HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_0829neighborhood would be affected by the business, known as "Quiet Waters" that had
prompted the recent decision. Mr. Mayfield said the non-profit, or business, had
advertised on its web site that it could house and feed 80+ guests. He mentioned public
safety and health concerns. He also mentioned concerns about property values
decreasing. Mayfield said the environmental health inspector, who designed the septic
system, said the facility was fashioned to accommodate 16 people (eight bedrooms).
Mayfield said "Quiet Waters" was actually a business, and it was advertising that it could
house large groups of people, prepare and serve them meals, and operate a training center
for them. He said the advertisement also said the guests would have use of the property's
grounds, along with the use of Lake Norman for boating, skiing, and swimming. Mr.
Mayfield said that not only were the residents near "Quiet Waters" being impacted by the
zoning decision, but over 50% of the lake -front property owners in the county would be
affected.
Thornton Brooks then spoke and asked the board to reexamine the decision. He
said that prior to the amendment, the retreat usage was permitted only "by right" in the
business districts zoned Residential Office (RO) through Community Business (CB) . He
said non-profit retreats were not classified in the residential or recreational use sections,
but they were listed for educational and institutional uses. Mr. Mayfield said he
understood the change occurred to assist or to allow a retreat located in the Northwest
Subdivision that was not in compliance with the RR regulations. He said that with the
change, the retreat would be acceptable to the county without requesting a zoning change
to one of the RO through CB classifications, or at the very least, a variance within the RR
zoning district. Mr. Brooks said he understood that variances were normally granted in
hardship cases, or as a last resort to correct errors that were not intentionally caused by
the applicants. Brooks said the owners of the retreat applied for permits in the RR zoning
as a single-family residence. He said that to the best of his knowledge, he wasn't aware of
any hardships in the situation. Mr. Brooks said the retreat owners had deed restrictions
that only permitted single-family residences.
Planning Supervisor Ron Smith said he agreed with Mayfield and Brooks. He
said, however, the amendment was not done just to appease one property owner, but that
it did correct a discrepancy in the ordinance. Smith said the planning department was
receiving numerous inquiries about the retreat, and his office was waiting to see what
type of site plans were submitted.
Commissioner Bowles asked if the retreat property was situated in two different
zoning designations.
Smith said it was in RA -Residential Agricultural and RR -Resort Residential.
Bowles said he recalled the zoning ordinance, before the amendment, didn't allow
any non-profit retreats in RR zoning. He said that at the May 7 meeting, it was stated this
was probably a text omission that needed to be corrected.
Smith agreed. He said that when the matter was being studied, he couldn't find a
reason for non -profits to be omitted from RR districts.
Commissioner Williams asked if the non-profit retreat was illegally located in the
RR district.
Smith said yes. He said building permits were issued for a house. Smith said that
once the proposed retreat was discovered, the staffbegan pursuing violation charges.
Commissioner Ray asked the retreat owner's explanation when the notice of
violation was given.
Smith said he felt the owner was not aware of what would be allowed in the RR
zoning.
Commissioner Ray asked how the retreat owner would be affected if the board of
commissioners changed or revised the amendment.