Minutes - 05-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

session before beginning the process of public input. John Link feels it is a goad idea. However, typically work session agendas are full. He wonders if this is workable. Craig Benedict clarified that the notice of the public hearing would follow the item being introduced at a work session. He wants, in some way, to notify the County Commissioners that the process has begun an a specific item or issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer item C- 1-a to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than June 29, 2040. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Section 4.2.12 Existing Commercial - V (EC-5) Craig Benedict explained that there were 113 separate existing commercial uses, known as EC-5. The Planning staff is suggesting that under extreme circumstances, small existing commercial parcels, less than one acre, would be able to shift from one lot to an adjacent one. This would be allowed under a list of ten criteria. The criteria are listed in the agenda. This would allow for the continuation of the commercial use in the future. Any change in the operation would have to meet new standards. He made reference to the criteria and said that if an EC-5 district is wiped off the map, reduced, or becomes non-functional based on some sort of right-of-way taking that is in excess of what is required by the comprehensive plan, the property owner would not be able to purchase other land. QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12, item "C" that reads, "Existing district shall be eliminated and returned to the zoning of surrounding land. If the old district is adjacent to more than one district, the tract shall be returned to the lower use category." (This relates to a proposed change to deal with the condemnation by the Department of Transportation for a change in Erwin Road. The stare property is zoned ECS. If the store is condemned, present regulations would not allow rebuilding in another location.) She asked far further explanation. Craig Benedict said that it means that if a portion of the district is made non-functional and they will lose the rights they have of a portion of the land, that portion of the land would have to revert back to the use designation of the adjacent property. Craig Benedict said that this language would be reworded to make it clearer. Commissioner Gordon asked about item "D" on the same page and asked why expansion would be allowed. Craig Benedict said that this was in response to a concern to encourage the property owners to redo their building and this would provide an incentive for their potential conversion and adherence to the stricter regulations. Commissioner Gordon suggested using an additional square footage allowance as an incentive. She asked if the EC-5 was allowed by right and how it would be decided if the land was condemned whether or not there was an impact on adjacent properties. Craig Benedict said that the process for EC- 5 is that if the property owner wants to change the zoning district by purchasing additional property that notification would be given to the neighbors and the County Commissioners would approve through the regular rezoning process. Commissioner Brawn asked of the 113 EC-5 uses how many were operational and Craig Benedict did not know. He has received complaints on quite a few of these properties. Karen Barrows said that it feels that something has happened to bring this item forward. Craig Benedict said that the best way to address a regulatory change is to address it comprehensively instead of doing it for one or two people who have requested that this be reviewed for changes. He said that he has received requests from some of the owners of EC-5 properties to expand or change their business in some way. He said that right now there were not enough regulations in the code to direct what the future building should look like. He hopes to have some standards for some consistency. Karen Barrows clarified that Craig Benedict has received same inquiries from businesses and also some complaints from citizens and Craig Benedict verified this. Crauford Goodwin asked about the logic of this change and said that it seems that the concern is the taking of the right and compensating the property owner in some way. Craig Benedict said that the consequence would be that a neighbor would see that a business might move closer or adjacent to a person's property line. He said that the neighbor would receive a notification of any changes made.