My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
July 12, 2022 PZ Agenda
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
Planning
>
2020
>
July 12, 2022 PZ Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2022 10:47:58 AM
Creation date
7/8/2022 10:45:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
7/12/2022
Board
Parks
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
150
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
Planningand Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />June 14, 2022 <br />Mr. Corley said either way. <br />The Chair said we can try it. <br />The Chair saidItem 1 isforthe relief from the 200-footsetback requirementofSection 7.3.59. <br />Mr. Corley thinks the evidence does show that that 200-foot setback would cover nearlythe <br />entire property,and pretty much prohibit any reasonable use. <br />The Chair with that said,the variance if approved,would stick with the swim club. He thinks that <br />protects the property around it and itwouldbe limitedtothe swim club.He does not think there <br />would be any issue. He said they cannot use the property for anything else, other than what is <br />there. <br />The Chair asked if everyone concurred, the consensus of the Board concurred. <br />The Chair said the hardshipsresult from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as size, <br />location,or topography. <br />Mr. Corleythinks the evidence does showthatthere has beena lot ofcontributingfactors,with <br />changing in zoning, changing in ordinances,specifically across county line changes in zoning, <br />which the applicant really had no control over,thathave contributed to the requirementsof that <br />200-footsetback. <br />The Chair asked if anyone had anything else. There being none he asked if all were in agreeance. <br />They all were in agreeance. <br />The Chair said the hardship resultingfrom actions taken by the applicantor the property owner. <br />He said the applicant alludedto this in his presentation,and Legal gave him a headnod that <br />purchasingproperty with knowledge that circumstances existthat may justifygrantinga variance <br />shallnot be regardedas self-created. He thinks that one is pretty cut and dry. <br />The Chair said the variance is consistent with the spirt, purpose,and intent of the ordinance, such <br />that public safety is secured,and substantial justice is achieved. <br />Mr. Corley said the applicant has stated thatthey arestill going to meet the actual landscape <br />plantingrequirements. They are working around an existing building that is not exactly square to <br />the site,he thinkshad presented some challenges. He thinks they have made a general bona fide <br />effort to comply with the ordinance,with a few exceptions. <br />The Chair said noted that theapplicant noted that all the accessory structures had been moved <br />outside the bufferin attempt to try to pull everything tighter to the center. <br />23 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.