STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONERS
) STOKES COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COUNTY OF STOKES ) DANBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
) OCTOBER 4, 2005
The Board of Commissioners of the County of Stokes, State of North
Carolina, met in regular session (Planning) in the Council Chambers of the
Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Building (Administrative Building), located in
Danbury, North Carolina, on Tuesday, October 4, 2005 at 7:00 pm with the
following members present:
Chairman
John Turpin
Vice-Chairman
Leon Inman
Commissioner Joe Turpin
Commissioner
Jimmy Walker
Commissioner
Sandy McHugh (absent)
County
Personnel in Attendance:
County
Manager Richard Morris
Clerk
to the Board Darlene Bullins
Sheriff
Mike Joyce
Stokes
County Schools
Dr.
Larry Cartner – Superintendent
Mr.
Ty Boles – Chairman – Board of Education
Chairman John Turpin called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Walker delivered the invocation.
GENERAL
GOVERNMENT-GOVERNING BODY-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman John Turpin opened the meeting by inviting the citizens in
attendance to join the Board with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman John Turpin called the Public
Hearing for the following zoning issues and zoning text amendment to order:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST – ALLTEL
COMMUNICATIONS –
(150 ft. Telecommunication Tower)
The following spoke during the Public
Hearing:
Mr.
Bill Howard
Development Agent
Alltel Communications
(Ms. Amy Schott – Alltel Communications and
Mr. Billy Ashburn – land owner also signed up to speak, but requested the Board
allow their time to be given to Mr. Howard to speak- Chairman John Turpin
allowed Mr. Howard to use the additional time)
Mr. Howard presented the Board a brief
summary of the proposed project –150 ft. Telecommunication Tower to increase
Alltel communication in the southwest section of Stokes County along Highway
66. Mr. Howard did request a waiver of
the landscaping requirements due to a heavy buffer of vegetation already on the
site and a second waiver on the total tower capacity – 4 carriers due to the
150 ft. monopole.
REZONING REQUEST – SARAH RIDDLE
RA
to RE-CU for a 3-lot residential subdivision
The following spoke during the Public
Hearing:
Mr.
Monty Nelson
1126 Ralph Boyles Road
King, NC
27021
Re:
Opposition to the Rezoning
Mr. Nelson expressed the following concerns
opposing the rezoning request:
·
Originally bought the large tract of land
(9-acres) six months ago
- Was
told at the time of purchase that the large tracts of land adjoining their
property would have only one house per tract
- Should
have been advised at the time of purchase
Ms.
Kathy Nelson
1126 Ralph Boyles Road
King, NC
27021
Re:
Opposition to the Rezoning
Ms. Nelson expressed the following concerns
opposing the rezoning request:
·
Confirmed and agreed with comments of Mr.
Monty Nelson
- Concerned
over being misled about the tracts being divided
Mr.
Ivan Johnson
438 Anderson Road
Siloam, NC
27047
Re: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Johnson explained that the intentions
were to placed 6 units on 30 acres and that the individuals had not been
misled. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Sandra Johnson and Ms. Sarah Riddle who had
signed up to speak did not wish to speak at this time.
REZONING REQUEST – E. AKERS STEELE
RA to M-1CU for a Machine, Welding and
Equipment Repair Shop
Mr.
E Akers Steele
1160 Steele Road
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Steele expressed the following concerns
in support of the rezoning request:
·
Outgrown current facility
- Request
opportunity to build shop on his land
- Need
for the business in the community
Mr.
Mark Steele
1215 Steele Road
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Opposition to the Rezoning
Mr. Steele expressed the following concerns
in opposition of the rezoning request:
·
Easement is in view of historic farmhouse
and restored log cabin
- Commercial
traffic in the neighborhood
- Noise
in the neighborhood
- Possible
water runoff from proposed garage
- Easement
granted in good faith by his father for access for land-farming only- not
commercial use
- Better
location in business zoned areas
Ms.
Mattie Barney
191 Kinlock Street
Winston Salem, NC
RE: Opposition to the Rezoning
Ms. Barney expressed the following concerns
in opposition of the rezoning request:
·
Not a good location for business
·
Easement originally given for personal use
·
Business will not create any future jobs
Mr. Bo Dodson
PO Box 248
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Dodson expressed the following concerns
in support of the rezoning request:
·
Business will be a good asset for the
community
·
Need for this type of business in the
community
Mr.
Lynwood Shelton
1643 NC 770 HWY
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Shelton expressed the following
concerns in support of the rezoning request:
·
Should be allowed to build a shop on his
own property
- Benefit
to the Sandy Ridge Community
- Benefit
to Stokes County
Mr.
David Ferguson
1450 Amostown Road
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Ferguson expressed the following
concerns in support of the rezoning request:
·
Mr. Steele currently maintains all the
equipment for Ferguson Lumber Co.
·
Benefit for community
·
Asset for the County
Ms.
Marlene Smith
1778 Franklin Moore Road
Madison, NC 27046
RE: Opposition to the Rezoning
Ms. Smith expressed the following concerns
in opposition of the rezoning request:
·
Original easement given in 1981
·
In 1996, Ms. Sybil Steele gave Mr. Akers
Steele 5 additional easement ft. to move the easement. Ms. Steele paid for
surveying, graveling, and piping to connect to Steele Road
·
Easement given specially for
residential-agricultural use not for commercial use
·
Commercial zoning would place a burden on
the easement
·
Business does not fit the surroundings
Mr.
Roy Steele Jr.
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Opposition to the Rezoning
Mr. Steele expressed the following concerns
in opposition of the rezoning request:
·
Does not oppose Mr. Steele having a garage,
opposes the location of the garage
·
Not suitable location for a garage
·
Better location in the commercial district
Mr.
Sidney Fritz
1205 Brim Road
Madison, NC 27025
RE: Opposition of Rezoning
Mr. Fritz expressed the following concerns
in opposition of the rezoning request:
·
Not opposed to Mr. Steele having a garage
in Sandy Ridge, but very interested
to setting a
precedent in zoning small acreage tracts to M-1
·
M-1 should be large tracts of land
- Spot
zoning will impact the adjoining areas
- Need
commercial growth in specific areas
- Need
commercial growth on major highways
- Sandy
Ridge area is a growing area and zoning issues should not be taken likely
Mr.
Mike Carter
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Carter expressed the following concerns
in support of the rezoning request:
·
Need for the business in the area
- Mr.
Steele will keep the road up if he says he will
Mr.
Mickey Flinchum
1030 Steele Acres Road
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Flinchum expressed the following
concerns in support of the rezoning request:
·
Respectful citizen in Sandy Ridge
- Can’t
afford a big tract land on major highway
- Their
land – they should be able to build a shop if they want to
Mr.
Robert Stephens
1576 Doug Stanley Road
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
RE: Support of Rezoning
Mr. Stephens expressed the following
concerns in support of the rezoning request:
·
Need for this type of business in the area
- Benefit
the County
- Good
People – they do what they say they are going to do
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Add Mini Storage Warehouse
Amend Article VIII, Section 91 Light Manufacturing
There were no public comments.
Chairman John Turpin closed the Public
Hearing.
Special Use Permit Request
Alltel
# 171
(150ft. Telecommunication Tower)
Planning Director David Sudderth presented
the Special use Permit Request for the construction of a 150 ft.
telecommunication tower – Applicant:
Alltel Communications Inc;
Site Owner: Billy J. Ashburn.
REQUEST: Alltel is
requesting a Special Use permit for the construction of a 150 ft.
telecommunication tower.
SITE OWNER: Billy J. Ashburn
APPLICANT: Alltel Communications Inc.
INITIAL
SERVICE PROVIDER: Alltel Communications Inc.
SITE LOCATION: The property is located on William Fowler Rd. near
the intersection of William Fowler Rd. and Tom Gordon
Rd.
Map: 690302
Parcel: 0393 PIN #: 6903-02-66-2381
Deed
Book: 530 Page: 1601 Township: Yadkin
SITE INFORMATION:
PARCEL
SIZE: Total tract 8.768 acres
PROPOSED LEASE LOT: .23
acres, 10,000 sq. ft. (100 ft. x 100 ft.)
PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT: 150
FT. (155’ to top appurtenance)
PROPOSED TOWER TYPE: Monopole
tower located within a 60 ft. x 60 ft. fenced equipment compound.
CAPACITY: (4)
Antennae arrays
ZONING
DISTRICT: RA (Residential Agricultural)
FLOOD
HAZARD AREA: Not located in flood hazard area.
FIRM
MAP #: 370362 0125B
FIRM
MAP ZONE: Zone X - Area outside 500-year floodplain.
WATERSHED
DISTRICT: WS-IV, Yadkin
River –King intake
EMERGENCY
SERVICES: Sauratown VFD, EMS - Station # 3 Pinnacle.
ACCESS: Access for the
site will be from a 20 ft. access easement beginning at William Fowler Rd. (SR#
1133) and terminating at the leased area. The easement is incorporated entirely
within the Ashburn property.
STAFF
COMMENTS: The proposed site meets the requirements as set forth in appendix B of
the zoning ordinance. The Center for Municipal Solutions has given us a letter
of approval stating that the applicants have fulfilled the technical
requirements of the ordinance. A staff review of the application and site
concur with this recommendation. The zoning requirements for issuing a special
use permit are:
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning Board recommended the approval of the Special Use permit request by
Alltel Communications for a 150 ft. Telecommunication tower by a vote of 8 to
0.
136.1 Intent of Special Use District
The development and execution of this
Ordinance is based upon the division of the County’s jurisdiction into
districts where the use of the land and buildings and structures in relation to
the land are substantially uniform. It is understood that certain uses which because
of their unique characteristics, are not easily classified into any particular
zoning district or districts. In this situation, individual consideration for
each case must be taken to determine the impact of those uses upon
surrounding land and the public need for
that particular use in that specific location. In these situations, a special
use permit must be obtained.
BOARD ACTION REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING FOR ISSUING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The Board must respond and vote on each of
the following items concerning the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
Planning Director Sudderth requested the
Board’s approval for the following conditional use permit requirements:
In granting a special use, the responsible
body shall insure:
136.8 Action by the Responsible Body
The responsible body shall approve,
modify, or deny the application for special use following the public
hearing. In granting a special use, the
responsible body shall insure:
(a) The requested use is listed among the special
uses in the district for which application is made. (4-0) Commissioner McHugh
absent
(b) The requested use is essential or desirable
to the public convenience or welfare. (4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(c) The requested use will not impair the
integrity or character of the surrounding or adjoining districts, nor be
detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare. (4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(d) Due
consideration has been given to the suitability of the property for the use
applied for with respect to trends of growth or change; the effect of the
proposed use upon the community; requirements for transportation, schools,
parks, playgrounds, recreational area, conservation of natural resources,
preservation of floodplains, and encouraging the most appropriate use of the
land.
(4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(e) Adequate
utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation and/or other necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
(4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(f) That adequate measures have been or will
be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets. (4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
136.9 Conditions and Guarantees
Prior
to the granting of any special use, the Planning Board may recommend, and the
responsible body may stipulate, such conditions and restrictions upon the
establishment, location, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the
special use as it deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest
and to secure compliance with the standards and requirements specified in
Subsection 136.5 above. In all cases in
which special uses are granted, the responsible body shall require such
evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions
stipulated are being met. Conditions
may include, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Conditions may be imposed to abate or
restrict noise, smoke, dust, or other elements that may affect surrounding
properties.
(b) Establish setback, side, front, and rear yard
requirements necessary for orderly expansion and to prevent traffic congestion.
c) Provide adjoining property with a buffer
or shield from view of the proposed use if necessary.
(d) Establish a time limit at expiration of
which the permit or approval shall no longer be valid, or shall require
renewal.
Planning Director
Sudderth noted that there had been no opposition to the rezoning request and
that The Center for Municipal Solutions (County’s Cell Tower Consultant) had
submitted a letter of recommendation for the approval of the application. Planning Director Sudderth also requested
the approval of waiving of the buffer and the number of antennae
arrays
requirements.
Chairman John Turpin entertained a motion
to approve the Special Use Permit for the construction of a 150 ft.
telecommunication tower with waiving the buffer and the number of antennae
arrays requirements.
Commissioner Joe Turpin moved to approve
the Special Use Permit for the construction of a 150 ft telecommunication tower
with waiving the buffer and the number of arrays antennae requirements.
Vice Chairman Inman seconded and the motion
carried (4-0) with Commissioner McHugh absent.
SARAH
RIDDLE
RA to RE-CU # 169
Planning Director David Sudderth presented
the request to rezone approximately 12.67 acres from RA (Residential
Agricultural) to RE-CU (Residential Exclusive Conditional Use) for a 3-lot
residential subdivision.
ice Chairman Inman requested to abstain
from voting or participating in discussion on Rezoning Request #169 at
tonight’s Planning and Community Development Meeting of the Stokes County Board
of Commissioners as the rezoning involves Carolina Farms Real Estate, in which I have a financial interest
as a real estate broker.
To: Darlene
Bullins
To: Clerk to the Board, Stokes County
Board of Commissioners
From: Leon Inman
Vice Chairman, Stokes County Board of
Commissioners
Date: October 4, 2005
RE: Voting Conflict (Section 8, Code of
Ethics for Stokes County Commissioners)
I request to abstain from voting on
Rezoning Request #169 at tonight's Planning & Community Development Meeting
of the Stokes County Board of Commissioners as it involves Carolina Farms Real
Estate, in which I have a financial interest as a real estate broker.
Chairman John Turpin entertained a motion
to allow Vice Chairman Leon Inman to abstain from voting or participation in
discussion on Rezoning Request #169.
Commissioner Joe Turpin moved to approve
the motion to allow Vice Chairman Leon Inman to abstain from voting or
participation in discussion on Rezoning Request #169.
Commissioner Walker seconded and the motion
carried (3-0) with Vice Chairman Inman properly abstaining from the vote and
Commissioner McHugh absent. (Vice
Chairman removed himself to the audience)
REQUEST: Rezone approximately 12.67 acres from RA
(Residential Agricultural) to RE-CU (Residential Exclusive Conditional Use) for
a 3-lot residential subdivision.
SITE OWNER: Arnold Ivan Johnson Estate
APPLICANT: Sarah Riddle
SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Denny
Rd. (SR#2000) approximately .2 miles north of the intersection of Denny Rd. and
Mountain View Ch. Rd.
Map: 6913 Parcel: 8475 PIN #: 6913-01-39-8475
Deed Book: 133 Page: 385 Township: Yadkin
SITE INFORMATION:
PARCEL SIZE: Total tract 12.67 acres
ZONING
DISTRICT: RA (Residential Agricultural)
PROPOSED
DISTRICT: RE-CU (Residential Restricted Conditional
Use) for a 3-lot subdivision.
FLOOD
HAZARD AREA: Not located in flood hazard area.
FIRM
MAP #: 370362 0125 B
FIRM
MAP ZONE: Zone X - Area outside 500-year floodplain.
WATERSHED
DISTRICT: N/A
SEPTIC/WATER
APPROVAL: The site has been
reviewed and was found to be provisionally suitable for septic disposal by Kim
Sutton, RS. Individual septic permits will have to be
issued by the Stokes County Health Dept. (Environmental Health Section).
SCHOOL
DISTRICTS: Mt. Olive Elementary, Chestnut Grove
Middle, West Stokes High
EMERGENCY
SERVICES: Sauratown VFD, EMS - Station # 3 – Pinnacle
EROSION
CONTROL: Plan submittal will only be required if
more than one acre of land is disturbed during the construction process.
ACCESS: Access for
proposed lots would be off of Denny Rd. (SR# 2000). The developer would be
required to submit information to NCDOT to obtain the necessary subdivision
driveway approval. There is a 25 ft. access easement that serves the property
of Ira Tucker.
SURROUNDING
LAND USE:
The subject property is currently vacant. The
surrounding property is zoned RA (Residential Agricultural) and is used for residential
and agricultural purposes. The primary housing type along Denny Rd. is a
mixture of stick-built homes, and manufactured housing. This proposal of
single-family dwellings would consistent with the current housing in the area.
ISSUES
TO CONSIDER:
·
Consistency with surrounding housing types.
·
Housing compatibility with surrounding
neighborhood.
·
Impact on existing community
infrastructure, schools, roads, public services etc.
STAFF
COMMENTS:
This rezoning request comes to the Board as a request
for a conditional use rezoning for a 3-lot residential subdivision to be
rezoned to
RE –CU (Residential Exclusive) that would
allow stick built, and modular homes. The Board may discuss the development
plan in detail. The addition of stick-built homes in this area is consistent
with the mixed uses on the surrounding property and should not pose a
substantial burden on the community infrastructure. The subdivision review
committee will have to review the subdivision proposal on its technical merits
if approved by the Board.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Board recommended the approval
of the rezoning request from RA to RE-CU by Sarah Riddle for a 3-lot
residential subdivision by a vote of 6 to 2. The Planning Board recommended by
a vote of 8 to 0 to recommend the following conditions concerning the request.
Recommended
Conditions for Sarah Riddle RE-CU #169
- Adequate
storm water facilities shall be provided for each lot, including the
placement of a fifteen (15) inch reinforced concrete drain tile under each
driveway.
2. All
required permits must be obtained from the County Inspections Department prior to placing
structures on the property, as well as any signage that may accompany the
project.
3. Each
dwelling unit shall also have a visible lot number in a numbering scheme
approved by the County to facilitate rapid emergency response (E- 911).
4. If
conflict arises between any conditions or the developer’s proposed site plan
or written text, the most stringent
conditions or requirements shall be considered the governing requirement.
- All
costs and expenses associated with complying with these conditions shall
be borne by the landowner/developer, with no expense being borne by the
County.
- Upon
written request by the County, evidence of compliance with any of these
conditions shall be provided to the County within ten (10) days after each
request.
- The
Rules and Regulations of the Developer, as modified by the developer at
the prior hearing (s) on this request, shall not be inconsistent with
these conditions. Any conflict
between said Rules and Regulations shall be resolved in favor of these
conditions.
- If
any of the conditions shall be found to be unreasonable, invalid or
otherwise impermissible by a court of competent jurisdiction then the
County may impose such alternative reasonable conditions as it finds to be
necessary and appropriate.
- If
any of these conditions are not met or complied with or the permit has not
been exercised in or before one (1) year from the granting of the permit,
the permit shall become void and of no effect.
- If
any of these conditions once met are not continuously maintained, the
permit may be revoked by the County upon the failure of the
owner/developer to cure the deficiency in any specific condition within
thirty (30) days after written notice to the owner/developer of the
specific failed condition.
- The
lots approved shall not be further subdivided.
- The
Conditional Use permit will expire one (1) year after approval is received
from the Board of Commissioners. If no work on infrastructure improvement
has begun within this time frame, the Conditional Use permit will expire.
The Planning Department shall determine if substantial work or progress
has been made to allow continuance of the project.
- The
landowner shall advise the buyers of lots 1 & 3 of the existing 25 ft.
easement and their rights concerning its use.
- Or
any other condition that the Boards may deem necessary at the time the
project is approved.
The
responsible body shall approve, modify, or deny the application for use
following the public hearing. In
granting a conditional use, the responsible body shall insure:
(a) The requested use is listed among the
conditional uses in the district for which application is made.
(b) The requested use is essential or desirable
to the public convenience or welfare.
(c) The requested use will not impair the
integrity or character of the surrounding or adjoining districts, nor be
detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare.
(d) Due consideration has been given to the
suitability of the property for the use applied for with respect to trends of
growth or change; the effect of the proposed use upon the community;
requirements for transportation, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational
area, conservation of natural resources, preservation of floodplains, and
encouraging the most appropriate use of the land.
(e) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage,
sanitation and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided.
(f)
That adequate measures have been or will be
taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
Planning Director Sudderth stated that the
rezoning request had used all the options of minor subdivisions and had to
request major subdivision rezoning regulations. Director Sudderth explained that there had been another couple
that opposed the rezoning and a few other inquiries.
The Board discussed the impact on the area
schools, minor and major subdivision zoning regulations, precedent setting, and
the original zoning of property.
Chairman John
Turpin entertained a motion to accept or deny the request to rezone approximately 12.67
acres from RA (Residential Agricultural) to RE-CU (Residential Exclusive
Conditional Use) for a 3-lot residential subdivision.
Commissioner Joe Turpin moved to deny the request to rezone approximately 12.67
acres from RA (Residential Agricultural) to RE-CU (Residential Exclusive
Conditional Use) for a 3-lot residential subdivision.
Chairman John
Turpin seconded and the motion carried (2-1) with Vice Chairman Inman properly
abstaining from the vote, Commissioner Walker voting against the motion, and
Commissioner McHugh absent.
Vice Chairman Inman returned to his seat on
the Board.
E. AKERS STEELE
RA to M-1-CU #
170
Planning Director David Sudderth presented
the request to rezone approximately 2.78 acres from RA (Residential
Agricultural) to M-1-CU (Light Manufacturing Conditional Use) for a “Machine,
Welding, and Equipment Repair Shop ”.
REQUEST: Rezone approximately 2.78 acres from RA
(Residential Agricultural) to
M-1-CU (Light Manufacturing Conditional Use)
for a “Machine, Welding, and Equipment Repair Shop ”.
SITE OWNER: Akers Steele
APPLICANT: Akers Steele
SITE LOCATION: The property is located on Steele Farm Rd.
approximately .3 mile south of the intersection with Steele Rd.
(SR#1649)
Map:
6969 Parcel:
portion of 7014 PIN #: 6969-00-99-7014
Deed
Book: 360 Pages: 2150
Township: Snow Creek
SITE INFORMATION:
PARCEL
SIZE: Total tract 2.78 acres out of 23.3 acres.
ZONING
DISTRICT: RA (Residential Agricultural)
PROPOSED
DISTRICT: M-1CU (Light Manufacturing Conditional Use)
FLOOD
HAZARD AREA: N/A.
FIRM
MAP #: 370362 0050B
FIRM
MAP ZONE: Property is
located in Zone X, area determined to be outside
the 500-year floodplain.
WATERSHED DISTRICT: N/A
SEPTIC/WATER
APPROVAL: Stokes County
Environmental Health section.
SCHOOL
DISTRICTS: N/A
EMERGENCY
SERVICES: Northeast Stokes VFD, EMS -
Station # 2 Lawsonville.
EROSION
CONTROL: When construction begins, if necessary.
ACCESS:
The proposed business will have driveway access off of
Steele Farm Rd. and Steele Rd. (SR# 1649) (NCDOT must approve a commercial
driveway permit).
SURROUNDING
LAND USE:
The subject property is located on Steele Farm Rd., a
private road located off of Steele Rd. (SR# 1649). The proposed site is located
approximately .3 mile from the intersection of Steele Farm Rd. and Steele Rd.
The surrounding land use consists of a singlewide mobile home adjacent to the site.
This home is owned by the applicant’s son and is used for rental property. The
remaining surrounding property is vacant, agricultural or forested land.
ISSUES
TO CONSIDER:
·
Impact on existing and future surrounding
development.
·
Impact on community infrastructure, roads,
public services etc.
·
Use of an easement as access to a
commercial site.
·
Need of services provided.
·
Potential tax base increase due to
commercial development.
STAFF
COMMENTS:
The rezoning request comes to the Board as a
conditional use rezoning; you may discuss the development plan of the proposed
“Machine, Welding, and Equipment Repair Shop” in detail. Steele Farm Rd. is a
private road running off of Steele Rd. (SR# 1649). The road is .6 mile in
length and has a soil gravel roadbed. The road currently serves one singlewide
mobile home. There is a pond near the end of the road and an abandoned mobile
home and a vacant house along with some agricultural buildings at the end of
the road. The first part of Steele Farm Rd. that comes off of Steele Rd. goes
through the property of Sybil Martin Steele. This parcel of land is currently
undeveloped. Mr. Steele’s son owns all of the property below the proposed
rezoning site along the remainder of Steele Farm Rd. The easement of record, a
thirty - (30) ft. easement was recorded 11/20/96 in Deed book 394, Page 1854.
This easement was originally twenty-five – (25) ft. in width and was recorded
on 09/03/81 in Deed Book 270, Pages 690-693. There appears to be no
restrictions on the use of the easement. The easement would have to be extended
to serve the proposed site. The site is well buffered from residences on Steele
Rd., however the proposed site would be adjacent to the existing mobile home.
The closest commercial districts are located about one mile away located on NC
Hwy 704. Colonial Funeral Home, just recently approved and Oscar Wood’s garage
are the two closest zoned businesses. The main concern of the Planning Staff is
access to the site. The Board should pay close attention to the potential of
the surrounding property in making their decision and the adequacy of the
easement access. The rezoning of
property to be served by an easement has been approved in the past, Wesley
Hawkins, (October 03, June 95), Ronald Collins, (October 97), Eddie G. Mabe,
(May 97), Joe James, (April 97), Junior Duncan, (December 94), and Sheldon
Dotson, (April 90). The pattern of mixed development is common throughout the
county where residential and commercial activities are interspersed along a
road. The conditional use aspect of the request would allow the Board the
opportunity and ability to regulate the proposed uses and any potential uses on
the property, as well as the ability to address any environmental or
neighborhood concerns that might arise if the proposal is approved.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning Board recommended the approval of the rezoning request from RA to
M-1-CU by Akers Steele for a Machine, Welding, and Equipment Repair Shop by a
vote of 8 to 0. The Planning Board voted 8 to 0 to recommend the following
conditions concerning the request.
The Board discussed the comments from those
who opposed and supported the rezoning requests, location of the garage, the
easement, type and amount of equipment serviced, recommended conditions, current
buffer being used, and usage of the road.
Director Sudderth noted that there had been
negative and positive calls concerning the rezoning request and other
commercial districts nearby.
Chairman John
Turpin entertained a motion to accept or deny the request to rezone approximately
2.78 acres from RA (Residential Agricultural) to M-1-CU (Light Manufacturing
Conditional Use) for a “Machine, Welding, and Equipment Repair Shop ”.
Commissioner Joe Turpin moved to approve
the request to rezone approximately
2.78 acres from RA (Residential Agricultural) to M-1-CU (Light Manufacturing Conditional Use) for a “Machine,
Welding, and Equipment Repair Shop ”.
Vice Chairman
Inman seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with Commissioner McHugh absent.
Director Sudderth read the following
recommended conditions which Mr. Akers Steele had agreed to.
Recommended Conditions for Akers
Steele M-1CU #170
1. NCDOT
must approve a commercial driveway access for the site coming off Steele Rd.
2. Applicant
shall adhere to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
3. If
any of these conditions are not met or compiled with or the permit has not been
exercised in or before one (1) year from the granting of the permit, the permit
shall become void and of no effect.
4. All
required permits must be obtained from the County Inspections Department prior
to placing structures on the property, as well as any signage that may
accompany the project.
5. Any
structure shall post a visible lot number in a numbering scheme approved by the
County to facilitate rapid emergency response (E- 911).
6. If
conflict arises between any conditions or the developer’s proposed site plan or
written text, the most stringent conditions or requirements shall be considered
the governing requirement.
7. All
costs and expenses associated with complying with these conditions shall be
borne by the landowner/developer, with no expense being borne by the County.
8. Upon
written request by the County, evidence of compliance with any of these
conditions shall be provided to the County within ten (10) days after each
request.
9. If
any of the conditions shall be found to be unreasonable, invalid or otherwise
impermissible by a court of competent jurisdiction then the County may impose
such alternative reasonable conditions as it finds to be necessary and
appropriate.
10. If
any of these conditions once met are not continuously maintained, the permit
may be revoked by the County upon the failure of the owner/developer to cure
the deficiency in any specific condition within thirty (30) days after written
notice to the owner/developer of the specific failed condition.
11. Maintain
the access easement in a manner that will be sufficient to handle the equipment
that will utilize the road and limit dust as much as is feasible.
12. Plant
a tree buffer along the outside edge of the easement along Steele Farm Rd.
continuing on with the existing tree buffer.
13. Or
any other condition that the Boards may deem necessary at the time the
project is approved.
BOARD ACTION REQUIREMENT
The
Board must respond and vote on each of the following items.
Planning Director Sudderth
requested the Board’s approval for the following:
The
responsible body shall approve, modify, or deny the application for use
following the public hearing. In granting
a conditional use, the responsible body shall insure:
(a) The requested use is listed among the
conditional uses in the district for which application is made. (4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(b) The requested use is essential or desirable
to the public convenience or welfare.
(4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(c) The requested use will not impair the
integrity or character of the surrounding or adjoining districts, nor be
detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare. (4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(d) Due
consideration has been given to the suitability of the property for the use
applied for with respect to trends of growth or change; the effect of the
proposed use upon the community; requirements for transportation, schools,
parks, playgrounds, recreational area, conservation of natural resources,
preservation of floodplains, and encouraging the most appropriate use of the
land. (4-0) Commissioner
McHugh absent
(e) Adequate
utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation and/or other necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
(4-0) Commissioner McHugh absent
(g) That
adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so
designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (4-0)
Commissioner McHugh absent
Section 133.
Conditions and Guarantees
Prior to the
granting of any conditional use, the Planning Board may recommend, and the
responsible body (either the Governing Body or the Board of Adjustment) may
stipulate, such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location,
reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the conditional use as it deemed
necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance
with the standards and requirements specified in Subsection 132.5 above. In all cases in which conditional uses are
granted, the responsible body shall require such evidence and guarantees as it
may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated are being met. Conditions may include, but not limited to,
the following:
(a) Conditions may be imposed to abate or
restrict noise, smoke, dust, or other elements that may affect surrounding
properties.
(b) Establish setback, side, front, and rear
yard requirements necessary for orderly expansion and to prevent traffic
congestion.
(c) Provide adjoining property with a buffer or
shield from view of the proposed use if necessary.
(d) Establish
a time limit at expiration of which the permit or approval shall no longer be
valid, or shall require renewal.
Section 134. General
Provisions in Granting Conditional Use
134.1
Compliance
with Other Codes
Granting a conditional use does not
exempt applicant from complying with all of the requirements of other
ordinances.
134.2
Revocation
In any case where the conditions of
a conditional use have not been or are not being met, the Enforcement Officer
shall give the grantee notice of intention to revoke approval. Said notice
shall be at least ten (10) days prior to action by the responsible body
considering conditional uses.
134.3
Expiration
In any case where a conditional use
has not been exercised within the time limit set by the responsible body, or
within one (1) year if no specific time limit has been set, then without
further action, the approval shall be null and void. “Exercised” as set forth in this Section shall mean that binding
contracts for the construction of the main building have been let; or in the
absence of contracts that the main building is under construction to a
substantial degree; or that prerequisite conditions involving substantial
investment are constructed in a substantial stage of development, or completed
(sewage, drainage, etc.). When
construction is not a part of the use, “exercised” shall mean that the use in
operation is in compliance with the conditions which are set forth in the
approval.
The Board discussed the Planning
Board recommended conditions for Akers Steele -
M-1CU
#170.
Director
Sudderth requested clarification of items #11 and #12.
The
Board discussed clarification of items #11 and #12.
Director
Sudderth also questioned Mr. Mark Steele, adjoining property owner, and Mr.
Akers Steele-applicant concerning items #11 and item #12, which outlines the
tree buffer and the current road. Mr.
Steele responded that Ms. Steele had already spent $7,000 on the current
easement and that the tree buffer should be a decent size to conform with the
existing
tree buffer. Mr. Akers Steele responded
that he would maintain at least the same or better condition of the current
road.
Chairman
John Turpin entertained a motion to approve the planning board recommendations
with the following amendments to #11 and #12:
#11. Maintain at the current level or better the access easement in a
manner that
will be sufficient to handle the equipment that will
utilize the road and limit
dust as much as is
feasible.
#12. Plant and maintain a tree buffer of Leyland Cypress along the
outside edge of
the easement along
Steele Farm Road continuing on with the existing
tree buffer located on
the (northeast side).
Commissioner
Joe Turpin moved to approve the planning board recommendations with the
following amendments to #11 and #12:
#11. Maintain at the current level or better the access easement in a
manner that
will be sufficient to handle the
equipment that will utilize the road and limit
dust as much as is feasible
#12. Plant and maintain a tree buffer of Leyland
Cypress along the outside edge of
the easement along Steele Farm Road
continuing on with the existing
tree buffer located on
the (northeast side)
Vice
Chairman Inman seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with Commissioner McHugh
absent.
ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENTS
Add
Mini-Storage Warehouse
(Amend
Article VIII, Section 91-Light Manufacturing)
Planning
Director Sudderth requested to amend the zoning text to add “Mini-Storage
Warehouses” with the following requirements. (Planning Director noted that when
the zoning was created in 1980’s-mini storage warehouses did not exist)
The
following section will be required to be amended:
Amend Stokes County Zoning
Ordinance Article VIII, Section 91 (Light Manufacturing), Sub-Section 91.2
(Conditional Uses) to read as follows:
Mini-Storage Warehouses
1) The
maximum height of building (s) shall be twenty (20) feet.
2) No
outside storage shall be permitted.
3) Storage
of hazardous, toxic, or explosive substances shall be prohibited.
4) No
business activity other than the rental of storage units shall be conducted on
the premises
These requirements are the same
as stipulated in the H-B (Highway Business -zoning district). The addition of
mini-storage warehouses would be consistent with the warehousing currently
allowed in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Board recommended by a vote of
8 to 0 to approve the text amendment.
The Board discussed item#2 in detail, which
does not allow outside storage.
Chairman John Turpin entertained
a motion to amend Stokes County Zoning Ordinance Article VIII, Section 91
(Light Manufacturing), Sub-Section 91.2
(Conditional Uses) to read as
follows:
Mini-Storage Warehouses
1. The maximum height of building (s) shall be twenty (20) feet.
2. Outside
storage shall be limited to non-commercial RV’s and Watercraft
3. Storage
of hazardous, toxic, or explosive substances shall be prohibited.
4. No
business activity other than the rental of storage units shall be conducted on
the premises
Vice Chairman Inman moved to
amend Stokes County Zoning Ordinance Article VIII,
Section 91 (Light Manufacturing), Sub-Section 91.2 (Conditional Uses) to read
as follows:
Mini-Storage Warehouses
1. The maximum height of building (s) shall be twenty (20) feet.
2. Outside
storage shall be limited to non-commercial RV’s and Watercraft
3. Storage
of hazardous, toxic, or explosive substances shall be prohibited.
4. No
business activity other than the rental of storage units shall be conducted on
the premises
Commissioner
Joe Turpin seconded and the motion carried (4-0) with
Commissioner
McHugh absent.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
There
were no public comments
GENERAL GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY –
PROPOSED SRO POSITION
AT MEADOWBROOK
The Board continued the discussion
regarding the proposed SRO position at Meadowbrook. Dr. Larry Cartner-Superintendent, Mr. Ty Boles-Chairman of the
Board of Education, and Sheriff Mike Joyce were also in attendance for the
agenda item.
Dr. Cartner presented Board members with a
packet containing the following:
·
SRO Talking Points for proposed SRO
position
·
Meadowbrook enrollment
·
Additional uses for a SRO at Meadowbrook
·
Returning Auxiliary Expenses To County
Budget
·
School Resource Officer (SRO) Summary –
June 2005
·
Meadowbrook Alternate School- Discipline
Notes
·
Disciplinary Data Collection – School
Summary
(a copy of the
packet will be retained in the Clerk’s Office)
Dr. Cartner presented a brief overview of
the items in the packet.
Dr. Cartner stated the following concerns
regarding the proposed SRO position at Meadowbrook:
·
Had consulted with City of King- King
Police could not dedicate
one officer –
Board of Education desired to have one officer at the school
·
Funds are available in the school budget
for the position (2005/06)
·
Intention of the General Assembly is that
every high school have an SRO- Meadowbrook is counted as a high school
·
It is an issue of proactively providing
safety measures for our most challenged student population and the employees
who serve them
·
SRO position at Meadowbrook was included in
proposed 05/06 school budget, but was not funded by the County
·
Faculty consist of 7 teachers, 2 assistant
teachers, 2 counselors,
1
administrator and 1 secretary
·
Approximately 40 students
·
Not an issue of numbers –issue of need for
the most challenged students and a need of responsibility to place a SRO at
Meadowbrook
·
Auxiliary Expenses paid by the Board of
Education that should be paid by the county
Mr. Boles stated the following concerns
regarding the proposed SRO position at
Meadowbrook:
·
Need for SRO at Meadowbrook
·
Responsibility to place an SRO at
Meadowbrook
·
Board of Education unanimously supports the
placement of an SRO at Meadowbrook, the vote passed 3-2 for the SRO position
(the two voting against the motion was due to the motion being for a full time
position and not a part time position
·
Reiterated that this is not a numbers game-
it is a need
·
All schools are equipped with quality
personnel and equipment- all schools are treated fairly
·
Loss of faculty due to not having an SRO at
Meadowbrook
The Board discussed why the urgent need for
a SRO at Meadowbrook at this time, discipline notes for Meadowbrook Alternate
School, number of other alternate schools who currently have School Resource
Officers, budgeting for the SRO now and for future budgets, and placing a
current officer from another school where the need is not as great.
Sheriff Mike Joyce stated that his opinion
of placing an SRO at Meadowbrook was the same as it was during budget time;
however, the Board of Education has made the decision to place an SRO at
Meadowbrook and the Sheriff’s Department is willing to help out with equipment
and a vehicle. Amended contracts would
have to be worked out between the Board of Education and the Board of
Commissioners. Sheriff Joyce also
reported the following regarding the number of incidents at Meadowbrook during
the last two years:
·
4 charges this year (2 for using profanity
and 2 for fighting on the bus)
·
21 calls last year (15 of the 21 calls were
for some type of assistance from law enforcement such as service of papers;
assistance with a vehicle wreck; assistance requested from school personnel;
disorderly conduct, disturbance, sexual offense, juvenile problems, etc.
Dr. Cartner expressed his appreciation to
Sheriff Joyce for his willing to help out with the equipment and the vehicle.
Chairman John Turpin entertained a motion
to accept or deny the request for a SRO position at Meadowbrook. There was no response.
Chairman John Turpin requested County
Manager Rick Morris to speak with the City of King regarding the possibility of
sharing the cost of a SRO at Meadowbrook and report back to the Board at the
October 10th meeting.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY – OLD
SAFE LOCATED AT
OLD COURTHOUSE
Chairman John Turpin presented information
from Mr. Charles H. Farlow, President
of Stokes County Historical Society supporting the view of the Historic
Society that the old safe should remain in the historic courthouse and
information from Support Services Supervisor Danny Stovall estimating the cost
of removal to be $1000.
Dr. Cartner stated that he would like to
respectfully withdraw his request to move the safe out of the old courthouse
building due to the amount of attention given to the historic value of the
safe. Dr. Cartner did suggest that the
historic society place some type of plaque for public viewing. Dr. Cartner did express to the Board
maintenance issues at the
facility-one being the fire alarm
system.
County Manager Morris noted that the issue
of the fire alarm system would be investigated immediately.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY – JOINT
MEETING WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION
Chairman John Turpin stated that the Board
of Education had requested a joint meeting on Monday, October 24, 2005 at 4:00
pm (School Administration Board Room-Old Courthouse) for a presentation of the
demographic study by Operations Research/Education Laboratory (OR/Ed Lab).
Vice Chairman Inman moved to approve the
joint meeting on Monday, October 24, 2005 at 4:00 pm (School Administration
Board Room-Old Courthouse) for a presentation of the demographic study by
Operations Research/Education Laboratory (OR/Ed Lab).
Commissioner Walker seconded and the motion
carried (4-0) with Commissioner McHugh absent.
GENERAL
GOVERNMENT – GOVERNING BODY – 2005/06 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Vice Chairman Inman questioned whether the
2005/06 budget would be discussed at tonight’s meeting as indicated at the last
meeting.
Vice Chairman Inman suggested that the
discussion (due to the meeting lasting longer tonight than anticipated) should
be either at the next meeting or at a separate meeting.
Commissioner Walker stated that he would
prefer a separate work session.
Commissioner Walker also stated that he had
received a lot of comments from citizens requesting additional work to be done
on the budget and felt an obligation to at least give a good faith effort, say
what needs to be done, do as much as
we can, and then say that it's over for
this year.
Chairman John Turpin requested that the
Board try to discuss the budget issues at the next meeting, if not enough time
available, then possibly consider scheduling a separate meeting.
Commissioner Joe Turpin requested
clarification whether the County tax rate could be reduced before December
2005.
There being no further business to come
before the Board, Chairman John Turpin entertained a motion to adjourn the
meeting.
Commissioner Walker moved to adjourn the
meeting.
Commissioner Joe Turpin seconded and the
motion carried (4-0) with Commissioner McHugh absent.
_________________________
_____________________________
Darlene
M. Bullins John M. Turpin
Clerk
to the Board Chairman