BC 1986 09 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

514 Mr. James F. Owens, Assistant Planning Director, stated there would be no problem with rezoning the back portion of the property commercial in regards to the City of Kannapolis Zoning Ordinance which is presently in the public hearing status. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Hamby, seconded by Commissioner Barnhardt and unanimously carried, the Board approved Petition 86-24 by John Wayne Josey to rezone from R-7.2 to C-3 that portion of property off South Ridge Avenue, Map/PIN 5613(11)-55-7502, 7416, 7412, which is between the railroad tracks and the chain link fence as shown on a survey by Gaylon L. Kelly dated April 1, 1986, with the remainder of the tract remaining R-7.2. The boundary of the property rezoned from R-7.2 to C-3 is as follows. BEGINNING at a point in the northbound track of Southern Railway, said point being the common rear corner of Lots Nos. 3 and 4 of "ROGERS ANNEX" and runs thence N. 79-30 E. 128.00 feet to an existing 2" iron in the dividing line of Lots Nos. 3 and 4; thence a new line N. 10-30 W. 10.00 feet to an existing 2" iron; thence a new line N. 79-29 E. 41.50 feet to a point; thence S. 9-28-20 E. 163.70 feet to a point in the southern line of Lot No. 1; thence S. 77-34-56 W. 175.00 feet to a point in the northbound track of Southern Railway, the southwestern corner of Lot No. 1; thence N. 7-08-52 W. 159.91 feet with the rear line of Lot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to a point in the northbound track of Southern Railway, the point of BEGINNING, and containing 0.63 acres, more or less. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (1) Section 5.23, page 83 - Add to end of Section 5.23 This section will apply to all existing and newly proposed swimming pools. Planning Board voted to deny 4-1. Mr. F. E. Isenhour, Jr., Zoning Administrator, asked for approval of the text amendment to make Section 5.23 which requires fencing around swimming pools clearer and easier to enforce. He stated that officials of the Institute of Government had indicated that the pool fencing requirement could be made retroactive and the County could proceed from a safety standard to have all private pools enclosed with a fence. Mr. Rankin spoke against the proposed amendment, stating that all pools built prior to 1982 had been grandfathered in under the ordinance and were exempt from the zoning regulations. There was no one else present to speak for or against the proposed amendment. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Barnhardt and unanimously carried, the Board tabled the proposed Zoning Text amendment to Section 5.23, page 83, until the next zoning meeting in October. MINIMUM HOUSING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT (1) Section XIV, page 13 From: (a) Preliminary Investigation; Notice; Hearing. Whenever a petition is filed with the Inspector by a Public Authority or at least by five (5) residents of Cabarrus County .... To: (a) Preliminary Investigation; Notice; Hearing. Whenever a verified petition is filed with the Inspector by a Public Authority or by at least five (5) residents of Cabarrus County ..... The Planning Board voted to approve 4-0. Mr. Michael Byrd, member of the Planning Staff, reported that Mr. C. E. Avant, Building Inspector, had requested the amendment to require a verified petition. Mr. Hartsell explained that the verified petition requirement would help to ensure that persons signing a petition alleging violations to the Minimum Housing Code have some knowledge of the events set out in the petition. He further explained that the verified petition would give the inspectors something of significance to proceed on in their investigation. There was no one present to speak for or against the proposed amendment. UPON MOTION of Chairman Lentz, seconded by Commissioner Barnhardt and unanimously carried, the Board deferred action on the proposed amendment with