BC 2009 01 20 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 20, 2009 (Regular Meeting) Page 1158 to one unit per one acre with a forty percent open space dedication, in addition to other standards; fifty, two-acre lots could fit in one hundred acres classified as CR in a conventional subdivision design with no open space designated; if forty percent open space is designated in those one hundred acres, there could be 100 lots within the remaining 60 acres; developers are entitled to a density bonus if the additional standards are met; the additional .standards are already part of the Zoning Ordinance from the "Designing Cabarrus" process; these densities have been permitted since 2005 and are currently permitted under the Zoning Ordinance; and based on the additional open space and meeting additional design standards, there is a considerable difference in what can be developed on the property if owners are willing to set aside open space. Vice Chairman Mynatt said several speakers mentioned that their tax value would not change. She asked if that is accurate or would the rezoning have an effect on next year's tax value. Ms. Morris stated she is not qualified to answer that question. After pointing out that he is not an appraiser, John Day, County Manager, stated zoning is one of many factors used to determine the value of property and if the value of a property on the market has decreased as a result of the change in zoning, that would be considered when setting a property value. Chairman White reviewed the Board's options as follows: 1) adopt the rezoning as presented; 2) modify the rezoning for individual concerns; 3) adopt the rezoning as presented and allow the property owners affected by the rezoning to file a rezoning petition requesting the zoning designation in effect (2005) prior to the mass rezoning; or 4) choose not to change some classes, for example, not changing the industrial zoning classification. Ms. Morris stated the Board may choose to leave any of the zoning districts as is, as the Board may deem appropriate. Vice Chairman Mynatt asked how the City of Concord will be affected if the Board chooses to adopt a modified version of the rezoning. Ms. Morris stated the City will review the extent of the Board's changes to the plan and whether those changes warrant a revision of the entire plan. She further stated if the changes are extensive, it may require the plan to be readopted. She reminded the Board that it can choose to make decisions inconsistent with the plan in the public's best interest. Mr. Day stated the Board has been informed by the City Attorney that minor changes to the plan concerning industrial property in particular, would still be considered by the City of Concord to be consistent with the Land Use Plan as a whole. Chairman White reminded the Board that Vice Chairman Mynatt has consistently recused herself from votes concerning the Land Use Plan. (Note: Commissioner Mynatt is the owner/developer of the Burnt Mill subdivision located within the proposed Land Use Plan.) UPON MOTION of Commissioner Privette, seconded by Commissioner Carruth and unanimously carried, the Board recused Vice Chairman Mynatt from voting on the Central Area Land Use Plan Implementation. Chairman White. thanked everyone in attendance at the meeting. He commented on the following: the intent of the county is to work with the city and formulate a consistent plan of growth and development throughout the central area of the county within the area between Concord and Mt. Pleasant as well as Rocky River Road to Cold Springs Road; the Board thought it was very important that the public be heard and create a central land use plan based on the public's ideas and concepts; over eighteen different meetings, including charrettes and open houses, have been held and public input was received; and this Board has done everything it can to hear what citizens had to say and adopt something accordingly. Chairman White then urged the Board to adopt the plan as presented with the following modifications: 1) property proposed to be zoned as general industrial should retain its current zoning designation; 2) property divided by extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) should retain its current zoning designation; and 3) property owners subject to the rezoning should be able to file a petition requesting the zoning designation prior to .the 2005 mass rezoning at no cost. He then stated the following: this plan is a product of preparation; Cabarrus County has been confronted with uncontrolled growth; former boards have done little planning to prepare for this 'growth; growth needs to occur in areas with existing infrastructure; etc. He referred to an article that appeared in THE