Agenda - 11-23-2009 - C2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this proposal amounted to taking land with no compensation. He felt it was excessive and that property owners were being forced into accepting I -40. He commented that the concern was keeping the land green., but with no compensation for owners and that land was effectively removed from the tax base. Dexter Smith expressed concern with 6.24.4, the 259 natural vegetation provision. He questioned the provision where there is no existing vegetation. Henry Mitfield, property owner in the I -40 corridor, noted that the corridor would cost the owners he represented about 10 acres of property. Accordng to Mr. Whitfield the buffer would take an additional 23 acres with no payment to owners. He was particularly concerned with land split by the corridor. r Mr. Whitfield asked for a show of hands for property owners in the corridor in favor and against the buffer. This showed approximately 25 against and 5 in favor of the buffer. He felt that site plans would take care of the fear of contamination of the landscape with unsightly buildings. Kizer, Planning Board member,"noted that it is important to understand t.r. McAdams point that this proposal constitutes an uncompensated "taking ". He continued that it should be a point of order to prevent a "taking" of land inadvertently or inventionally. Since he'felt this might result in an uncompensated "taking ", he requested that the County Attorney conment on the possibility of an illegal taking of land. Commissioner Willhoit noted the attorney will be-reviewing the entire ordinance for legality. Ron [Merritt of Northwoods Homeowners Association inquired about property owners being notified of particular applications and permit approvals for development. i =;hitter noted that changing the underlying zoning would require notice. Merritt stated he would like to see the inclusion of a provision regarding notice of adjoining property owners within 1000 feet for building permit approvals for sites with correct zoning. Joe Kistler, property owners adjacent to I--40 but outside of 100' buffer, urged the Board to consider individuals beyond the corridors. He indicated vegetation is very important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers could pursue creative uses of land within the statutes. Jack Mosely, owner of the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns regarding signs such as his directional sign for customers off N.C. 86. Smith responded the proposal would not allow off - premise signs in the district. She clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal and that future single and two family houses were not subject to the proposed development standards. She' clarified that both single family houses and duplexes can be developed with normal setbacks and without being subject to vegetation provisions. McAdams questioned the application of the 100' setback. to approval of six (6) subdivisions and their. designs. If so, he continued, this must be qualified in the communication to the public regarding single and two- family dwellings. The public nearing was adjourned until the February 21, 1984 public hearing. Proposed Text Amendments to Article 9 Signs Presentation as follows by Smith: The proposed text amendments to Article 9 Signs address two main issues: 1) the types of signs permitted in the I'VIC district and 2) the placement of outdoor advertising outside the MITC district.