HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0836 (2)391
benefit from. I think the location is good. I think it is very important that that
location be on the East side of that peninsula rather than on the West side. The East
side is the one that you related to, the interstate, has the exposure there. It also has
quite a bit of built-in protection from ether lands in the area. So I think that it is
important that it does be on the East side rather than on the West side.
So I do net have those concerns with the plan as far as the overall proposal is
concerned. But -+ghat I do have, as Mr. Kennerly has already alluded to vaguely, I do have
problems as a planner to the uncertain future of the use of this property.
Thirty-one acres is a large parcel of land, particularly land that is situated as
this is. If you look at, as you already heard and Mr. Boyer has referred to, some of the
uses that are permitted in the highway/business district, I would even find some potential
concern about the use under which the Robert E. Lee would have to come. That particular
(not clear) . . . allowed under highway/business is bowling alleys, skating rinks,
baseball and golf driving ranges, miniature and (not clear) golf course, mechanical rides,
riding stables, go-cart tracks, and other commercial recreation facilities. Other
commerical recreation facilities is a broad category, so if all this property would be
zoned to highway/business district, there are a lot of protential uses that I see there
that could cause some problems, not only to Snyco's propeprties, but to the area as a
whole, and to the image and to the vitality that is being generated in this area around
the lake.
I think we are all justifiably proud of some of the things that are happening around
,.. the lake, some of which we are not as proud of as others. But it is a viable area, and it
does deserve some protection.
That problem that I would see also is not just the use that could be locateded there,
but it deals also a little bit with the design of that use. There arc some uses that
perhaps given proper site planning, proper type of initiation as far as desirable features
of planning for the site itself and for the facility itself, could be very beneficial.
But the same use, if not carefully located on the grounds, could also be a nuisance and
some problem to the area. As I have already indicated, the uses that are allowed under
the highway/busiess are many and varied.
Finally I would have two suggestions for you, as a planner and as a consultant to
Synco in evaluating this area for them and also from my long standing as a party involved
in land use matters in this general area.
The first suggestion obviously would be to zone only the small portion of land that
has been requested for the specific use, to which we would express no opposition. That is
one possibility.
The other possibility is one which I would like to point out to you. As you are very
well aware, your own ordinance does contain obviously the opportunity to control the use
of land through a conditional use district approach. Let me, if I may, if you will
indulge me for a second, tet me read to you from the purpose of that district. It says,
"The purpose of this section is to provide a volunteer or alternative procedure for the
rezoning of property for a specific use.
There are instances where a general, that is a conventional zoning district
designation, is clearly inappropriate for a certain property, but a specific use subject to
restrictive condition wuld be consistent with the spirit and objecti,,es of this ordinance.
Furthermore some land uses have a particular impact on the surrounding area that cannot be
-- predetermined and controlled by general regulations. In order to insure that these uses
and the proposal (not clear) would be compatible with the surrounding dely^lopment (not
clear, reading from the county's zoning ordinance) . . . .
So I would submit to you that that would also be a possibility for application here.
If we have a little more certainty, a little more knowledge, of what was going in there,
it might be perfectly okay. But as it is, I see it as something wide open and very much
subject to misuse and even abuse in certain circumstances.
So I would say to you that on behalf of my client, we would say rezone,
yes, perhaps, but void in some method the uncertainty and the potential imcompatability of
some of the uses that could go on that property.
TALLEY: Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Jim Talley, and I am a
lawyer in Charlotte. My firm has been general cunsel to Snyco since its incpetion in
1971 and the Lake Norman Company since its inception in 1976 or 77.
0