BC 2009 05 29 Recessed - BOC/P&Z hearings

Home Browse Search

May 28, 2009 (Recessed Meeting) Page 1412 Mr. Furr responded to questions from the Board regarding potential division of the property. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Carruth, seconded by Vice Chairman Mynatt with Chairman White, Vice Chairman Mynatt and Commissioners Carruth and Poole voting for and Commissioner Privette voting against, the Board denied the rezoning request for Parcel Identification Number 5548-69-9502, Case 2009- 09(R) - Farrell and Amy Whitley. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Carruth, seconded by Commissioner Poole and unanimously carried, the Board adopted the following Consistency Statement as it relates to the rezoning Case 2009-09 (R) - Farrell and Amy Whitley, Parcel Identification Number 5598-64-4502: the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Central Area Land .Use Plan and it is not reasonable and is not in the public interest because it is not consistent with the plan and the surrounding properties are zoned Agricultural Open and of similar use. .las Amendment t. Susie Morris, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the following information regarding Rezoning Case 2009-05(R) - Jennifer Price and Ronda York: this is a request for .approximately 108 acres to be rezoned from Agricultural Open (AO) zoning designation to Countryside Residential (CR) designation; the subject property is serviced by well and septic and is located inside the City of Concord service area but outside of the utility service boundary as established by the Central Area Land Use Plan (CALUP); this property does have a farm exemption as a turkey farm; and the applicant is requesting the property be returned to the CR zoning designation. Ms. Morris read the following letter submitted by the applicants: This is a request to have our property zoning return to the zoning that existed prior to the January 29, 2009 downzoning. We have no plans to change the property but want to be able to continue to use and sell parcels under the former zoning. When the Cabarrus Board of Commissioners downzoned all of the property they afforded individual property owners the right to petition for the prior zoning to be returned. This is simply that request. Our property has and remains in an agricultural use with several one acre lots carved off for houses that were sold to family and others. During our ownership the zoning has changed from LDR to CR and presently AO. When we purchased the property it was with the knowledge that it was zoned to allow low density residential housing. We do not plan on the property remaining agricultural perpetually. Financially, it will be very difficult to remain in agricultural production long term. Selling lots off has been able to supplement agricultural income. The downzoning harms us. We simply request that our property ownership rights be returned to LDR. Much of the property is currently in the agricultural present use valuation program which allows actual taxes paid to be reflective of the agricultural production. Our farm produces 500,000 turkeys per year for resale. However, being zoned AO adversely affects the value of our `development rights' and reduces the property's marketability and lowers future sales value. If our property is not returned to the former zoning, we also will have less potential future lots and all of this in turn affects our valuation when examined by our lender for future collateral of the property. We simply are asking that the property be returned to its former zoning. Unlike traditional zoning requests that come before the county where there is a plan to do something new on the property, we are here because our property zoning designation was changed by others and we would like it returned to its former zoning. We have no plans to do anything new on the property. We believe that we are in agreement with the Central Area Plan in that we existed prior to it, we have a strong agricultural business on the property (in part due to zoning that permitted one acre lots), we utilize septic tanks and wells, and nothing