AG19901217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board were recommending. Rather, what they did was indicate that riley were denying that part and wanted the staff to reexauuine those I parcels they denied and come back with a recommendation to them. The first and major areas are the land areas that are refer~ed to on two i maps, ~C;ecl~ons 11 and 12. section 11 is the I0 parcels ou the southside of Pi:ts School Road. Section 12 is the large area the staff was recommending to R-q0. The I land which fronts on N.C. 49 was changed to the new A-I zoning district as recommended. However, 81 parcels which were recommended to be changed to R-40 were denied, oneindividual spoke who opposed I the R-40 because he wanted to use th~ one parcel industrially. Although several others indicated their favoring the R-40, it was denied and sent back for review. I Newton noted that the in this is affected partially by Mr. proper~ area the landfill, but it's proxinllty to the residential subdivisions and development dictatas it becoming residentially zoned. Therefore, staff recommends that the ~reas of Sections 11 and 12 be changed to R-40 as previously recommended. i The next area was two parcels on section 6, referred to as The Craig property. Mr. Newton rel~Linded the Board that they had previously heard Attorney Mills present that the Craigs would like to keep the property zoned A-I so that their options for development would remS% I open. The Count7 Commissioners indicated that those 2 parcels were to remain A-! with %he new text and were also to be evaluated again and be re-presented to the Board, Mr. Newton noted that during a Board I of Adjusts, ant meeting regarding L1.S. Tire Disposal, the Craig's indicated that they were concerned about that business occurring across the street and limit/ag the use of their land residential~y. Mr. Newton showed the surrounding land including the proximity uses, to Carriage Downs, and stated staff's recommendation is stiU to place the land in R-~O as it would be compatible with the land area much more I t~an an industriel or large coaunercial area. He noted that if we zoned land however ar, yone wanted it zoned we would notbe properly planning and trying to control the development of the County. He also noted that the proposed line of coddle Creek can work as a good divider of I land uses. section 2, along N.C. 73 west of Zemosa Acres was the last area in I which problems arose. A few of the major property owners came to talk with the office. They indicated mixed opinions of how they felt the area should be developed. The property owners also noted that they would i like all of their land in one zone. At the Commissioners meeting the one ma~or land owner, Mr. Pethel ~ndicated he wanted the area to stay as it is and if that was not possible I he would like it to all be of the same zone, preferably RMF-TA Noting