AG 2000 10 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

533 Mr. Tom Small of Concord addressed the quality of life issues associated w/th cul de sacs. He stated people want lots on cul de sacs and that those 10ts sell faster than lots located on through streets. He suggested that the Board apply the same due diligence in considering the UDO as in considering the annual County budget. Mr. Steve Medlin, 43 Union Street, South, Concord, stated in bis opinion the proposed UDO is a very complicated ordinance that would raise the cost of housing for both builders and buyers. He specifically discussed impact on small local builders/developers, stating many of the requirements for new subdivisions such as double sidewalks and other ~niceties" would increase housing costs. Also, Mr. Medltn expressed concern about the impact bhe increased housing costs would have on the County's ability to attract new industry and the availability of affordable housing. Finally, he asked the Board to spend additional tine reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Jerry Newton asked that more time be given to refine the proposed UDO. He stated the proposed ordinance carries forward many existing and sound regulations but also introduces new ideas and controls with implications that have not been fully examined. According to Mr. ~ew~on, many changes have been nade to the proposed UDO during recent weeks with the final adjustments being posted on the website on Friday, September 15. Stating the ordinance currently under review is for the city of Concord, Mr. Newton said a final document should be prepared that specifically references the County and related statutory requirements. He asked that the public hearing be continued to a date 30 days after the final document is prepared and available for review. Mr. Newton submitted a list of items that he stated should be corrected, changed or clarified in the first six articles and Appendix A of the proposed UDO. He cited the following examples from his written list: {1) Looation of sexually oriented businesses; (2) Delay in issuing perm/ts after final plat approval; (3} Inadequacy of the 80 square foot outside storage in the agriculture zone; (4) Responsible staff nember for making zoning interpretations; (5} Conditional use process; and Review of Table 4.6-1 concerning principally permitted and conditional uses. Mr. Mike Qulckel, resident of Cabarrus County and Vice President of the Cabarrus County Building Industry Association, expressed concern about the many recent changes to the UDO and the fact that the building industry has not ha~ the chance to adequately review the final document. Also, he listed concerns about the increased cost of lots and hones, the potential impact on commercial and industrial development, and the availability of affordable housing. Finally, Mr. Qulckel asked the Board to continue the public hearing. Mr. Don Alward, resident of 5005 Phaniels Church Road, stated he operates a small business from his home. He expressed concern that the UDO would prohibit bin from parking a truck over one ton in size in his yard. He also asked the Board to take additional time and carefully review the ~rdinance. Mr. Gene Cruse ex~ressed ooncerns about growth in the ~punty, stating the population and industrial growth during the past 15 years ~reated the problems now existing in the county. He stated in his opinion 90 percent of the current problems would go away if the Board would develop the courage to quit letting the realtors run the county. Ms. Karen Schmitt, resident of Monticello Drive in Concord, stated the proposed UDO is not perfect. However, she asked that the Board not wait for perfection and to proceed with setting a timetable for adoption of the ordinance. Ms. Schmitt stated in her opinion the adequate public facilities ordinance~would be helpful in addressing how the different branches of government impact one another. Mr. Richard Raffaldt, landscape business owner, questioned how the new zoning categories would impact his business and property. He also asked about the grandfathering of existing businesses. Mr. Marshall reiterated those persons with specific questions and concerns about zoning classifications should visit the Planning office to discuss the issues with staff. He again explained that the change in the existing zoning category would be to the hOSt similar zoning classification under the new ordinance. He also addressed the issue of grandfathering and non-conforming uses. Ms. Hanes King, resident of Grand Canyon Road in Concord, questioned the determination of whether a person is a hobbyist or operates a home business.