HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_0554 (2)Attorney Bedford Cannon asked for the condition to be removed. He said the
property would be difficult to administer if a conditional use happened to be "pegged"
with the Town of Troutman. Cannon said the property would eventually be annexed to
the Town of Troutman anyway, due to water and sewer needs.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the owners were willing to accept Troutman's
conditions for the utilities.
Cannon said yes.
Milton McAllister said he owned 700 feet of property in front of the Wilco
Station. McAllister said he was against the Town of Troutman having anything to do
with his property.
John Pinyan said he, too, was an adjacent property owner, and he asked the
rezoning advantage for the people in the area. He also asked what types of businesses
would be allowed on the property, and how the intended uses would affect the adjacent
property owners' taxes.
Chairman Tice said the proposed uses, as shown on the staff report, were
restaurants, retail, hotel/motel, local and interstate related businesses. Mrs. Tice said
that if the adjacent property continued with the same zoning designation -- not
commercial, the value should remain the same.
No one desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
OTIO by Commissioner Johnson to grant the request from Residential
Agricultural to Highway Business and to delete the condition in regards to the
regulations by the Town of Troutman.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Note: The condition that was deleted from the request is as follows:
In addition to the Iredell County requirements, the properties will have to meet the zoning
regulations of the Town of Troutman. Between the two jurisdictions, the properties will
have to meet the most restrictive requirements of all applicable ordinances.
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Consideration of a Proposed Amendment to the Iredell County Subdivision
Ordinance Pertaining to Section 405.4 Marginal Access: County Planner Jackson
said that in October of 2004, the planning board and staff began working on an
amendment to the subdivision ordinance pertaining to access onto certain high traffic
roads. She said on January 5, 2005, the planning board unanimously recommended in
favor of an amendment. Jackson said it was hoped the amendment would assist with the
distribution of traffic in a manner that would avoid congestion, overcrowding, and create
conditions essential to the public's health, safety, and general welfare. She said the
amendment would only pertain to subdivisions that were on a minor rural collector road
or higher, or roads that had 5,000 or more trips per day. Jackson then showed a map of
the roads that currently qualified, and she said they were listed by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) as minor or higher collector roads. She said the function of minor
collector roads was to collect traffic from local roads and then to bring the traffic from
developed areas, within a reasonable distance, to a major collector road. Jackson said
minor roads also provided a service to communities and linked the local important traffic
generators with the rural outskirts. She said the roads not classified by the DOT, that
met the 5,000 trips per day were Murdock Road, Mazeppa Road, Linwood Road, and
Brawley School Road. Jackson said that if a subdivision were located along one of these
four roads, the lots would be prohibited from having direct access to the road. She said
the lots would have to be developed using a new roadway of some type, e.g., cul de sacs,