BC 1990 11 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

574 been included in the recommendation for rezoning to a R-40 zoning district. Also, Mr. Newton reported that the staff had discovered two parcels at Interstate 85 and Old Holland and Quay Roads which were located in the A-I zone and had not been annexed by the City of Concord. He noted that these parcels were included in the Petition currently under consideration by the Board. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Melvin, seconded by Chairman Lentz with Commissioners Melvin, Moss and Simmons and Chairman Lentz voting for, the Board by resolution moved that the Philip Morris property currently zoned A-I would remain in the A-I zoning district. Chairman Lentz opened the meeting for public comments on the Petitions 90- 10(t) and 90-15 at 7:45 P.M. Mr. John Boger, Attorney representing Mr. H. P. Pethel who owns property located in Section 2, opposed the proposed rezoning. He specifically objected to the division of Mr. Pethel's land into two separate zoning districts of R- 30 and RMF-7A. Mr. Boger asked that the property located on Rustic Lane and Rural Drive remain in the A-I zoning district. Also speaking in support of the A-I zoning classification for property located in Section 2 were Mr. Ray Galloway and Mr. Philip H. Smith. Mr. R. V. Blackwelder, owner of property at Crisco Road and Poplar Tent Road, asked that his property be rezoned from R-40 to A-I. It was noted that Mr. Blackwelder~s property was not included in the Petitions currently before the Board and could not be considered for rezoning at this time. Mr. Fred Lawing, representing a property owner, asked that the property located in Section 11 remain in the A-I zoning district. He stated in his opinion the property was more suitable for industry than for residential uses. Mr. William L. Mills, III, attorney, asked that property located in Section 6 and owned by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Craig and Mr. Craig's sister remain in the A-I zoning district. He stated that the proposed R-40 zoning classification would be too restrictive for the owners to develop the property. Mr. Chuck Schley, property owner in the area identified as Section 11 and located along Pitts School Road, spoke in support of the proposed rezoning from A-I to R-40. Mr. Wayne Bridges spoke in support of the recommended rezoning from A-I to R-40 for the areas included in Sections 11 and 12. There was no one else present to speak either for or against Petitions 90- 10(t) and 90-15, and Chairman Lentz closed the public hearing for these petitions. In response to comments from Mr. John Boger relative to Mr. H. P. Pethel~s property, Mr. Newton recommended that all of Mr. Pethel's property located in Section 2 be rezoned to RMF-7A. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Moss, seconded by Commissioner Melvin with Commissioners Moss, Melvin, and Simmons and Chairman Lentz voting for, the Board approved Petition 90-10(t) as recommended by the Planning Board and set forth below. The Board further approved Petition 90-15 as recommended by the Planning Board to rezone properties from A-I to R-40, R-30, R-15, RMF-7A, I-l, and modified A-I with the exception of properties located in Sections 2, 11, and 12, two parcels located in Section 6 and owned by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas C. Craig and Mr. Craig's sister, and those parcels of Sections 9 and 16 belonging to Philip Morris U.S.A. The Board further clarified that those properties which remained in the A-I zoning districts would remain A-I under the modified text as approved in Petition 90-10(t) as follows: A-I Zoning District as Amended The following represents the revised A-I zoning district. Intent Section: The regulations of this district are intended to maintain agricultural uses of the land and provide for gradual transition into an employment district, while discouraging unadapted forms of residential land use which would be incompatible with future employment developments. These districts are particularly well suited to accommodate employment growth from the aspects of the transportation network, efficient use of public services and facilities, land form, general compatibility of use and other pertinent considerations. Text Changes: Single family detached housing units, Class 1 and Class 2 Mobile Homes will be allowed but under standards which would read as follows: