HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1291 (2)O
J, ILP 5 2006
highway. Additionally, a major industry owns property directly across the road, and
there are no immediately adjacent land uses that would seem to suffer a negative impact
by this expansion. The property is large enough to accommodate the expansion and
necessary parking while still maintaining a good natural buffer against adjacent
properties. Item D would be met by the applicant's plans to expand toward the rear of the
existing building. In summary, the location of this property lends itself well to an
expansion of this nature and staff therefore recommends in favor.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION: On August 2, 2006 the Planning Board voted 8-1 to
recommend in favor of this expansion request.
sus*s
John Regan announced that he and his wife, Lillian, along with property owner Becky
Carter, were available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned there was not a specific site plan, and he asked
Mr. Warren if the staff members were comfortable with the expansion request due to the nature
of the development.
Warren said this was correct, and adjoining property belonged to Davidson College and to
Ingersoll Rand. Mr. Warren said the site was a "good place for the modernization of an existing
property."
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice declared the hearing closed.
OTIO by Commissioner Johnson to approve the Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use
as requested by Applicants John & Lillian Regan for the Billy Lee & Rebecca Carter Property
(Bill's Anchor Grill).
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Request for Approval of Proposed Amendments to the Iredell County Zoning
Ordinance Article IV., NouConforming Situations; Article VII., Table of Special and
Permitted Uses; Article X, Off -Street Parking & Loading; & Article Xl., Signs: Deputy
Planning Director Steve Warren briefly reviewed the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned Article IV, and the recommendation that nonconforming
requests be acted upon by the board of adjustment rather than the planning board and
commissioners. He said applicants should have the privilege of establishing their cases not only
in a formal setting but also in a casual setting (at the site or in the neighborhood). Johnson said
the board of adjustment was a quasi-judicial body, and if a denial occurred, the applicant's only
recourse was through Superior Court. Mr. Johnson said it was his belief these types of requests
should be as "unintimidating" as possible, and they should not be cost prohibitive. He said the
process should be open and the commissioners accessible.
Another change suggested by Mr. Johnson pertained to Section 11.22 D. (Damaged or
Deteriorated Non -Conforming Signs) where applicants needed to provide three estimates.
Johnson said it was sometimes difficult to locate three bidders. He suggested for the amendment
to be written indicating the applicant would be required to provide estimates from three vendors,
or a minimum of two vendors with a list of the companies/individuals who were contacted for the
third estimate. (The planning staff could follow-up to insure the vendors had been contacted.)
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
OTIO by Commissioner Johnson to remand the proposed zoning ordinance amendments
back to the planning board with the two suggestions and for the planning board members/staff to
resubmit the amendments at their convenience.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.