My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BC 1990 07 23
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
BOC
>
1990
>
BC 1990 07 23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2002 3:28:47 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 1:10:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Minutes
Meeting Minutes - Date
7/23/1990
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.
/
36
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
457 <br /> <br />criteria set forth in 9.6-1 of this Ordinance. Administrative decisions on <br />change must be made in writing and kept on file within the Office of the Zoning <br />Administrator. <br />10.13 Violation of the Terms and Conditions of an "SU" District Rezoning. <br /> <br /> A violation of a condition of rezontng to an "SU" District as set forth <br />in the final development plan and other related official paperwork associated <br />with such rezoning shall be treated the same as a violation of this Ordinance, <br />subject to the same remedies and penalties. Upon determining that such a <br />violation has occurred, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the property owner <br />of his findings either by certified mail or in person, and set a reasonable time <br />for the violation to be corrected or abated. When a violation is not corrected <br />or abated within the time period set by the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning <br />Administrator or any person aggrieved may institute injunction, mandamus, or <br />other appropriate action in proceedings to correct or abate the violation. <br /> <br />10.14 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Petitions. <br /> An application for an amendment that has been denied, in whole or in part, <br />or has been approved for a more restrictive classification than requested, shall <br />not again be processed for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners <br />for a one (1) year period. The Commission, after considering the advice of the <br />Planning Board, and finding substantial changes in conditions or circumstances <br />bearing on the application, may waive the one (1) year period. This restriction <br />shall not apply to any amendment or petition submitted by the Planning Board, <br />Planning Staff or the Board of County Commissioners. <br /> <br /> (2) Petition 90-06(t). Planning and Zoning Department. To <br /> add Section 3.13, "River/Stream Overlay Zone" to <br /> strengthen protection of rivers and streams within the <br /> County. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend <br /> approval of this petition with some minor additions. <br />Mr. Mike Byrd, Planning staff member, briefly reviewed the proposed <br />amendment establishing a "River/Stream Overlay Zone". <br /> Mr. F. A. Rankin questioned the requirements of the proposed overlay zone <br />and asked if the zone would remain in existence if the Mitigation Plan for the <br />proposed Coddle Creek Reservoir project is not approved by State and Federal <br />agencies. <br /> Mr. John Motley and Mrs. Bobbie Motley, owners of a farm located on Rocky <br />River, questioned the impact of the proposed amendment on their family's ability <br />to continue to sell sand from the river. It was noted that the Motley's business <br />as it currently exists would be exempt as a non-conforming use since the <br />business was in operation prior to adoption of the River/Stream Overlay Zone. <br /> Mr. Ralph Bonds objected to the restriction of the proposed overlay zone <br />and stated in his opinion it would be better for the County to buy additional <br />swamp land to meet mitigation requirements for the Coddle Creek Reservoir. <br /> In response to questions raised by Mr. F. A. Rankin, Mr. Paul Watson, <br />Engineer with HDR Engineering, Inc., reported that he had received notification <br />that the Environmental Protection Agency had withdrawn their objections to the <br />Mitigation Plan for the Coddle Creek Reservoir project. <br /> There was no one else present to speak either for or against the proposed <br />amendment, and Chairman Lentz closed the public hearing for Petition 90-06(t). <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Simmons, seconded by Commissioner Melvin and <br />unanimously carried, the Board approved Petition 90-06(t) to amend the Zoning <br />Ordinance as follows. <br /> <br />3.13 River/Stream Overlay Zone (RSOZ) <br /> Ail rivers or streams shown on USGS Quadrangle Maps as a solid blue line <br />shall be subject to these requirements. <br /> <br />RSOZ Purpose: A strip of land adjacent to a stream or river retained in its <br />natural vegetation or revegetated or reforested by appropriate perennial <br />vegetation to avoid erosion problems will reduce the velocity of overland flow, <br />trap sediment and soil eroded from cropland or land being developed, and limit <br />other pollutants from entering the waterway. As such, water quality is given <br />another check of control. <br /> <br />Effect On Bona Fide Farms: While North Carolina law exempts bona fide farms <br />from local zoning regulations, the County strongly encourages the use of best <br />management practices in farming. A stream buffer is one of these such practices <br />and is therefore consistent with North Carolina Sediment Control Law and thus <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.