Agenda - 09-05-2000-8q - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1~ 1 2 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 S3 (2) EC-5 Amendments Benedict made the presentation. The Existing Commercial District S Amendments were on the May 22, 2000 public hearing. This is an existing zoning designation that is in approximately 100 places throughout the County. These properties are small commercial properties that are not consistent with the master land use plan to allow commercial uses in all of those little areas. The intent of the ordinance is to allow some existing commercial uses to move contiguous to the property, out of the right-of--way that may be necessary due to condemnation, and continue with the use. The standards are noted on page 107 of the agenda abstract. If the district is to be amended, it cannot be increased in size more than 10%. The use, when it is moved, has to be the same primary use. Any new land that is added to the existing commercial would have to be deeded into one zoning lot. He said that since an EC-5 was not in one of the comprehensive plan activity nodes, in most cases it would be denied from this rezoning. This amendment would say that in the case of an EC-5, it does not necessarily have to conform with the comprehensive plan so there is still some sensitivity to surrounding uses in that area. He made reference to item'f and said that sometimes condemnation occurred in excess of what was contemplated in the comprehensive plan related to right-of--ways. He made reference to the Building Permit Process and said that this was something to make sure that the new use conformed to the standards. In summary, he said that if you did not have these regulations, no existing commercial use could ever survive a condemnation. He said that this was a liberalization of the rules to allow a very narrow scope of existing commercial uses to be able to continue in the future. Barrows made reference to the quarry use and asked if it could come and ask for 10% more. Benedict said that the quarry was not an existing commercial use but anon-conforming use. Goodwin said that he was concerned about the neighbors if the business had the automatic right to move closer. Benedict said that it was not an automatic right, but a legislative rezoning process. He said that wording could be added to address the neighbor's concerns. Strayhorn said that most of the properties in the EC-5 had been there long before most of the neighbors. He does not feel that a lot of extra wording should be added about the neighbors. He said that the business should be able to continue if it had been there for a couple of generations. Woods agrees with Strayhorn. He has same concerns with the Building Permit Process, specifically item'j'. He is not comfortable with limiting some gas stations with one driveway. He would also like to know what the transportation plan is. He is troubled that the sign could not be lit. Benedict made an amendment (the tape was turned at this point attd I didn't hear it). He said that the transportation plan was the access plan that was going to be submitted to NCDOT. Regarding the Lit signs, he said that the name of the store could be lit on the building. It is an issue of light pollution at night. Chair Allison asked about the building permit process on a building that has been in existence for a long time. Benedict said that in some cases, the building is going to have to be demolished. He said that any new buildings or equipment would have to meet new building permit standards. Several other questions were answered satisfactorily. The board agreed to change the Building Permit Process to allow for two driveways at a maximum of 26 feet or one driveway at a maximum of 38 feet. MOTION: Goodwin moved approval of the EC-5 Zoning Ordinance Amendment with the change in the Building Permit Process regarding the driveways. Seconded by Gooding-Ray. VOTE: Unanimous