HomeMy WebLinkAboutOmega_CC staff reportPage 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT
R
REZONING STAFF REPORT
Case: PLAN2004-0002
PLAN2004-0003
Jay Sikes, Mgr. of Planning Services
jsikes@harnett.org Phone: (910) 893-7525 Fax: (910) 814-8278
Planning Board: July 6, 2020 County Commissioners: July 20, 2020
Requesting a Rezoning from Commercial to RA-20M
Applicant Information
Owner of Record: Applicant: Name: Omega X, LLC Name: Omega X, LLC
Address: 5506 Yadkin Rd Address: 550 Yadkin Rd
City/State/Zip: Fayetteville, NC 28303 City/State/Zip: Fayetteville, NC 28303
Property Description
PIN(s): 0513-69-2523 & 0513-68-5465 Acreage: Approx 14.75
ac (68.64 total)
Address/SR No.: Ray Rd (SR 1121) & Rambeaut Rd (SR 1124)
Township:
(1) Anderson Creek
(2) Averasboro
(3) Barbecue
(4) Black River
Vicinity Map
(5) Buckhorn
(6) Duke
(7) Grove
(8) Hectors Creek
(9) Johnsonville
(10) Lillington
(11) Neill’s Creek
(12) Stewart’s Creek
(13) Upper Little River
Page 2 of 6 STAFF REPORT
Physical Characteristics
Site Description: Site is primarily undeveloped. An automobile related business was on one of the
parcels but all will be removed soon. The previous owner zoned this portion to Commercial in 2011.
Surrounding Land Uses: Area land uses consist of individual single-family residences
Vacant/undeveloped and a few businesses. Also, single family residential uses that consist of stick-built &
manufactured homes.
Services Available
Water:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Well)
Other: Unverified
Sewer:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Septic Tank)
Other: unverified
Transportation:
Annual Daily Traffic Count:
~ 13,000 on Ray Rd
Site Distances: good
Page 3 of 6 STAFF REPORT
The following is a summary list of potential uses. For all applicable uses for each Zoning district please refer to the UDO’s Table of Uses.
Zoning District Compatibility
CURRENT REQUESTED
Commercial RA-20M
Parks & Rec X
Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X
Single Family X
Manufactured Homes,
Design Regulated
X
Manufactured Homes X
Multi-Family X
Institutional
Commercial Services X Retail X
Wholesale X Industrial X Manufacturing X
Land Use Classification Compatibility
ZONING LAND USE
Commercial Med Density
Res
Parks & Rec X X
Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X X
Single Family X
Manufactured Homes, Design
Regulated
X
Manufactured Homes X
Multi-Family X
Institutional X
Commercial Service X X
Retail X X
Wholesale Industrial Manufacturing
Page 4 of 6 STAFF REPORT
Site Photographs
Site view from Rambeaut Rd Site view from Ray Rd
Site, adjacent property & Ray Rd south view Site and Ray Rd & Rambeaut Rd intersection view
Page 6 of 6 STAFF REPORT
Site and Ray Rd & Rambeaut Rd intersection north
view
Site and Ray Rd north view
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 surrounding community is reasonable, as the requested
zoning district is same as adjacent properties.
Yes No The requested zoning district is COMPATIBLE with the existing Land Use Classification.
REASONING: The requested zoning is compatible with the overall land use classification of
Medium Density Residential. MDR could have a mixed residential base with average lot
sizes where public utilities are planned and utilized.
Yes No The proposal does ENHANCE or maintain the public health, safety and general welfare.
REASONING: The requested zoning to RA-20M would maintain the public health, safety
and general welfare due to the existing residential uses within the area.
Yes No The request is for a SMALL SCALE REZONING and should be evaluated for
reasonableness.
REASONING: Due to the size of the tract, this application does not have to be evaluated
for Small Scale Rezoning.
Evaluation
Suggested Statement-of-Consistency (Staff concludes that…)
As stated in the evaluation, the requested rezoning to RA-20M is compatible with the County’s Land Use
and would not harm the surrounding community based on the existing residential uses. Therefore, it is
recommended that this rezoning request be APPROVED.
Page 7 of 6 STAFF REPORT
Additional Information
At their July 6th meeting, the Harnett County Planning Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend
approval of application based on compatibility to the Land Use Plan and the existing residential uses
in the area. *No one spoke in opposition.
Review Worksheets
TRADITIONAL 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