My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BC 1995 06 19
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
BOC
>
1995
>
BC 1995 06 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2002 3:38:36 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 1:08:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Minutes
Meeting Minutes - Date
6/19/1995
Board
Board of Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
465 <br /> <br /> Commissioner Olio-Mills asked if Mr. Plott could increase his traffic or <br />trucks without this change. Mr. Newton responded that he could. <br /> <br /> Mr. John R. Boger, Jr., attorney representing the residents who oppose the <br />rezoning request, spoke against Petition 95-04. He disagreed with Mr. Newton as <br />to whether Mr. Plott can expand if the rezoning is denied, stating as he <br />understands the law you cannot expand a non-conforming use. He further stated <br />that Mr. Plott was able to operate as a rural home occupation under the old <br />Zoning Ordinance but noted that the business does not qualify as a rural home <br />occupation under the new ordinance. Mr. Boger stated it is Mr. Plott's privilege <br />to stay at the present location, but he should not be allowed to increase the use <br />of his property. He reviewed the purpose of zoning as defined by the. North <br />Carolina General Statutes and addressed the following issues in opposition to the <br />rezoning: (1) Plan for the area is residential and requested zoning will <br />violate that plan; (2) Robinson Church Road is a secondary road, not suitable for <br />large trucks carrying gravel and stone; (3) No other businesses are located on <br />Robinson Church Road from Jimfs Sand and Stone to the county line; and (4) <br />Business should be in a commercial district. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boger questioned Mr. Ed Small regarding the number of homes and <br />subdivisions in the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ed Small, who is building a residence across the street from the <br />business, presented a map showing the location of Jim's Sand and Stone and the <br />surrounding area, including the subdivisions of Bradford Park, Britley, <br />Steeplechase, and Chestnut Hills. He reported the following results from a spot <br />survey of the property located within a one mile radius of the business: 224 <br />existing homes, 43 new homes under construction, and 187 potential home sites <br />that are ready for sale, totalling 455 sites that can be housed by families at <br />this point. Mr. Small also stated there are large tracts of property that can <br />be developed for residential medium density. He presented an album showing <br />photographs of some of the homes in the area, including Robinson Church Road and <br />the subdivisions, and Jimfs Sand and Stone. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boger called Mr. Wayne Allen to the podium and asked about the location <br />of his residence. Mr. Allen stated he lives in the Chestnut Hills area which is <br />located to the rear of Mr. Plott~s property. He indicated that the trees and <br />foliage during the summer block the view of the business to some degree; however, <br />the business is visible when the leaves are gone. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boger stated the residents and developers have made quite an investment <br />in the area based on the residential zoning and are entitled to the protection <br />that zoning has been afforded to them. He expressed concern that the rezoning <br />would create a commercial area in the community and open the door for Mr. Plott <br />to ask for changes in the restrictions. Mr. Boger advised that the issue is not <br />noise, dust, or hours of operation, but the main issue is to protect and maintain <br />the residential nature of the neighborhood which has been residential since <br />zoning was incurred. In conclusion, he stated in his opinion.the recommendations <br />by the staff do not address the issue. According to Mr. Boger, his clients feel <br />strongly that the requested rezoning is not the proper use for the area and that <br />Mr. Plott should only be allowed to continue to operate as a non-conforming use. <br /> <br /> Chairman Barnhart requested clarification from Mr. Newton regarding the <br />possible expansion of the number of vehicles and/or the expansion of the <br />facilities as a non-conforming use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Newton discussed the issue of scope of the business. He stated that <br />it was staff's position that the rezoning with the limitation of four vehicles <br />would hold it to the same scope. Without the rezoning, Mr. Newton explained that <br />the company can continue as it has been and can increase in trade and volume. <br />However, he stated the business cannot go beyond the scope of where its activity <br />and operation has been. For example, Mr. Newton stated that activity on the area <br />that has been filled toward the front of the property on Robinson Church Road <br />would not be allowed to occur. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Olio-Mills questioned the development of the subdivisions in <br />the area. He expressed concern that persons build houses near existing <br />businesses, such as the Concord Motor Speedway, and then want to shut the <br />business down or restrict it. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.