HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrissman_CC staff reportSTAFF REPORT Page 1 of 6
REZONING STAFF REPORT
Case: PLAN 2006-0001
Jay Sikes
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-30
Applicant Information
Owner of Record: Applicant:
Name: Rufus & Dorothy Crissman Name: Arlen Buchanan Crissman’s Heirs
Address: 205 Oak Point Ct Address: 11286 US 421 N
City/State/Zip: Raleigh, NC 27610 City/State/Zip: Broadway, NC 27505
Property Description
PIN(s): 9691-73-3505 Acreage: 5.3 (14.5
total)
Address/SR No.: 11286 US 421 N.
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 6
Physical Characteristics
Site Description: Larger parcel is currently occupied by an older home; the area to be rezoned is vacant.
Surrounding Land Uses: Farmland and residential uses.
Services Available
Water:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Well)
Other: Unverified
Sewer:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Septic Tank)
Other: unverified
Transportation:
Annual Daily Traffic Count:
~5,600 vehicles per day
Site Distances: Good
STAFF REPORT Page 3 of 6
Zoning District Compatibility
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.
CURRENT REQUESTED
Commercial RA-30
Parks & Rec X X
Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X
Single Family X
Manufactured Homes, Design Regulated
Manufactured Homes X
Multi-Family X
Institutional X
Commercial Services X
Retail X X
Wholesale X
Industrial X
Manufacturing X
Zoning Map
Land Use Classification Compatibility
ZONING LAND USE
RA-30 ARR
Parks & Rec X X
Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X X
Single Family X
Manufactured Homes, Design Regulated X
Manufactured Homes X X
Multi-Family
Institutional X
Commercial Service X
Retail X
Wholesale X
Industrial
Manufacturing
STAFF REPORT Page 4 of 6
Site Photographs
Site Site (with older residence)
Hwy 421 S. & adjacent views Hwy 421 N. & adjacent views
Hwy 421 & Mt Pisgah Church Rd intersection
STAFF REPORT Page 5 of 6
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 requested zoning change to RA-30 will not have a negative impact
on the surrounding properties or the community as it is similar in nature to existing,
adjacent zoning district.
Yes No The requested zoning district is COMPATIBLE with the existing Land Use Classification.
REASONING: The requested zoning to RA-30 is compatible with the land use
classification of Agriculture & Rural Residential. These are primarily agricultural areas
and located outside of existing & future sewer service areas.
Yes No The proposal does ENHANCE or maintain the public health, safety and general welfare.
REASONING: The requested zoning to RA-30 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: This request does not need to be evaluated for a small scale rezoning,
due to the property’s size as well as it being adjacent to the proposed zoning district.
Suggested Statement-of-Consistency (Staff concludes that…)
As stated in the evaluation, the requested rezoning to RA-30 is would not have an unreasonable impact
on the surrounding community due to adjacent residential zoning and compatibility with Harnett County
Land Use Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that this rezoning request be APPROVED.
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.
STAFF REPORT Page 6 of 6
Standards of Review and Worksheet
TYPICAL REVIEW STANDARDS
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