mins31992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 19, 19'92 . Paqe 28 Chairperson Randall said all in favor the Motion please signify by raising their right hand. The vote was 7-2; Mr. Hartgen and Mr. Smith for this text amendment; Mr. Allison, Mr. Olio-Mills, Mr. Amos, Chairperson Randall, Mr. Huie, Mr. Hurlocker and Ms. Stafford against the text amendment. The Motion was defeated. Mr. Hurlocker then MOTIONED to approve the proposal submitted to the board, and he believes the only difference between that proposal and Mr. Hartgen's was the question about the intersection. So the motion he is making is to'adopt the proposal submitted by the Planning Staff, with the addition that DOT permits be recorded with the Planning and Zoning Office, seconded by Ms. Stafford. The vote was 6-3; Mr. Amos, Mr. Allison, Chairperson Randall, Ms. Stafford, Mr. Hurlocker and Mr. Smith for this text amendment; Mr. Olio-Mills, Mr. Hartgen, and Mr. Huie against this text amendment. Director's Report Mr. Newton said at the last meeting the board had requested the attorney to provide a legal opinion which was used Monday night at the Board of Commissioners meeting. Mr. Newton said at Monday night's Commissioner's meeting, there were two rezonings. The one on Highway 24/27, Donald Misenheimer was approved. The second item Concord Motor Speedway property, had a series of different twists that had occurred from the time planning board acted to the time the commissioners heard it. One of which was the division of property. Effectively this permitted sound decibels to increase from 55 and 60 level up to 75 and 85 dba by creating an additional lot on the property surrounding the racetrack property. The second was the issuance of this legal opinion. Basically, if the rezoning, which was tabled, is denied, they would be allowed to continue to operate the racetrack with the non-conforming sound levels, that is the basic conclusion. Chairperson Randall said essentially the noise ordinance does not apply, because they were grandfathered in. Mr. Alexander said that is correct, and there is a very lengthy discussion as to why that is true. He said in the legal opinion, he has tried to abbreviate it at least initially so basically just of the legal opinion in the first two pages. But it goes on from there, about 16 or 17 pages to really explain why it is the way it is in North Carolina. He thinks it is fairly clear that the speedway has ~a grandfathered right to continue. But even though the noise ordinance exists in our zoning ordinance and even though there a two year amortization provision on the noise ordinance, it actually as to the Concord Speedway does not apply.