Minutes - 19850826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

aoo~3~ all evidence presented by the opposition at the Nay public hearing be entered as part of the record of this hearing. Dr. Sally Feather spoke expressing the concern that hex property was the most affected by the requested LUP amendment. She noted that the use and enjoyment of her land has been seriously jeopardized by the concrete plant already. She continued noting she had registered her property as a National Wildlife area and the wooded area was placed in a forest management program. She is also participating in the nutrient sensitive watershed program operated by the State Division of Water Resources. She felt that the hard work done an one side of the road to preserve and protect the land had been destroyed by the fact that just on the other side of the road trees had been destroyed and land cleared. Betsy Rhine spoke stating that she had been living across the road from Chandler Concrete property long before it was a concrete plant. She continued that everyone in the area who axe concerned are here to stay. She expressed concern that the request for less land in this amendment request was supposed to be a compromise, but yet it seemed that everything Mr. Chandler wanted originally was included in this site plan. She expressed concern with traffic safety. health and welfare of the area. She also stated that residents of Joppa Oaks complained of stinging, burning eyes from the acid solution used to clean the trucks. She continued that the hazardous acid solution should be dumped elsewhere and the Land Use Plan left as is to protect the County. Alan Fields, a resident of Strayhorn Hills, inquired if after the ten year period the property in question could be used for any purpose or if it must stay with this same use. Gordon responded that the Ten Year Transition Axes is a land categorization meaning the land is expected to go from rural to urban in a ten year period. Joyce Carrett. attorney for Chandler Concrete Company, spoke stating that the purpose for the amendment to the LUP was the requirement imposed by DEM regarding xunvff control. This is based on changes in the environmental agency position in the last ten years and not based on changes in the use of the facilitq. She noted this was a secondary amendment and she reviewed the criteria for a secondary amendment. She stated that when the LUP was developed it was simply an arbitrary decision that the boundary was the boundary line of the Chandler Concrete Company. She noted that other commercial type activities had developed along SR 1710 and residential and industrial areas can co-exist side-by-side. She noted that the operation of the concrete plant could only go forward with respect to compliance with the zequiremente of DEM. Representatives from DEM were en the site when it was raining; according to the direction of the flow of runoff. they told Chandler where to place the ponds. She continued that Chandler originally petitioned for ~ + acres with the intention of expansion. ae well as envixonmental control. Since it is clear that the community does not wish this expansion, Mr. Chandler is only requesting an amendment for sufficient land to control the runoff problem. The effort to control the problem does not constitute an expansion of the business. The community should not be able to dictate if an envirolmtental problem must continue to exist. She continued that the driveway proposed in the Planned Development has been endorsed by NCDOT as a safer entrance. Chandler stated in his opinion it is a bad precedent if the County is not flexible in helping residents and responsible people comply with the an increase in the sales tax ordinance. He noted that the County cannot anticipate nc thorn mill ba nn axnanainn of rho hnatinasa.