Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />May 18, 1995 <br /> <br />Page 21 <br /> <br />Mr. Howell said one of the concerns was the dust. They have <br />already contracted to put a asphalt landing pad off the highway. <br />He said a question was brought up about getting close to the creek. <br />He said they are within the limits of what they are allowed to be <br />and the materials that they put down was supplied by the State of <br />North Carolina. <br /> <br />Mr. Brownlow said assuming the board puts a time frame on this <br />motion, and there was later a complaint of continued night noise, <br />what would be the response from the zoning administrator. <br /> <br />Mr. Newton said he would turn to Section 13-18 of the zoning <br />ordinance which deals with violations in teta-~s of conditions of <br />special use district rezoning which basically says, "If there is a <br />condition that has been imposed as part of the rezoning, it is <br />treated as a part of the zoning ordinance and any variation from <br />that is treated as a zoning violation." That means he would treat it <br />as a zoning violation. As an alleged zoning violation, he would <br />have to investigate it, do paper work to verify, give the applicant <br />corrective notification as to what to do, maybe 48 hours and it does <br />not happen again, or he may turn it over to the planning board's <br />attorney or take it to court. As to exactly how it would be done, he <br />could not tell you. We do not have a reversion clause. It is a <br />difficult type of condition for a zoning administrator to enforce to <br />anybody's satisfaction, to those who maybe aggrieved by it as well <br />as the petitioner. <br /> <br />Mr. Newton said there was a gentleman who stood up, and <br />because the board went back into the public hearing, you have the <br />choice to continue the public discussion. Because you are treating <br />this as a quasi-judicial, it is probably beneficial to allow a rebuttal <br />and allow the gentleman who stood up to speak. <br /> <br />Mr. Koch, Attorney, said it would be appropriate. He said he <br />would recommend that the rebuttal by anyone be limited to the <br />issues that we just raised in the previous presentation. <br /> <br />Mr. Eury addressed the Board saying obviously somebody is not <br />being level about what is going on. He said he does not know how <br />to convince the board that what he is saying is true. He said if you <br /> <br /> <br />