My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BC 1985 03 11
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
BOC
>
1985
>
BC 1985 03 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2002 3:15:48 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 12:33:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Minutes
Meeting Minutes - Date
3/11/1985
Board
Board of Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
190 <br /> <br /> The Board reviewed the letter from Mr. F. E. Isenhour, Zoning <br />Administrator, ruling that the proposed amendment was not the same <br />amendment offered by the Midland Community Association in 1984, and <br />would be offerable to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners <br />for possible adoption. The amendment offered by the Midland Community <br />Association in 1984 asked for a change in the Schedule of Use Regulations <br />to allow the extraction of earth products as a conditional use in the <br />ARR zone. <br /> Mr. Troy Cook, representative of a farm group, stated the farmers <br />"could live with" the amendment although some thought it was not in the <br />best interest of property owners. <br /> Mr. Wesley Grant, attorney representing Martin Marietta Aggregates, <br />acknowledged that the company was interested in mining in the ARR zone. <br />He complained that the proposed amendment was being considered within the <br />one-year period from November 1, 1984, and stated in his opinion no <br />substantial change had occurred to permit consideration of this proposal. <br />He also objected to the presentation of the proposed text amendment as <br />a Planning staff recommendation. In conclusion, he cited the court case <br />of George vs. Town of Edenton in 1978 and asked that the Board deny the <br />proposed amendment. <br /> Mr. William G. Alexander, attorney representing a company interested <br />in a quarrying operation in Cabarrus County, objected to the proposed <br />amendment. He stated that although the original amendment proposed in <br />November, 1984, had dealt only with the ARR zone it could not now be <br />included in a larger zoning issue and considered within the one-year period. <br />Mr. Alexander indicated that Martin Marietta had a vested interest in the <br />County's zoning regulations as did the owners of the proposed quarry site. <br /> Mr. J. M. Little, speaking on behalf of the owners of the proposed <br />quarry site, objected to the manner in which the County had handled the <br />matter involving the quarry. <br /> Mr. John Long of Martin Marietta Aggregates reviewed the activities <br />of that company since early 1984 regarding the locating and testing of the <br />proposed site for the quarry. He objected to the consideration of this <br />proposed text amendment within a one year period from November, 1984, and <br />stated that this action was not permitted under the regulations of the <br />Cabarrus County Zoning Ordinance. <br /> Mr. Dennis Shultz, resident of the Midland are~ presented the following ~ <br />reasons for the consideration of the proposed text amendment: occurrence <br />of substantial change with the adoption of the extraction of earth products <br />definition on this date; the withdrawal of the petition on November 1, <br />1984, before the amendment was acted on by the Board; and the inconsistency <br />of the Zoning Ordinance between the Statement of Intent for the ARR zone <br />and the Schedule of Use Regulations. He urged local control of the rock <br />quarry, stating that State and Federal regulations were not enough to <br />protect the health and safety of local residents. In conclusion, he <br />reported that an official of the North Carolina Department of Transportation <br />had estimated that it would cost $3.782 million to bring the roads into <br />compliance for Martin Marrietta to quarry on the selected site. <br /> Mr. Edwin Ferguson, attorney representing residents of the Midland <br /> area, urged acceptance of the proposed amendment. He presented such <br /> reasons for approval as the need for local control, the adoption of the definition <br /> of extraction of earth products, and the withdrawal of the petition on <br /> November 1, 1984, before it was acted on by the Board. <br /> Mr. Allen Hough, a farmer, stated his opposition to the proposed <br /> rock quarry. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Hamby <br />with Commissioners Payne and Hamby and Chairman Lentz voting for and <br />Commissioners Upright and Barnhardt voting against, the Board adopted <br />Petition 85-05 to amend Section 3-2.4 as recommended by the Planning <br />Board. The approved amendment is as follows. <br /> <br />Amend Section 3-2.4, Schedule of Use Regulations to read: <br /> <br />Extraction of Earth Products <br /> <br />A-2 A-I ARR R-40 I-2 <br />C C C - P <br /> <br /> Delete line item: Extraction of heavy, rare and precious metals. <br /> <br /> There being no further business to come before the Board, the <br />meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. <br /> <br />Clerk to the Board <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.