BC 2009 01 20 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 20, 2009 (Regular Meeting) Page 1152 Jerry Newton, resident of 1776 Songwood Road in Concord and primary spokesperson for the opponents, stated his intent to make a general presentation on the rezoning and then someone else will address the proposed industrial down zoning. He asked to have September 18, 2008 meeting minutes from the Cabarrus County Planning & Zoning Commission (CCPZC) incorporated into the January 20, 2009 meeting minutes of the. Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners. (Note: The aforementioned meeting minutes are hereby incorporated by reference.) He also distributed two copies of the CCPZC meeting minutes to the Board for review and acknowledged that he did not have enough copies for everyone. He stated much like the "proponents" who are in favor of the rezoning, the "opponents" agree with 95 percent of the Central Area Land Use Plan. He pointed out the opponents disagree with only a small portion of the plan and how it will be implemented. He reiterated that the opponents agree with the majority of the plan and like the plan. He identified "a table that came from nowhere that sets up this three acres per unit" as being one of the central points the opponents objects to, among others. He went on to address minor subdivisions and said the current subdivision regulations allow "it to be done only one time and you cannot decide to split off one and at another point, split off again." He said when he asked "how that is applied", he said "it can only be done one time." When you take land from its land value and create lots, he said you basically have, in most of the area we are talking about, a forty percent increase in land values. He further said "whether or not you are going to use that as a lot, you will increase its land value"; and "if you have public water or sewer by agreement (even if water or sewer exists at that lot), you are not permitted to tie into that public water and sewer line". He said "public water lines, some of which came about through the bonding that was done with Coddle Creek Reservoir when we put the reservoir in place for the benefit of the community, and now it is being said if it is in the AO zoning district spreading down into this area, that public water and sewer connection is not allowed". He said so those are two other points that are also buried in that subdivision ordinance dealing with the minor subdivision. In terms of the present use, he had two other clarifications: (1) the ten acre requirement excludes the homestead property - generally that can be one acre - so roughly it is eleven acres that is looked at; (2) it has to be used agriculturally: you have to have it in agricultural use at its highest level as determined by the people who put it into the agricultural farm present use program for a three-year period, and it is a deferment--when you sell, you pay the back taxes on it. He said he just wanted to restate, most of what he just heard from those who said they were in favor of the zoning changes were speaking in favor of the land use plan which we also support. He said, "it's a specific portion of it, as it is being implemented and suggested to be implemented, that we disagree with". He restated his name and said he lives on seven acres with his family. By terms of the proposed down zoning, he said he would now only be permitted one additional lot and cannot tie into public water that already exists. As much as that bothers him, he said his real concern is the fundamental right of property ownership and the attempt to position property ownership rights to privileges held by and dealt out by the government--rights that belong to the property owner being taken and government then decides when and if they can be used. He said contract zoning defacto moratorium prohibiting future rezonings are not permitted in North Carolina and yet they are being attempted here tonight. He reiterated that he had distributed the meeting minutes from the September 18, 2008 Cabarrus Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and asked again to have those minutes included in the official record. He said our land remains one of the few items that have been able to hold its value in the economy and asked why Cabarrus County would take governmental action to reduce the land's market value which seemingly eases large areas for annexation into Concord. He said, "just as those who spoke in favor of the rezoning, we are opposed the idea of the area being annexed in--yet the way that you have put several measures in place, you actually make it easier for land to be annexed into Concord". He said neither of these actions: taking away land value or making it easier to be annexed in, are actions that property owners, in general, do not want to see in the Central Area Plan. He said he would not be so presumptuous to say that he is speaking on behalf of the 2,700 people that are not here, but he thinks most people would be opposed to those two points. He reiterated 95 percent of the Central Area Plan is very good and said the issues we have deals with 5 percent. He said the "Agricultural Open" district's stated purpose in the zoning regulations is not going to be achieved by placing such a large area in that zoning district. He said was the planning director when that AO zoning district was established and that he worked and coordinated with the farmers on the very purposes that Dennis Testerman spoke of earlier. He said the zoning of "Countryside Residential" is much more consistent with that area and the fact that bonafide farms are exempt from local zoning ordinances also negates any argument that an AO