Laserfiche WebLink
51 <br /> <br />8. Modification of Section 4.9. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: <br /> <br />For additional clarity add Section 4.9 Exception to Number of Dwellings <br />per lot; Ref. 1.4 <br /> <br />When a mobile home has served as the principal dwelling on a lot, it may <br />remain as such for a period up to 12 months after a building permit is <br />obtained While a permanent residence is being constructed. Both <br />structures shall not be occupied at the same time. Upon the issuance of <br />an occupancy permit for the permanent residence, the mobile home shall be <br />removed. <br /> <br /> During discussion of this proposed amendment, a member of the audience <br />objected to the time limit of 12 months and stated the limit should be three <br />or four years. Mr. Manuel Kiser stated objection to the requirement of <br />an occupancy permit before a person can move into a new home and to the <br />"strict" enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance by Mr. F. E. Isenhour, Zoning <br />Administrator. Mr. Harry Smith of Kannapolis questioned the use of a mobile <br />home after the owner has moved into a house as he stated the individual would <br />not be allowed to place the mobile home on another lot due to the zoning <br />restrictions. Mr. Jack Rankin supported the 12-month time limit as proposed <br />in the amendment and noted that extensions could be granted by the Zoning <br />Administrator. Mr. Archie Barnhardt commended the work of the Planning <br />Board at their last meeting and stated that all items proposed by the <br />Planning Board were constructive. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Lentz and <br />unanimously carried, the Board adopted Amendment 8 as recommended by the <br />Planning Board. <br /> <br />9. Add provisions to permit certain lots formerly cut from farm-exempt for <br /> <br />zoning regulations. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: <br /> <br />The following explanation to the ordinance is recommended. <br /> <br />Any bona fide farm owner would be permitted to deed a lot for a mobile home <br />that is exempt from zoning for a child that would work on the farm. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jack Rankin, Planning Board member, objected to the fact that <br />some areas in which farms are located are presently zoned R-40 and stated <br />that these areas should be rezoned as agricultural areas. He explained <br />that this proposed amendment was primarily directed towards those bona <br />fide farms presently located in the R-40 zones. In regards to this <br />proposed amendment, the Board discussed possible legal problems as the <br />North Carolina State statutes provide only for the exemption of bona fide <br />farms and reviewed other solutions such as rezoning to correct this <br />situation. <br /> Mr. Don Cook suggested that the County provide for the erection of <br />signs throughout Cabarrus County classifying each individual zone. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Nash, seconded by Commissioner Cook and <br />unanimously carried, the Board moved that recommended Amendment 9 from <br />the Planning Board be tabled for further consideration. <br /> <br />10. In Schedule of Use Regulations: Garden supply and feed store heading to <br /> include fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: <br /> <br />Section 3.2-4 page 14 expand use listed in use table to read Garden Supply <br />Seed Stores, Fertilizer, Herbicide and Pesticide sales. <br /> <br /> No one spoke for or against this proposed amendment. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Nash and <br />unanimously carried, the Board adopted Amendment 10 as recommended by the <br />Planning Board. <br /> <br /> <br />