AG19910415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Ninlltes 14arch 20, 19~ Page ? Mr. Stamey stated that the two property owners names are on the petition. Chairman Randall stated the Commission accepted this petition but she woul~ like to remind everyone that this is considered hearsay evidence because the signees are not at the meeting to address this petition. Mr. Amos asked Mr. Stamey what is that space between his property and the County line. 14r. Stamey stated it is the County line. 14r. Amos stated with the general rezoning to I-l, One of the problems is any of the uses permitted would chauge the plans and the property could be sold. Ne continued to state that this concerns him and he questions if the I-1 uses are consistent activities with what would be going on ill R-9 zoning district. Mr. Hartgen asked if 14r. Stamey is asking for a special use. Chairman Randall stated no he is asking for a straight rezoning to I-1. Which in essence, he would not be limited, and any of the uses in I-1 would be permitted. All of the permitted uses ill I-! could be developed on this property with the rezoning. An I-1 is a light industrial zone. There being no further comments, Mr. Amos MOTIONED to deny petition 91-05, seconded by Mr. Olio-Mills. Mr. Hartgen stated personally he would like more information and he would feel more comfortable about the request if he knew more about the intended use. The vote was B-1 to deny, Mr. Smith dissenting. item on the agenda Planning chairman Randall introduced the fourth Projects: Mr. Mewton stated to the Commission one of the projects the old Planning Board worked on and the Old County Commissioners and the current County Commissioners were involved in was the A-I zoning district klpdate. He then proceeded to discuss two parcels which were a part of the %lpdate. The first was a piece of property rezoned to R- 40, particularly the Cochran farm. Last night the Concord Planning Board heard a rezoning on that property.