BC 1995 06 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

463 Density Residential (MDR) to General Commercial - Special Use (GC- SU) to make the existing sand, gravel and landscape material business conforming and to allow replacement of the existingoffice. There have been no previous rezonings. This is an existing non- conforming use. The following information regarding Petition 95-04 was included in the Board's agenda packet: Fact Sheet; Location Maps; Site Plan submitted by the Petitioner; Staff Analysis; Letter dated March 17, 1995 to Mr. Plott from the Zoning Administrator denying a request to place a modular office on the property; and the minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 18, 1995. Mr. Gerald Newton, Planning and Development Area Manager, introduced Petition 95-04. He explained that the Special Use rezoning required sworn or affirmed testimony. The Clerk affirmed the following persons who indicated they planned to speak during the public hearing: Mr. Gerald Newton; Mr. John R. Boger, Jr.; Mr. Ed Small; Mr. Gary Howell; Mr. Hugh Harkey; Mr. Tony Eury; Mr. Dennis Smith; Mr. James Bowling; Mr. Robert Benedict; Ms. Madeline L. Caesar; Mr. Robbie Tatum; Mr. Tim Feeney; Mr. Ray Greene; Ms. Laurie Feeney; and Mr. David Feeney. Also, the Clerk affirmed the following persons prior to their addressing the Board: Mr. Wayne Allen; Mr. Brad Tisdale; Ms. Vicky Wood; and Ms. Dee Ward. Chairman Barnhart opened the public hearing on Petition 95-04. Mr. Newton reviewed the Staff Analysis and presented the location maps as well as the site plan which had been submitted by the applicant. The area is designated as residential in the Harrisburg Area Land Use Plan, and there are subdivisions in the neighborhood in close proximity to the property. The nearest residential properties include two homes that adjoin the property in the rear and the properties across the street from the business. Public water and sewer are not available to the property. Mr. Newton reviewed the site plan showing the proposed location for a new office at the front of the property on Robinson Church Road as well as an alternate location at the rear of the property. The original request by Mr. Plott to change the non-conforming use to put in a new office was denied by Mr. Mike Downs, Zoning Administrator. Information regarding this denial is included in the letter dated March 17, 1995 from Mr. Downs to Mr. Plott. Also, Mr. Newton advised that there are some potential code issues regarding the existing office, including the use of a port-a-john and the power to the office. After denial of the request by Mr. Downs, Mr. Plott chose to seek ~he Special Use rezoning. On May 18, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 3 to zecommend approval based on the following conditions agreed to by Mr. Plott: (1) That hours of operation be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. except for bona fide emergencies; (2) That the business be limited to six trucks based at the site; and (3) That a 25-foot minimum paved apron be constructed at the entrance to the business. Mr. Newton stated the lengthy testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting centered on the two primary issues of (1) noise generated from the trucks cranking up early and the general noise of the location and (2) traffic issues. The Planning staff had recommended denial of the petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the overall residential nature of the area, the long range plan for the area and the belief that the non-conforming business would be more appropriate in a commercial area with direct access to a major road. After hearing testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing and learning that Mr. Plott does not plan to relocate his business, Mr. Newton stated that staff had reviewed the rezoning request. Staff had concluded that the applicant would be able to continue its current operation if the rezoning were not approved; however, reasonable conditions agreed upon by the applicant could be imposed if the rezoning were approved. Therefore, staff had compiled a revised staff report and the recommendation for approval based on the following facts and conditions. FACT: The petitioner has submitted a development plan showing general use of the property. CONDITION: That the petitioner adhere to his submitted development plan.