AG 2003 03 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 27, 2003 ~;.;,, ~, ~,~ ~~ Page 32 Mr. Carmichael offered comments supporting the validity of the petition. He contended the petition is valid due to the de novo hearing that had been advertised as a Special Use district rezoning and that a development plan is requested, but not required by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Jerry Newton, al~o representing the adjoining property owner (Myraden Pierce), stated in his opinion that zoning to allow "3unkyards" at this location is wrong for Cabarrus County. He commented on the number of other uses that are allowed in a General Industrial zone and stated the petitioner had only eliminated seven of those uses. He referred to Page 10 of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Co~unission regarding remarks by the petitioner that the application was for a salvage yard and if that does not work, they would have the general industrial uses less those uses that were excluded. Aside from the legal argument regarding the validity of the petition, Mr. Newton stated the following points should also be addressed in considering the rezoning: (1) Location of a "]unkyard~ at the southern terminus of the Westside Bypass; (2) Highway 49 is a main corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte; (3) Property has railroad frontage, (4) Access to the site; (5) Land Use Plan called for this area to be future employment, not industrial, and 46 other uses could occur on the site; (6) Utilities are available at the site; (7) Other locations are available for this type of industrial use, and (8) Stormwater regulations do apply as would the river/stream overlay zone. Further, Mr. Newton stated there are impacts related to noise, traffic, and environmental concerns that have not been presented nor analyzed. In conclusion, he asked that the petition be denied. Mr. Carmichael objected to the characterization of the proposed use as a 'junkyard". He stated that all base requirements, including stormwater regulations, in the County's ordinances would be met. He pointed out that by turning down the petition, the Board is not ensuring that an upscale industrial park or office park will be developed on the property. Mr. Beaudry questioned the tax value of industrial parks in the county as compared to the tax value of the property proposed for rezoning. Mr. Ferrlss commented on the process for determining the value of property, the length of time it takes to develop an industrial park and the planned immediate use of the Highway 49 property. He stated in his opinion the issue at this time involves zoning requirements, not property values or how to use the property. Mr. Maurice Ewing, President of the Cabarrus Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and speaking on behalf of the EDC Board of Directors, stated opposition to the use of the property for a salvage yard. He stated the property is uniquely located on Highway 49 at the intersection of the Westside Bypass, has all utilities and natural gas lines and can be served by rail. In conclusion, Mr. Ewlng stated it is the opinion of the EDC Board that a salvage yard on this particular piece of property is not in the best interest of the people of Cabarrus County. Chairman Freeman closed the public bearing at 10:10 p.m. Vice Chairman Suggs asked if anyone was present who owned adjoining property that is zoned General Industrial. Mr. Myraden Pierce, adjoining property owner, acknowledged that he was present. Chairman Freeman re-opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Suggs asked Mr. Pierce his opinion about his property being zoned General Industrial while the adjoining property is not. Mr. Plerce stated in his opinion that it is their property and they need to be able to do with it what they would like. However, he stated in his opinion the 93 acres would not be utilized to its advantage with the proposed Verastar operation. There was no one else who wished to address the Board, and Chairman Freeman closed the public hearing at 10.12 p.m. There was discussion regarding the change that had been made to the petition after being heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Board members questioned the County Attorney regarding the legality of the rezonlng petition currently before the Board.