My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BC 2009 01 20 Regular
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
BOC
>
2009
>
BC 2009 01 20 Regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2009 2:16:06 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 1:02:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Minutes
Meeting Minutes - Date
3/17/2009
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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
January 20, 2009 (Regular Meeting) Page 1148 <br />Option four would be to look at difference classes of zoning and take <br />those designations and maybe not change those particular classes. The Board <br />would also have the option of using the Utility Service Boundary line as a <br />line of consideration and then not amending anything to the west of that line <br />since most of that would end up being annexed into Concord upon development. <br />She stated she would be happy to answer any questions. She also stated the <br />Board does have the maps; the zoning map, Land Use Map with the densities and <br />the current zoning, proposed zoning and Land Use with density on it. <br />For the benefit of the viewing audience, Vice Chairman Mynatt asked Ms. <br />Morris to clarify the regulations for a minor subdivision and asked if there <br />are size limits on lots. <br />Ms. Morris responded that there are limitations. She said the <br />ordinance does establish a minor subdivision process which allows someone to <br />subdivide a parcel or divide a parcel up to five times. She said if you will <br />remember in your APF (Adequate Public Facilities) Ordinance, minor <br />subdivisions are exempt so they are allowed up to five lots and there are <br />some standards that they have to meet. One of those standards is that they <br />have to be able to show that the lot can support well and septic. She said <br />typically, that means it is a one acre lot minimum and the ordinance does put <br />forth that one acre minimum. If they did not have road frontage, she said <br />they could do a private road and subdivide up to five lots off of that new <br />private street. Or they could get five lots if they have existing frontage, <br />five lots from that particular frontage. If they tried to do six lots <br />however, she said then it would be considered a major subdivision and it <br />would have to go to the Planning and Zoning Board. The five lot subdivision <br />is considered a minor and it is handled administratively. <br />Commissioner Carruth pointed out that although dividing property for <br />your children is the most common reason for creating a minor subdivision, the <br />ordinance does not restrict to whom the lots are created for. For example, <br />he said the property owner may choose to work with a contractor to build five <br />separate homes on five lots for non family members. <br />Ms. Morris responded in the affirmative. She used an example of a <br />property owner that owns a 20-acre tract, cuts five 2-acre lots out of the <br />tract which leaves a 10-acre parcel. However, if 10-acre track is further <br />divided, she said it becomes a major subdivision. She further stated there <br />is no restriction on family relation for minor subdivisions. <br />Commissioner Carruth asked if I had two acres of land, could I get <br />present use value assessment on that property or does it have to be a larger <br />size tract. <br />Ms. Morris asked, "Based on the Zoning Ordinance" <br />Commissioner Carruth asked the minimum size for an agriculturally-zoned <br />area. <br />John Day, County Manager, announced the minimum size is ten acres. <br />Chairman White asked if there were any more questions for Ms. Morris. <br />Commissioner Carruth said he had a couple more questions. After <br />mentioning the notification process where letters were sent out to all <br />property owners and adjacent property owners, signs were erected and notices <br />were advertised in the newspaper, he asked, what is the difference in the <br />notification for the rezoning versus the notification for the Land Use Plan. <br />Ms. Morris reported the land use plan process was advertised in the <br />newspaper. However, she said state statutes do not have any type of <br />regulatory process established for the adoption of a land use plan and the <br />County is not required to send individual notifications. However, she said <br />several mailings were. sent out as far as the process and participating in the <br />process. In addition, she said the public hearing was advertised in the <br />newspaper and telephone calls were made to encourage attendance. Further, <br />she said the public hearing dates and times were announced at the meetings so <br />citizens attend if they were interested in speaking for or against the plan. <br />Chairman White asked if there were additional questions. <br />Commissioner Privette asked if he purchased ten acres and built a <br />residence on that land, does he have to use the rest for farming. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.