BC 1985 01 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

144 The Board instructed the Planning staff and Planning Board to look into the possibility of outdoor advertising signs being a conditional use in certain zones along major highways. (12) Petition 84-35. J. David Barnhardt, township 2, Highway 29 near Morehead Road, Map/PIN 4599-61-2225. Wishes to rezone from A-I and RMF-7 to C-4. The Planning Board unanimously denied this request on the grounds it could lead to strip commercial development along Highway 29. No one spoke in regards to Petition 84-35. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Hamby with Commissioners Payne and Hamby and Chairman Lentz voting for and Commissioners Upright and Barnhardt voting against, the Board denied Petition 84-35 by J. David Barnhardt to rezone property on Highway 29, Map/PIN 4599-61-2225, from A-I and RMF-7 to C-4. (13) Petition 84-37. Withdrawn ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS (i) Petition 84-05. Amend page 122 to include: Extraction of Earth Products - the removal and processing of natural deposits of minerals, ores, soils or other solids, liquids or gaseous matter from their original location by means of mining or quarrying as to make them suitable for commercial, industrial or construction use. It shall not include lands that are one acre or less in size. It also shall not include excavation or grading when conducted solely in aid of on-site farming or or on-site construction for purposes other than mining. This was approved 3 to 2 by the Planning Board. Mr. Wesley Grant, attorney representing Martin Marietta Aggregates, stated satisfaction with the definition as recommended by the Planning Board and asked that the Board of Commissioners adopt the definition as presented. He further stated in his opinion the extraction of earth products would include the processing of the stone as proposed by Martin Marietta Aggregates. Mr. Troy Cook stated that the recommended definition would serve the needs of the farmers in the county. He also stated that he had no objections to the State Mining Act of 1971 if the Board should choose to adopt these regulations for the county. Mr. Dennis Shultz, representing citizens opposed to the recommended definition, objected to references to the State Mining Act of 1971 because he stated the Mining Act defined mining and did not refer to earth extraction. He also stated the proposed definition violated the English language and had been expanded to incorporate such language as processing, mining, drilling, and quarrying which in his opinion were not intended in the ordinance. Mr. Shultz alleged that a rock quarry was not compatible with the statement of intent found in the Zoning Ordinance for the ARR district. He requested that the Board instruct the staff to properly delineate earth extraction and quarrying and recommended appropriate use schedules with adequate protection toward agricultural activities and residential values. Mr. Edwin Ferguson, attorney representing the Midland area residents, objected tQ the proposed definition. He stated the main issue is whether the Board will distinguish between "extraction of earth products" and "mining and quarrying". He questioned the meaning of "processing" and "lands that are one acre or less in size" as found in the proposed definition. Citing the ARR district statement of intent, Mr. Ferguson stated in his opinion it was not the intention of the Zoning Ordinance or the extraction of earth products under this particular zoning classification to allow mining, blasting, or manufacturing of particular products coming out of the ground. In conclusion, he recommended the following definition for extraction of earth products.