BC 2011 09 19 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 19, 2011 (Regular Meeting) Page 617 Michael Burgner, an attorney with Hartsell and Williams, stated he represents the Robert Pittenger Company, the sole member manager of Highway 24/27 LLC, a land bank entity and applicant in the rezoning hearing. He addressed the density requirements of MDR (Medium Density Residential) as set forth by the Midland Land Use Plan in comparison to the density requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. He described how development financing has changed over the years and stated it is not financially feasible to develop the subject property unless it is zoned for HDR (High Density Residential) . With regard to utilities, he noted the availability of water and advised that sanitary sewer is approximately 2,500 feet away from the subject property. He also acknowledged that utilities and an "Intent to Serve" letter would have to be provided before development could occur on this property. With regard to concerns raised by adjacent property owners, he advised that extensive buffers would be required if development were to occur. He also addressed the following documents distributed to the Board: ® A letter dated July 11, 2011 from E. Blanton Hamilton, Jr., of Tribek Properties in Charlotte, N.C., concerning appropriate residential population density to promote commercial growth. ® A report entitled, "Does `Smart Growth' Matter to Public Finance ?" by John I. Carruthers and Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson, Urban Studies. ® A report entitled, "Urban sprawl and the cost of public services" from Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2003, volume 30, pages 503 -522. Finally, he addressed the need to have four (4) units per acre to make the project feasible and stated his availability to respond to questions from the Board. Robert Pittenger, Highway 24/27 LLC, advised his company buys land throughout the country and noted the occurrence of a major transition in the economy over the last few years. He stated people are buying less expensive houses which created a major watershed and developers understand that. Further, he said counties understand the need to create zoning that will attract development. He referenced the materials provided to the Board concerning smart growth and having adequate densities to support commercial property. Finally, he advised that four (4) units per acre would support commercial development in the area. Sharon Lyons, resident of 812 Honeysuckle Lane, spoke in opposition of the rezoning. As an adjacent property owner, she said the rezoning will have a huge negative effect on her property. She addressed quality of life issues, abundance of wildlife in her yard and noted the need for buffers if the rezoning is approved. She urged the Board to deny the rezoning. Deborah Mullis, resident of 11850 Preslar Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She stated she owns 2.5 acres and is acquiring 10 acres adjacent to the subject property from her late father. She expressed concern for developing the subject property as HDR (High Density Residential) when there are so many unfinished developments due to the economy. She urged the Board to deny the rezoning. With there being no one else to address the Board, Vice Chairman Poole closed the public hearing. Richard M. Koch, County Attorney, responded to several questions from the Board related to: "spot zoning ", utility requirements for the CR (Countryside Residential), etc. Commissioners Burrage, Carruth and Measmer individually expressed their intent to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and deny the rezoning appeal. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Measmer, seconded by Commissioner Burrage with Vice Chairman Poole and Commissioners Burrage, Carruth and Measmer voting for and Chairman White recused from the vote, the Board denied the appeal of Rezoning Case RZON -2011- 00003. Richard Koch, County Attorney, presented the following consistency statement for the Board's consideration and adoption: The rezoning as proposed, is not consistent with the Midland Area Land Use Plan in that it permits higher densities. For this reason, it is not reasonable and not in the public interest. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Measmer, seconded by Commissioner Burrage and unanimously carried, with Vice Chairman Poole and Commissioners Burrage,