BC 2009 01 20 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 20, 2009 (Regular Meeting) Page 1153 zoning is necessary to protect farmland and to create harmony in this rural area. Further, he said the position that zoning simply implements the Central Area Plan is not true regarding the industrial property being down zoned; it is not called for anywhere in the Central Area Plan that you will hear a little bit more on that later. Similarly, he said there is nothing in the Central Area Plan that calls for the rezoning or up zoning of county-owned land as is being proposed--it simply shows up on the map. He said he does not think the opponents are opposed to the up zoning, but they have not heard anything said about it. In fact, he said the minutes of a Commissioner's meeting held in the summer, state the County Manager said the rezonings that are to occur would all be down zonings. Yet, he said county land being up zoned and there has not been any presentation as to why that is showing up on the map. He said the "Agricultural Open / Countryside Residential" down zoning that affects most of the land in the plan, is based on one regulatory table placed in the plan. He said this is the only specific regulation in the entire plan and there is neither data nor justification given anywhere in the document to support that regulatory table. He stated this is where the issue is. He said we heard in the presentation by the staff how areas were called "one to three dwelling units per acre" but are being told that everything now has to be put into three dwelling units per acre in an AO zoning district. He said the plan actually states that it needs to be adopted in four districts with a cluster option in Concord and Kannapolis, not just in Cabarrus County. He pointed out there are no pending actions to change the zoning districts in either Concord or Kannapolis to these four districts. He suggested unless Concord and Cabarrus and Kannapolis agree to these districts and give their property owners an opportunity to comment that this idea of down zoning in the unincorporated area of Cabarrus County is premature and is not in keeping with the intent and recommendations of that plan. He said he loves the .area he lives in and that he likes the way it looks and the way his neighbors, friends and property owners have farms, open fields, generational homes and well kept lands. He said he appreciates that public water was extended to part of that area, that Concord built a water tower in that area, that North Carolina has present use valuation and that he can enjoy the collective mixture of all of this. However, he said he does not like the idea of having his ownership rights and those of the others removed by the government and being taxed as if those ownership rights still exist. He said does not appreciate the fiat approach nor the manner in which down zoning has been tied to a settlement agreement in a non active law suit and to how it has been presented as a predestined zoning having been established to occur prior to even holding a public hearing on the Central Area Plan, let alone, the identification of zoning districts and the statutorily required public hearings. He strongly urged the Board of Commissioners to not pass this heavy handed regulation, but rather leave the present zoning alone. He said if you have to change or feel you have to change it to the AO, change the zoning designation from one dwelling unit to three acres to one dwelling unit per two acres, which would be consistent with that area of one to three dwelling units per acre. He said amend the Central Area Plan text by removing the embedded regulation and have the Interlocal agreement amended and readopted to remove the sections that create contract zoning. He said remove the prohibition on zoning amendments that says that once this is put in place that future zonings cannot occur or they are violating the Consent Agreement and the Interlocal Agreement and have both documents amended so the premise that this is a broad brush and changes will be made will violate the very agreement that you are saying you are being bound to. He asked the Board to remove the punishment to property owners for not adhering to a governing body because the way that it currently reads is, if the City allows someone who has public water to tie into that line, then the County can and will not issue building permits for that individual. He said that seems very unfair to the individual when the governing bodies have the issue and to include a provision about not annexing the properties in area "1" or area "A" of this land. He said these are actions that implement the intent of the plan, protect the public interest, protect the farmland, do not harm the community, preserve property rights and yet allow the character of the area to stay intact and not create sprawl. Laurent Beaudry, resident of 105 Union Street in Concord, stated he is an industrial broker and industrial developer. In the zoning plan, he said you are down zoning industrial land from general industrial to light industrial. He said he does not know why you are doing this and the impact on the people you are doing that to, is going to be pretty severe. First, he said that he thought somebody said that 99 percent of the people were for it and only one percent was against it. He said there is only one sure thing, that when you down zone, 100 percent are going to lose money. He said when you take or pluck away property rights from the property, if you take out of that package, this or that right, you are taking money away. Secondly, as far as industrial is concerned, he said he wants to retire one day and he