Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1454 (2)Planning Board Recommendation: On February 7, 2007 the Planning Board voted 11-0 to recommend denial for both the land use plan amendment and the rezoning request. Reso—c�s hat! :iwntected Warren said that if the request were approved, the accessory building would' 'be in compliance. with the building setback, for -an HB District. He said this would also take care of the nonconforming status of the original business and allow the applicant to expand on the roughly two acres, or half of the property, that couldn't be utilized at the present. Warren said if the request were denied, there would be an outstanding violation with respect to the accessory building and the staff would have to pursue this through code enforcement and legal channels. Commissioner Johnson clarified that the current violations were the accessory building and the dirt on the property's eastside towards the south. Warren said this was correct and the dirt could be spread out and used as fill. He said it was the dirt piling that caused compaction resulting in the watershed ordinance violation. He said the applicant had taken care of the mulch piles. Commissioner Johnson said that when the business was first located at the site, it was covered under the land use plan as agricultural. He said with the county's population increase, a greater demand for landscaping businesses occurred, and this was why a separate category was incorporated into the land use plan. Warren said this was correct but the question was whether or not a commercial district was appropriate for this location and the businesses' size. Chairman Norman said he understood that when the permit was issued in 2003, everything was in order. Warren said it was allowed as a farm type use at that time. Patsy Bass (opposition) said she and her mother, Wilma Price, were against the request because (1) the business was causing severe erosion problems on their property (2) children had to use a bus stop near the site and large trucks entering and existing the property made the area unsafe (3) there was a wrecked vehicle on top of a concrete slab and (4) the owner had not moved the dirt mounds. Additionally, Bass said the business wasn't growing, and part of the time it was closed. Rodney Brown (advocate) said he was a landscaper and there was a need for a landscaping supply business in the area. He said the back portion of the property could be improved if the rezoning were approved. Junetta Dlugokecki (opposition) said she had safety concerns for the 11 children due to the large dump trucks at the property. She said the owner had clear-cut the property and there was exposed telephone cable. Dlugokecki said the owner had done nothing to bring the property into compliance. Vic Crouch (advocate} said he was the store manager and many property improvements had occurred. He said other than the accessory building, nothing was out of compliance. Commissioner Johnson asked what had been done to mitigate the erosion problem. Crouch said the Department of Environment and Natural Resources had suggested spreading mulch for ground covering. He said the water in the front ditch did not originate from the business. Johnson asked if any filling had been placed in the ditch. Crouch said no, it would be too dangerous, and it was also state property.