BC 1995 11 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

586 Mr. Marshall summarized staff's findings and its recommendation for the approval of Petition 95-09. Although the requested rezoning does not strictly adhere to the Midland Area Plan, he explained that the area plans include the flexibility to look at specific parcels and proposals. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use is very similar to such uses as restaurants, gas stations and convenience stores which are permitted in low density residential areas. Further, Mr. Marshall pointed out that the property is located on a major highway at the corner of U.S. 601 with access from Jim Sossamon Road. Therefore, he stated it would not be necessary for traffic to travel through a residentially developed area to go to the facility. Chairman Barnhart opened the public hearing for Petition 95-09. He asked if anyone were present who wished to address the Board regarding the proposed rezoning. Mr. Carl Hill, resident of Spring Drive, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He expressed concern about a statement at the recent Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding a person's right to use his property as he wishes. Further, he stated in his opinion the proposed construction of 300 to 350 storage units, or 350,000 square feet under roof, does not constitute a "family business". Arguments against the rezoning included the potential for crime, traffic hazards, loss of property values, lack of need for storage units in the rural area, the need to utilize commercially zoned property located at the intersection of U. S. 601 and N.C. 24/27, and the need to delay a decision for three years or until such time Mr. Wilson plans to build. Mr. Hill cited several references to the Midland Area Plan, including the issues and goals, designated areas for commercial development, land use recommendations and the preservation of the area's rural character and heritage. He also questioned the legality of spot zoning and cited a number of court cases regarding the issue of spot zoning. Mr. Charles Kneeberg opposed the rezoning, stating a residential community should not have a commercial business placed in it. He read the following statement by a Planning Board member as set forth in the October 18th minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission: "It should be Mr. Wilson's ~right to do whatever he wants to do on his property". At the request of Commissioner Mills, Mr. Kneeberg completed the statement which read "as long as it does not hurt anybody." According to Mr. Kneeberg, there is no need for a zoning ordinance, zoning board or staff if zoning is going to be administered in such a way that a person can do whatever they want as long as they own the land. Mr. Lee Pigg, speaking on behalf of the heirs of Emil Pigg who own property in the area, opposed the rezoning. He stated the Midland Area Plan is sufficient for the area and expressed concern that the special use rezoning would set a precedent for other special use rezonings in the community. According to Mr. Pigg, the area should remain rural and residential with commercial development limited to the commercially zoned area along N. C. 24-27. Mr. Jack Garmon relinquished.his time to another speaker. Mr. Graham Copeland, retired federal law enforcement officer and owner of adjacent property, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He expressed concern that storage facilities are often used for such illegal purposes as the storage of drugs and stolen goods. Mr. Copeland further addressed the issue of noise, stating that Mr. Watkins would be able to hear persons slamming doors and parking automobiles at the storage facility. In conclusion, he stated the storage facilities should not be considered for the residential area. Mr. Joseph Joyal spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He commented on Mr. Wilson's plans last year to build his home in an area where he could oversee the storage facility and everything going in and out. He stated that Mr. Wilson now plans to build his home in a wooded area and secluded from the storage facility. Mr. Joyal also expressed concern about crime at storage facilities. Mr. Dewey Watkins, adjacent property owner, objected to the rezoning. He stated his main concern is for a residential area that is a good, decent place for persons to live. Mr. Watkins further cited concerns about crime and traffic and the desire to have privacy in a quiet neighborhood. He stated in his opinion the area should be preserved as it is and that commercial ventures should be limited to the commercially zoned area at U. S. 601 and N. C. 24/27.