My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1992 05 18
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1992
>
AG 1992 05 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 4:10:33 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 12:01:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
5/18/1992
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
129
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
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />April 16~ 1992 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />between the buildings. Under C-4 that would require a <br />sideyard set back, so that would be impossible. Under C- <br />2 which as a neighborhood community commercial district <br />promotes attached commercial there is no sideyard and <br />that would allow that division along the wall lines. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen MOTIONED, seconded by Mr. Olio-Mills to table <br />Petition 92-06 contingent on a plot plan. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall asked Mr. Alexander if that is a <br />legal request to ask for'a plot plan before the board <br />considers action on this petition. <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander, Attorney for the Board, said he does not <br />know whether the motion isin order because the board is <br />still having a public hearing, but as soon as you close <br />the public hearing then you can make a motion to table <br />this petition. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen withdrew his motion, and Mr. Olio-Mills <br />withdrew his second. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall said before she closes the public <br />hearing she would like to ask another question. She said <br />the motion that was made had a statement pending a lot <br />plan. Is that legal to request that as a reason for <br />continuance or to essentially put a demand upon the <br />petitioner to show the board that? <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander said a plot plan is irrelevant. The issue <br />under consideration is whether to change the zoning to C- <br />2. By the application or petition that is before the <br />board, it is the board's duty to consider all uses in C-2 <br />and in essence in requiring a plot plan, he thinks the <br />board is getting close to contract zoning, and he would <br />advise against it. <br /> <br />Mr. Amos asked if this is rezoned to C-2 could that <br />increase the number of permitted connections to Highway <br />24/27? <br /> <br />Mr. Marshall stated currently it is an open parking area. <br /> <br />Mr. Shultz said he thinks the board is kidding themselves <br />about that as a group whether they concur with the zoning <br />administrator's ruling or not. He thinks they are all <br />biding their time by believing that, because he cannot <br />believe that when DOT put in the 5 lane urban is not <br />going to require a change in that. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.