Agenda - 09-30-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

,it 3.$1 5 ' Joyce Garrett, ' attorney for Chandler Concrete Company, spoke stating that the purpose for the amendment to the LUP was the requirement imposed by DEM regarding runoff 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 facility. 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 requirements of DEM. Representatives from DEM were on 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 4 + acres with the intention of expansion, as well as environmental 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 environmental 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 ordinance. He noted that the County cannot anticipate an increase in the sales tax as there will be no expansion of the business. He expressed concern about the irresponsible action of the opposition in referencing that the Rhines' were "tricked" and that somehow he was involved. He noted that he did not buy the property from the Rhines, but was solicited by a subsequent owner of the property who approached him regarding its availability for purchase. He continued that he was not aware of the sequence of events leading up to the sale. He emphasized that the stated requirement that the property be used only for residential use was not part of the public record. He-continued that the deed does not show that the property came from the Rhine Estate. He continued that he felt it was important not to have the comment regarding being "tricked" linger in the Boards' mind. 4114* �. PD�4-85 CHANDLER_CONCRETE C gNy The presentation was made by Susan Smith. She informed the Boards that the screening and lot size requirements had not been satisfied, but continued that staff would recommend that the lot size requirements be modified under Section 7.3 given the nature of the request. She continued that staff had been in contact with DEM as of this morning and that DEM verified that a three pond system was required to satisfy their requirements; that a runoff control system in this location was necessary as an immediate measure to address runoff in this area; and that the proposed recycling system is a long term proposal to address the applicant's needs beyond the control of runoff. She noted that DEM had approved the submitted plans with the exception of a freeboard requirement which the applicant has subsequently indicated he will comply with. Thomas Chandler requested that all materials submitted for the Land Use Plan application be made part of the record on the rezoning request. He also requested that his written comments be made part of the record. The Board concurred. Chandler subsequently read the letter from Jon Harder. Phil Post, engineer for the applicant, spoke on the project and clarified that he would address what will happen to the runoff on the site and the nature of the materials in the ponds. He noted that the materials are not