maps
Base Flood Elevation is ~229’
STAFF REPORT Page 5 of 7
floodplain areas & known wetlands
Site Photographs
Site driveway Pope’s Lake, storage bldg., & adjacent residence
Site Site
STAFF REPORT Page 6 of 7
Pond dam & potential driveway Pond dam & potential driveway looking at site
Adjacent residence & potential driveway Adjacent residence & pond
Looking back on pond dam & potential
driveway
Adjacent residences & pond
STAFF REPORT Page 7 of 7
Standards of Review and Worksheet
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The Planning Board shall consider and make recommendations to the County Board of Commissioners
concerning each proposed zoning district. The following policy guidelines shall be followed by the Planning
Board concerning zoning districts and no proposed zoning district will receive favorable recommendation
unless:
Yes No A. The proposal will place all property similarly situated in the area in the same
category, or in appropriate complementary categories.
Yes No B. There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be in the general public interest and not merely in the interest of the individual or small group.
Yes No C. There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district
classification would be appropriate in the area included in the proposed change. (When
a new district designation is assigned, any use permitted in the district is allowable, so
long as it meets district requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state they
intend to make of the property involved.)
Yes No D. There is convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not be materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change.
Yes No E. The proposed change is in accordance with the comprehensive plan and sound
planning practices.
GRANTING THE REZONING REQUEST Motion to grant the rezoning upon finding that the rezoning is reasonable based on All of the above findings of fact A-E being found in the affirmative and that the rezoning advances the public interest. DENYING THE REZONING REQUEST Motion to deny the rezoning upon finding that the proposed rezoning does not advance the public interest and is unreasonable due to the following:
The proposal will not place all property similarly situated in the area in the same category, or in
appropriate complementary categories.
There is not convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district
classification would be in the general public interest and not merely in the interest of the
individual or small group.
There is not convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district
classification would be appropriate in the area included in the proposed change. (When a new
district designation is assigned, any use permitted in the district is allowable, so long as it
meets district requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state they intend to make of
the property involved.)
There is not convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not be
materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change.
The proposed change is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan and sound planning
practices.
The proposed change was not found to be reasonable for a small scale rezoning