AG 2003 03 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 2?, 200. to the current ~ not have any it considering an ~ Ferriss pointed portion of the business in the Vice Chai: the property, If apprail value of that not functional. Mr. Scarb~ highest and bes~ development pla~ based on the Ve~ placed on the Mr. Ferri~ seen the pictur highest and bas by Verastar an~ Further, Mr. in with the Mr. Carmi including the f offered by the ~ railroad right-~ property; (4) existing develo thoroughfare; ar it is not like] come to the pro] Highway 29 corri Ms. Mary speaking on beh~ the 14% neighbo~ rezoning and agreed to the crushing of vehi property immedi rezoning applic. petition had be that was heard ~ Special Use rez~ stated the Spec opinion the ap~ another. Second petition as re~ plan is a cond~ there could be. presentation, M~ the Zoning Ordin~ Mr. Marsh~ He confirmed by the Plannin¢ Industrial-Spec~ rezoning origin~ request. In re¢ Zoning Ordinan~ development pla~ hearing the rez legislation for petitioner had Commission and a Mr. Scarbr~ not apply in thi* Page 31 :onomic conditions. He also said the railroad tracks would ;act on the property for industrial uses and that persons ~dustrlal park would probably want to be closer to 1-85. Mr. out the proposed use by Verastar would utilize a large iroperty, would not require a lot of water and would create irea when persons come in~o the area for the auto sales ian Suggs questioned Mr. Ferriss concerning the tax value of icifically that portion of the property with the creek. ing the property, Mr. Ferriss s~ated he would place a lesser rt of the property with the stream because that property is ,ugh questioned Mr. Ferriss on his testimony concerning the fuse for the property. He asked Mr. Ferriss if he had seen a i for the proposed Verastar facility or if his testimony was ~star pictures and his assumption that is what is going to be ~erty. i confirmed that he had not seen a development plan but had ~ of the Verastar operation. He stated in his opinion the use of the property is industrial use and the proposed use srs a lot of the criteria for the highest and best use. iss stated in his opinion the proposed use by Verastar fits properties in the area. ~eal summarized =he information that had been presented, .lowing: (1) adjoining industrial districts; (2) conditions mtitioner ~f property is developed as salvage yard; (3) the ~-way that is in place as a buffer to the residential ~e uses that have been eliminated: (5) consistency with ment pattern; (6) adequate water and utilities on major (7) recommended approval by staff. Further, he stated that that a large manufacturing or distribution facility will rty due to market demand, economy, and competition from the Or, topography of the property and access issues. ~n Rinaldo, resident of the Autumn Ridge Subdivision and ~f of that community's Homeowner's Association, advised that in the development do not have a problem with the proposed proposed use by Verastar. She stated the peltioner had ~dition requested by the residents that there would be no kcs at the facility. ~carbrough, Attorney representing Myraden Pierce who owns :ely to the south of the property, con=ended that the ion was invalid for two reasons. First, he stated the changed from a General Industrial, or straight rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission to a General Industrial- lng that was being heard by the Board of Commissioners. He L1 Use district is a separate zoning district and in his iication could not be amended to go from one distric~ to ~, he stated a development plan was not filed with the ~ed by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the final development [on of a Special Use district rezoning and questioned how Special Use rezoning wlthout such a plan. During his Scarbrough referred to various sections of Chapter 13 of ~ce. responded to the legal issues raised by Mr. Scarbrough. the petition before the Board is different from that heard and Zoning Commission. However, he stated the General · Use rezoning is more restrictive than the straight ly requested by the petitioner and is therefore a valid ~ds to the development plan, Mr. Marshall explained that the states that a petitioner is requested to furnish a but does not require one. Further, he stated the Board is ning petition de nors, or anew, as permitted by special Cabarrus County. In conclusion, Mr. Marshall stated the tsponded to staff, the public and the Planning and Zoning Led conditions ~hat had improved their rezoning request. ~gh stated in his opinion the less restrictive argument does case as a new zoning district is being requested.