My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1998 08 17
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1998
>
AG 1998 08 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2002 7:32:05 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:52:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
8/17/1998
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
268
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PETITION <br /> <br /> Pursuant to Sec. 66 <br /> <br />Highland Creek, LLC ("petitioner") does hereby request <br />Commissioners ("Board") grant approval of its preliminary <br /> <br />10 of the Cabarrus County Subdivision Regulations, Westbrook <br /> <br /> that the Board of County <br /> plat for the Highland Creek <br /> <br /> Subdivision - Areas O2-D9 (designated as Petition C-98-06(S)), which was denied on May 21, <br /> 1998 by the Cabarrus County Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission") as follows: <br /> <br /> "The proposed development does not meet the adequate public facilities <br /> provisions of the Cabarrus County Subdivision Ordinance (Section 66-81). <br /> Specifically, the Cabarrus County School District does not have adequate <br /> facilities at this time to serve the estimated number of students who would be <br /> generated by the proposed development." <br /> <br /> The petitioner respectfully submits that the Commission's denial and the stated reasons <br />therefor are improper and should.be reversed by the Board on the following grounds: <br /> <br /> 1. There is no statutory authority for the "adequate public facilities" ordinance; <br /> <br /> 2. The denial of the petition on the basis of that ordinance would constitute an <br />unconstitutional "taking" of the petitioner's property; <br /> <br /> 3. The petitioner has a "vested right" to proceed with this phase of its development, <br /> <br />by reason of its actions in reliance upon the prior decision of the Board; <br /> <br /> 4. The Board may not shift the burden of its constitutional responsibility to provide <br /> <br />educational facilities to the petitioner and other private property owners in this manner; <br /> <br /> $. The denial of this petition would violate the "equal protection" clause of the <br /> <br />Constitution; and <br /> <br /> 6. For such other reasons as may be determined when this matter is heard by the <br /> <br />Board. <br /> <br />The basis for these contentions is set forth in a "statement of position" which will be <br /> <br />submitted to the Board prior to the hearing. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.