Minutes - 19771107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Y ~~ suggested that stream flow and sedimentation and other pertinent information be gathered concerning Old Field Creek since 2-40 would cross this stream. Item 9-C Rezoning Request of Thomas F. Gates This land is located on Lawrence Road in Eno Township, and in a residential zoned area. Mr. Gates is requesting a 3 acre area be rezoned general industrial. This proposal for rezoning was considered at the August Public Hearing. In a subsequent meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend this rezoning not be granted. Later, in the same meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend the rezoning be granted if certain restrictions (conditions of use) be attached to the Commissioners' resolu- tion of approval. The County Attorney and the Ceunty Manager have discussed this issue. and they feel the Commissioners should consider the Planning Board's recom- mendation to deny, then act upon the request for rezoning. The County Attorney feels further, however, that the Planning Board's second action ' (an effort to impose a restricted use) is indicative of their feeling that there should be same feature in any new County Land Use Ordinance that recognizes the desirability of the special use concept. The County Attorney will review his interpretation of the effect of the Planning Board's action. The County Attorney stated that at the Planning Board's meeting, a motion was made that the Gates Rezoning Request be approved, and this motion failed. However, there was an amendment tacked to the motion that was to request the County Attorney whether or not the hearing was legal due to the fact that the tract of land advertised was advertised as 1.6 acres and the actual size of the land to be rezoned is 3 acres in size. Mr. Gledhill stated the answer to the legality question depended upon who would be suing. If Thomas Gates wants to raise question about whether or not the denial of the rezoning requst is legal, he probably would not have standing to, raise the question of whether the advertising was wrong because if anyone would benefit, Mr. Gates would. On the other hand, if the rezoning request was approved, since the size was less than it actually is, some other tax payer might have standing to raise the question of proper advertising of the public hearing. Mr. Gledhill stated that he did not feel it necessary to conduct another public hearing. In the County Attorney's opinion, the action of the Planning Soard in not recommending approval of the rezoning request is the only action of the Planning Board which has any affect in the sense that this is the only action the Planning Board has taken and which the Board of Commissioners can act on. He stated that it was his opinion that the County Zoning Ordinance did not provide for approval with conjunction of the execution of restrictive covenants between Mr. Gate. and the County. He suggested that the Board take this as a recommendation from the Planning Board that such a provision be included in the Ordinance as an amendment to allow the Planning Board flexibility in special use permits, and etc. Mr. Gledhill stated that the Board .should act an the request which was presented at the public hearing of August, and the recommendation from the Planning Board is that the request not be granted. A. W. Turner, Attorney for Mr. Gates, stated that he disputed the County Attorney's opinion regarding the legality of the recommendation of the execution of restrictive covenants. He stated that the intent of the framework of the Ordinance was to arrive at the best decision that can be made. He stated that N. C. Courts have long upheld the enforability of restrictive covenants. Commissioner Willhoit moved that the rezoning request be denied and Commissioner Gustaveson seconded the motion. Mr, Willhoit stated at the August public hearing there were six people - who spoke against the request. Their complaints were primarily in regard to the dust and the noise that would be generated based on the experience of the operation at its current location. He added that he was opposed to granting the request because an industry would be out of character with the residential nature of the area. From what residents had stated at the hearing, they are opposed to the request as its current use and not on the basis of the passibility of other industries which might locate there. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that good long range land use planning should take into account the integrity of the residential area, and not possibly destroy that integrity by opening the area up far industrial use. He added that he felt the people in the neighborhood were concerned about