HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_0798conflict with the County Land Use Plan, and the Planning Board unanimously
recommended approval.
Commissioner Robertson asked why the rezoning was called a Non -Owner Request.
Commissioner Johnson said it was because someone who did not actually own the
property was petitioning for the rezoning.
Commissioner Tice asked what the minimum percentage requirement was to approve the
request, and Commissioner Johnson said he believed there needed to be an 801/6 approval
percentage. Johnson said he recalled that the lowest percentage ever approved was
around 73%.
Commissioner Williams asked what type of dwellings were on the four properties that
did not sign the petition, and Mr. Warren stated he believed they were Single — Family
Dwellings. He said the applicants tried to contact the four owners, plus notifications
were sent by the planning staff, but the property owners never responded. He said the
staff had to assume they were indifferent or in favor of the request.
Mr. Williams asked if there was any opposition at the Planning Board Meeting, and
Mr. Warren said no one voiced any objections.
REZONING REQUEST; DONALD A. GOFORTH PROPERTY, CASE NO.
0506-3 FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO GENERAL BUSINESS
ZONING DISTRICT; LOCATION: 1,052 FEET NORTH OF FLOWER HOUSE
LOOP ADJACENT TO 1-77 IN TROUTMAN, NC: Planning Supervisor Steve
Warren stated that in 2002, Mr. Donald Goforth had a parcel of land adjacent to this
rezoning request rezoned to General Business with conditions. He said the property was
currently vacant, and the owner intented to obtain approval from Troutman to petition for
annexation. He said the Town of Troutman would require the applicants to construct a
road from Hwy. 115 to provide access for the property and surrounding areas. Mr.
Warren said the staff felt it would be appropriate to place the same conditions on the
property as were on the parcel in 2002, but Mr. Bryan (realtor) felt his options with the
property would be increased if no conditions were imposed because the Town of
Troutman would have conditions for the site. Mr. Warren said the Town had already
required the owner to have an 80 ft. right-of-way from 115 into the property. Mr. Warren
said the staff presented the request to the planning board with the same conditions that
were listed in the Exit 42 Plan. He said the planning board felt the Town of Troutman
would make certain that those conditions were met. Warren said the planning board
recommended unanimously in favor of the request without any conditions.
Commissioner Johnson said he didn't think the applicants had a problem with the
conditions and the Town of Troutman would make certain everything was in order when
annexation occurred. He said that if the applicant agreed with the Town's terms, then he
didn't see a problem approving the request.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IREDELL COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE; SR14 — SWIMMING POOLS AND SECTION 18.6, DEFINITION —
SWIMMING POOLS: Planning Supervisor Steve Warren said this amendment was a
replacement of a provision in the Iredell County Zoning Ordinance which currently
required a 10 ft minimum distance between the edge of a building to the edge of a pool.
He said there didn't seem to be a reason to retain the stipulation and the county's
ordinance needed to he consistent with the North Carolina State Building Code. Warren
said the building code indicated the distance could be more or less depending upon the
infrastructure of the pool. Mr. Warren stated that the rest of the section relating to pools
and exterior setbacks and fencing were the same or consistent. He said the amendment
also had a definition for swimming pools that would be included in the ordinance.
Mr. Warren said the amendment came about because contractors did not have enough
room on waterfront lots to place a pool with a 50 ft buffer that was required along the
water and a 10 ft setback between structures. He said the staff had researched the
requirement and could find no compelling reason for keeping this as a standard setback as
opposed to the North Carolina State Building Code requirement. He said there were no