Laserfiche WebLink
468 <br /> <br />presented by Mr. Howell and pointed out that it did not show the 500 homes <br />depicted on the plat in the area surrounding the business. Stating that he <br />worked for Meineke Mufflers and is an expert on exhaust system sound levels, he <br />qUestioned the sound readings by Mr. Howell in comparing the .chirping of a <br />mockingbird and the exhaust system of a truck. He expressed concern that other <br />persons will request commercial zoning, thus causing the value of homes in the <br />area to decline. <br /> <br /> Ms. Madeline L. Caesar, resident.of the Britley Subdivision, opposed the <br />rezonin§. Stating that the home prices in the subdivision start at $180,000.00, <br />Ms. Caesar reported that it was her concern and that of her neighbors that the <br />value of their homes would depreciate and the rezoning will open to the door for <br />other businesses to start in the neighborhood. She stated the rezontng would <br />create a precedent for Mr, Plott to be able to come back to this or future boards <br />with additional requests to improve or expand his business. In conclusion, Ms. <br />Caesar questioned the growth of the business as indicated by earlier testimony <br />and asked if it were still being run in the same intent as when it was initially <br />started. <br /> <br /> Chairman Barnhart asked Mr. Newton to address the comments that others will <br />apply for commercial zoning if this rezoning is approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Newton explained that every case stands on its own although every <br />property owner has the right to request rezoning, whether it be commercial or <br />residential. He stated that the rezoning should not open the door to the <br />rezoning of other areas, but cautioned that he had seen where boards have used <br />past rezoning as a precedent for other' rezoning. In regards to the issue of <br />scope, he explained that the property was zoned a more pure residential zoning <br />district effective December 20, 1993. The measurement of scope would be based <br />on where the business was December 20, 1993 and any time before that to its <br />largest point of operation. In regards to the sound readings, Mr. Newton stated <br />it is important to determine what type of measurement was being done, either a <br />24-hour leveling type of activity or a ~ingle event noise reading. Stating it <br />appeared on the video to be a 24-hour averaging, he briefly listed examples of <br />sound levels for comparison: 85 - very loud; 65-75, needs attention; under 65 - <br />normal; 55 - regular background noise. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Olio-Mills asked if the piles of material on display would be <br />considered signs. Mr. Newton stated in his opinion they would not. Also, he <br />advised that the Board could not put a restriction to prevent the petitioner from <br />coming back at a future date for another zoning matter. <br /> <br /> Chairman Barnhart asked Mr. Newton to address the comments regarding the <br />need for everyone to play by the same rules. <br /> <br /> Mr. Newton responded that prior to December 1993 this property and all <br />surrounding properties were in a mixed zoning district of ARR which allowed a <br />combination of business and residences. When the rezoning of the county occurred <br />in 1993, the area was put in a pure residential zone. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Niblock asked Mr. Newton if there was any indication that Mr. <br />Plott's non-conforming use is not in compliance with any zoning regulations <br />today. Mr. Newton stated that there is nothing on the zoning although there does <br />appear to be some building code violations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Benedict, resident of the Britley subdivision, questioned the <br />issue of scope regarding Mr. Plott's business. He stated it was his understating <br />that the scope of Mr. Plott's business was set at that point prior to December <br />1993 and growth beyond that scope becomes questionable. Stating that signs as <br />well as displays have gone up since December 1993, Mr. Benedict asked if Mr. <br />Plott is outside of scope. <br /> <br /> Mr. Newton stated in his opinion that Mr. Plott would be. He explained <br />that the placement of display material on newly filled areas would be going <br />beyond the scope. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robbie Tatum of 4207 Leila Drive in the Weatherstone Subdivision <br />opposed the rezoning, stating he has moved to that location in 1983 because it <br />was a residential district. Although he was unaware the business was there at <br />that time, he became aware of it as the business expanded over the years. He <br /> <br /> <br />