Agenda - 04-17-2001-9f - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

24 the task force has been discussing the possibility of linkage fees for non-residential development to contribute to affordable housing. 4 Lawson Brown pointed out the area occupied by Chandler Concrete on the map. There are 5.81 acres 5 including the part in the street right-of--way. There is also a substantial part that is in the railroad right-of- 6 way. This area could not be built on in the future. He said that there was a very narrow strip of land that has 7 been used for a concrete plant since 1973. Chandler Concrete has had the property for 15 years. He 8 introduced Tom Chandler, President and Ted Chandler, Vice President who were present to answer any 9 questions. He said that Chandler Concrete was not in the position to expand or to replace the facility. He 10 said that Chandler Concrete sees the rezoning as a taking away of their property rights. He said that it 11 appears that this rezoning is a fast track move on behalf of the Planning staff. He stil I does not understand l2 the deletion of the residential area across the street from the rezoning. He said that Chandler Concrete could l3 not be seen from NC 86 or the interstate and if the purpose of the rezoning was to beautify the entrance to 14 Hillsborough, then Chandler Concrete should be exempt. IS I6 Preston asked Davis about the current special use permit and if Chandler Concrete would be restricted from 17 expanding in the current situation. Davis said that a rezoning with a special use permit was different than a 18 regular special use permit. Existing now is a planned development zoning where the property was rezoned 19 and a special use permit was tied to the rezoning with conditions. 20 _ 2l Lawson Brown said that he feels that the rezoning would jeopardize the current special use permit. 22 23 Freston said that Chandler Concrete was a good neighbor. She said that it would make sense to leave the 24 concrete plant out of the rezoning. She said that she understood that the high-speed rail would be going 25 through this area. 26 27 Schofield verified that the board could defer this to next month. This item-will go the Commissioners' 28 meeting on March 20`h, so there is time to consider this at the next Planning Board meeting. 29 30 Schofield said that he believes that it is the intention of Chandler Concrete that, given the existing use of the 31 property and the existing restrictions on the property via the special use permit, nothing that they are doing or 32 will do in the future will in any way be incompatible or inconsistent with the goals of Orange County with 33 the rezoning. He thinks Chandler Concrete should not be included in the rezoning because there is no net 34 gain or net loss. Lawson Brown concurred with this. 35 36 Woods asked, of the 46.8 acres, how many was Chandler Concrete. Lawson Brown said 5.81, of which 37 almost half is located in the railroad right-of--way. 38 39 Woods asked Tam Chandler what was done with the polluted water. Tom Chandler said that there were 40 three sediment ponds behind the fenced area to the east. The water goes through the sediment ponds and is 41 pumped back in to wash the trucks and put back into the concrete. 42 43 Woods asked if the State has cited Chandler Concrete with any violations of standards. Tom Chandler, 44 Chairman of Chandler Concrete, said that they have not been cited since 1986 when they expanded the plant 45 and got the additional property for the ponds. 46 47 Woods asked for the parcel identification numbers. Davis answered that the parcel identification number 48 was 9873-87-3644. 49 SO Strayhorn said that there was no financial impact associated with this and he does not agree with the 51 rezoning. 52