HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1560Zachary said the switch and spur would not cross the driveway.
Robertson said without a site plan the board actually didn't know what was being
approved. He asked if a right-of-way was being granted to the railroad over someone's property.
Zachary said not in his opinion. He said this situation had already occurred.
Robertson asked if the 100 ft. came into play with the spur.
Bryan and Zachary said it was just the main track.
Williams asked about safety, especially regarding children playing around the train cars.
He asked if a condition for a chain-link fence could be imposed.
Bryan said for the building's security this would be provided. He said the product was
removed from the rail cars as soon as possible, and nothing was left outside.
Johnson said the buffering between the residents and the property was a requirement of
the ordinance, but specifications could be added. He asked if this was a correct understanding.
Warren said latitude was in the text, and the applicant could use a fence, or evergreens, or
even a combination. He said this was within the purview of the board -- the ordinance addressed
only the minimum requirement (6 foot high fence or trees -- 90% opaque plus it would have to
be within the 30 ft. buffer).
Clanton said her drawing showed a 30 ft easement for a future driveway. She asked if the
spur and switch would make it inaccessible.
Issak said money had previously been spent for a Land Use Plan, and now the county was
casting it aside.
Chairman Norman asked Mr. Bryan to address Ms. Clanton's concerns.
Mr. Bryan said the company would try to be a good neighbor.
Chairman Norman asked if the company had any plans.
Bryan said no.
Chairman Norman adjourned the hearing.
Commissioner Williams said the following conditions needed to be incorporated into any
motions for approval:
(1) The rail spur would be no closer than 50 feet from the property line
(2) There would be a chain link fence across the property line (opaque fence along the
eastside of the property)
Commissioner Tice said the applicant had to agree to the conditions prior to a vote.
Commissioner Robertson said the board wanted to help local businesses and the railroad
company, but the property was purchased knowing the spur would have to be up near a
residential area. He said there was a level of discomfort on his part about the rezoning.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Zachary if a 50 ft setback for the spur off the property
fine was workable.
Zachary said it would be workable 50 ft. off the property line -- after it left the railroad's
100 ft. right-of-way.
Williams said the curve would be within the railroad's right-of-way.