HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1558 (2)Mike Smith (proponent) the Director of the Greater Statesville Development Corporation
stated he was trying to retain 20 jobs that currently existed in the county by advocating for the
request. He said a new distribution center would add to the county's tax base, and there were
limited industrial/commercial rail sites available.
Charley Lackey (opponent) said she owned 42 acres that joined the site. She asked if the
new business would increase or decrease her property's value.
Steve Issak mentioned a "battle" he had been experiencing with the Federal Railroad
Administration, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the Norfolk Southern
Railroad, because of the Alexander Railroad's lack of maintaining a crossing on West Front
Street. He said since January 2006, letters and e-mails had been sent to all of the agencies. Issak
recommended for the commissioners to be disinclined to provide any favors to the Alexander
Railroad due to the company's failure to maintain the property. He said his interest in the
rezoning case was merely due to Alexander Railroad's lack of concern for public safety.
Barbara Haves (opponent) voiced concerns about the lumber products and the possibility
of carcinogens. She asked about the tradeoff between the tax value of a new business versus
the residential depreciation. Hayes said the rail company had not been a good neighbor, and as a
matter of fact, the rail officials had indicated that they controlled the adjoining neighbors'
properties.
Beniamin Zachary (proponent — President of Alexander Railroad) said the crossing
referred to by Mr. Issak was owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad. He said Alexander Rail had
nothing to do with the crossing.
Issak said Alexander Rail used the crossing.
Zachary said Alexander's trains did not use the crossing. He said the company owned
and operated 18 miles of track between the old Carnation Milk Plant and Taylorsville. Zachary
said the track was built in 1887, and his company had operated since 1946. He said the company
carried common rail carload freight with 20 customers on the right-of-way of Hwy. 90, Monday
through Friday during daylight hours. Mr. Zachary said the company wasn't in the land
development business "per se" but occasionally investments were made in strategically located
parcels that might attract rail customers. He said the specific property was purchased in 1994
knowing that a rezoning would have to occur for an industrial/commercial use. Zachary said
Cardinal Forest Products had contacted him about the property.
Commissioner Williams asked about the 100 ft., and the rail setback required off the
property line.
Zachary said the 100 feet referred to the railroad right-of-way that was included in the
railroad's charter. He said there was really no setback, "per se."
Warren said there was a 30 -feet setback off the rear property line that was closest to Ms.
Clanton's property.
Commissioner Williams asked if the 100 ft. took the 30 ft. in consideration.
Warren said the 100 feet had to do with the railroad's right-of-way -- there couldn't be
any interference within the right-of-way. He said this was a private right -of- way. Warren said
across the frontage there was a 50 ft. building setback along Midway Road. He said within the
30 ft. buffer that adjoined the residential district, there also had to be a screening device (fence or
row of evergreen trees 90 percent opaque at least 6 ft. high). He said this would be reviewed at
the time the applicant requested zoning clearance/permits as a part of the site plan process.
Williams asked about the site plan.
Warren said an official submittal had not occurred.
Commissioner Robertson asked for further clarification on the 100 ft. right-of-way.