AG 2001 05 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

81 $. The property is within 500 feet of Hishway 601. Against Petition C01-01(R) = 1. The proposed uses will have an adverse impact on adjacent residential properties to the south. 2. Some of the proposed permitted uses are not compatible with adjacent residential uses. 3. The proposed uses will have an adverse impact on area traffic flow. Chairman Fennel opened the public hearing at 8:1S p.m. and asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against the proposed rezoning. The Notice of the Public Hearing was published in THE INDEPENDENT TRIBUNE on April 15 and April 22, 2001. Mr. Ronnle Hinson, Petitioner, stated he i~ a heating and amr conditioning contractor who does residential heating and air co~itloning service and replacements. He said he has operated the business for 25 years from 316 Highland Avenue, a residential area in Concord, and has had no problems with the neighbors. Relocation from the Highland Avenue site is necessary due to Ownership of the property. Mr. Hinaon estimated trips to his business at approximately 10-15 trips a day, stating his employees operate vans or pick-ups and are radio dispatched to the consumer. He cited plans to remodel the house for office use and to build a masonry structure for storage. He reported that he has repositioned the storage building to address concerns by an adjacent property owner. Finally, Mr. Hinson stated in his opinion the business woul~ -not take away from the property values in the area, a~ the homes are located a long distance off the road. Mr. Brian Joyner, adjacent property owner, advised that sewer is not available in the area aa had been reported by Mr. Le~tz. Ha opposed the rezoning and sugsested that Mr. HinsoR move his business to a cormnercial zone rather then to a residential neighborhood. He expressed concern the approval of the rezonins would create a ~funnel effect" for the future and asked where the Board would d~aw the line if other businesses w~nted to move to the area. He said he is restoring a home On his property and doesn't know if the stated he objected to seeing cars and a metal building from his home. Mr. Cecil Marlin, who resides across the street from Mr. Hinson's property, complained about the high volume of traffic on Flowes Store Road. He questioned the estimated number of ~ripe per day to the business and expressed concern about the safety of children attending the nearby A. Allen School. Further, Mr. Marlin questioned the -funnel effect" the rezoning would create as well as the type of business that would locate on the property should Mr. Hinson decide to sell at a future time. Mr. Hinson confirmed that sewer is not available to the property. He also pointed out he would be building a masonry structure, not a metal building, on his property. Mr. Lentz reviewed the location of the Hinson property and nearby houses on the map. He also responded to questions concerning boundaries of com~ercial and residential zoning. Further, Mr. Lentz described the businesses located at the Flowes Store Road/Highway 601 intersection and pointed out the proximity of the Hinson property to that intersection. The motion by Chairman Fennel to approve Petition C01-01(R) with the following findings of fact died for lack of a second~ (1) The proposed limited commercial uses are consistent with the existing land uses to the north and east of this property, which include home based construction operations, the Allen Fire Station and a secondhand/grocery store; (2) The prohibition of outdoor storage will protect adjacent residential property values; (3) With proper landscape screening, the proposed uses will not have am adverse impact on adjacent residential properties; (4) water is available to the property~ and(S) the property is within SOO feet of Highway 601. A motion was made by Commissioner Prtvette, seconded by Commissioner Suggs, to deny Petition C01-01(R) based on the following findings of fact: (1} The proposed uses will have an adverse impact on adjacent residential properties and devalue the residential property; {2) Some of the proposed permitted uses are not compatible with ~djaoent residential uses; and (3) the proposed uses will have an adverse impact on area traffic flow. There was no vote on the motion. There was discussion about the proximity of the Hinson property to the commercial businesses located at the Flowes Store Road and Hishway 601 intersection. During the discussion, ther~ were questions as to whether any houses are located between the Hinson property and Highway 601. U~ON MOTION of Vice Chairman Carruth, seconded by Commissioner Privette and unanimously carried, the Board moved to table consideration of Petition C01-01(R) until the May Board meeting in order ~to allow time for more fact finding concerning the rezonlng request, specifically to determine if any houses are located between the Hinson property and Highway 601.