122 hamby road surry county dobson, nc 27017 (336) 401 ... meeting minutes.pdf · 122 hamby road...

REGULAR MEETING

January 11, 2018

PRESENT: Tony Childs – Chairman; Frank Beals; Freddy Hiatt; Grey Casstevens; Jon Tucker; Corey Easter

ABSENT: David Caudle; Sean Heath

OTHERS PRESENT: Kim Bates, Planning Director; Aldrea Rife, Administrative

Assistant; Steve Hiatt; Chad Lewis

MINUTES Chairman Childs called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Chairman Childs called the roll. Chairman Childs requested approval of the December 11, 2017, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review the Minutes of the December 11, 2017, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Casstevens, seconded by Mr. Beals. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Childs asked for nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Mr. Hiatt stated he would like to see Mr. Childs continue to serve in his current position as Chairman for another year. The Board agreed. Chairman Childs stated he had spoken to Mr. Caudle about taking the position of Vice-Chairman and he had agreed. Mr. Tucker motioned to nominate David Caudle as Vice-Chairman; seconded by Chairman Childs. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS (S)

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD

122 Hamby Road Dobson, NC 27017 (336) 401-8300 FAX (336) 401-8354

2

Docket # ZCR1174 – Chad Lewis Owner: Chad Lewis Tax Parcel ID# 5938-00-74-8111 Parcel Size: 1.33 Current Zoning: RA Proposed Zoning: CB Long Hill Township Reason Given: Business Staff Representative: Kim Bates Mr. Bates stated the proposal is to reclassify a 1.33-acre parcel for community business purposes. The property has an existing commercial structure and parking designed for nonresidential use; most recently has been used as an auto repair/body shop. Mr. Bates stated the owner was notified by certified mail of the application to rezone. The request is consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff recommends adoption. Mr. Hiatt asked if we had received any phone calls. Mr. Bates stated he had spoken with a neighbor and he was in approval. The applicant has a contract to buy the property contingent on approval of this rezoning. Chad Lewis came forward and stated that the current owner operated a garage on the property for several years. He plans to purchase the property and rent it to an interested individual that wants to use the building for the storage of carports. The carports will be loaded onto trucks for delivery from this location. Chairman Childs asked if this is a reasonable type of business for this property. Mr. Bates stated yes, rezoning to CB (Community Business) will allow this type of business. There are other businesses located near this property. Mr. Lewis asked for a list of uses that the property could be used for in the CB (Community Business) district. Chairman Childs asked if anyone had any further questions. No one had any further questions.

3

Mr. Beals motioned to recommend approval of zoning amendment petition ZCR1174 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID# 5938-00-74-8111 from RA (Rural Agricultural) to CB (Community Business) based on the fact that the request meets the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of this petition will 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the CB district is to accommodate retail, service, and related businesses that are usually clustered together and cater to the immediate community; 4) approval will not alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5) the proposal is in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Hiatt. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Mr. Bates stated the applicant is Surry County Administration and the proposal is to amend the Surry County Zoning Ordinance text to ensure safe land use and development practices in the vicinity of the publicly-owned airports of the County. Mr. Bates stated there is a weather station located near the Mount Airy/Surry County airport that extends out into private property. This new provision of the Ordinance would ensure that the land around it within a 500-foot radius be kept clear. Mr. Bates stated the second amendment addresses solar farms located near airports. This new provision of the Ordinance would prohibit solar farms being located within 5 miles of an existing airport. Chairman Childs stated he believed this would be a good safety measure and was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Bates stated it would go before a public hearing in February and no action was needed tonight. ___________________________________________________________________ SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW Ingleside Phase 6, Lots 28 & 30 (Final) – This is a two-lot subdivision located on an existing 50-foot easement titled Ingleside Way, off of Simmons Grove Church Road (SR 1836). The property does not fall within a watershed area. The property

4

has gained Environmental Health approval. This subdivision as a whole received preliminary approval at the August 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. Staff recommends final approval if the Board is satisfied with lot design and layout. Surveyor: Steve Hiatt Owner: Ingleside Development, LLC 2-lots; 2.58-acres Zoning: RR-C South Westfield Township Ingleside Phase 8, Lot 35 (Final) – This is a one-lot subdivision located on an existing 50-foot easement titled Ingleside Way, off of Simmons Grove Church Road (SR 1836). The property does not fall within a watershed area. The property has gained Environmental Health approval. This subdivision as a whole received preliminary approval at the August 13, 2007, Planning Board meeting. Staff recommends final approval if the Board is satisfied with lot design and layout. Surveyor: Steve Hiatt Owner: Ingleside, LLC 1-lot; 1.46-acres Zoning: RR-C South Westfield Township Steve Hiatt addressed the Board stating this is a continuation of the previous lots that have been approved. They have received all necessary approvals and there are no problems with erosion control. Mr. Tucker motioned to recommend final approval; seconded by Mr. Casstevens. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ MEMBERS DISCUSSION MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS Mr. Bates stated that from November 27th until December 22nd there were two minor subdivisions approved resulting in two new lots.

5

__________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Beals motioned for adjournment at 6:37 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Casstevens. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted

_________________________ Aldrea Rife, Administrative Asst.

REGULAR MEETING

February 12, 2018

PRESENT: Tony Childs – Chairman; David Caudle – Vice-Chairman; Frank Beals; Freddy Hiatt; Greg Casstevens; Jon Tucker

ABSENT: Corey Easter; Sean Heath


Assistant; Jerry Atkins; Pam Land; Sam Luster; Michael Hall; Bob Balsdon; Lynn Balsdon

MINUTES Chairman Childs called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Chairman Childs called the roll. Chairman Childs requested approval of the January 11, 2018, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review the Minutes of the January 11, 2018, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Hiatt. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS (S) Docket # ZCR1175 – YOCO, Inc. Owner: Blake Rector & Robert Johnson Tax Parcel ID# 4954-03-11-0405; 4954-03-11-0247 Parcel Size: 1.08 Current Zoning: RR Proposed Zoning: HB Elkin Township Reason Given: Business Staff Representative: Kim Bates

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD


2

Mr. Bates stated the proposal is to reclassify two (2) contiguous parcels, having existing lot boundaries and totaling 1.08 acres for highway business purposes. Owner also owns contiguous property along the highway already zoned for business. Mr. Bates clarified that Mr. Gary York has chosen not to purchase the property but is still proposing the rezoning on behalf of the property owners. He spoke to the owner’s real estate agent Robert Ball who vouched for the owner being aware of the rezoning. This property adjoins nearby business property and the original intent was to combine all three (3) properties for business use. Mr. Bates stated that he has spoken with some of the neighbors and they feel this property is a good buffer for the residential areas. Chairman Childs asked about the Community Activity Center that is referenced in the Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Bates referenced the Land Use Plan and read the Purpose of a Community Activity Center: The purpose of the Community Activity Centers class is to provide for clustered, mixed land uses to help meet the shopping, employment, and other needs of rural communities within the County. Areas meeting the intent of the Community Activity Centers class are presently developed at low densities, which are suitable for private septic tank use. These areas are clustered non-residential land uses which provide both low intensity shopping and retail opportunities and provide a local social sense of a community. These communities are generally small and are not incorporated. Very limited municipal type services such as fire protection and community water may be available, but municipal type sewer systems may not be provided as a catalyst for future development. In some unusual cases sewer systems may be possible, but only to correct an existing or projected public health hazard. The Community Activity Centers class applies to clustered low intensity development in a rural landscape. This development is usually associated with crossroads locations in counties. Chairman Childs asked that anyone representing this request please come forward. Jerry Atkins came forward and passed out an aerial photo of the property to the Board. Mr. Atkins stated he works for Gary York and is representing this request. Originally Mr. York had the property under contract to buy. The current owner Mr. Rector owns three (3) lots, one (1) is zoned HB (Highway Business) the other two (2) are zoned

3

RR (Restricted Residential). He was wanting all three (3) lots to be zoned the same for business. There is currently a car lot on the property that adjoins this lot and there is a business across the road. Mr. York decided not to buy the property because it was not suitable for what he had planned. The owners still want the property rezoned so they can sell it. Mr. York agreed to proceed with the request on their behalf. Mr. Tucker asked what was on the property prior to this request. Mr. Atkins stated he wasn’t sure but he thought there was a small storage building on the property. He stated there is a drop off located in the rear of the property and that is one reason they decided to opt out of buying it. Mr. Beals asked if Mr. York owned any of the parcels. Mr. Atkins stated no, the parcels are owned by Mr. Rector and Mr. Johnson and they felt it would be easier to sell if all three (3) parcels were zoned the same. Since Mr. York had started the rezoning process he informed the owners that he would follow thru with it even though he had opted not to buy. Chairman Childs asked Mr. Bates if he had spoken with the property owners. Mr. Bates stated no, but he had spoken with the real estate agent and he confirmed that the owners were aware of the rezoning process. Chairman Childs asked if anyone else would like to speak for or against this rezoning request. Pam Land came forward and stated she owns property that adjoins the property in question. She is in opposition of this rezoning request because she feels it will impact her quality of life if it is rezoned for business. The property is not suitable for a building due to the topography of the area and she would like to see it remain residential. She stated the property in behind these two (2) lots have future plans for a community park. Bob Balsdon came forward and stated he lives at the end of Thornecliffe Drive. He moved there in 2000 and the developers of the property had a vision for that area to include a community swimming pool and park area to be enjoyed by all the homes located in that development. There are lots of children that live in this development and he is in opposition of this rezoning request. He is concerned with not knowing what is proposed for this property.

4

Sam Luster came forward and stated he lives in this development and is in opposition of this rezoning request. He feels it will impose a risk to property values and an environmental risk if a gas station were to be installed. He is concerned about the future plans for the property and what could be placed on it if it were rezoned to business use. Michael Hall came forward and stated he lives in this development and is in opposition of this rezoning request. He is concerned for the children that live there and the possibility of a business moving in. He feels it would not be positive for the community. Mr. Atkins clarified that Mr. York is no longer interested in buying this property and he no longer owns gas stations. He now owns a billboard company and that was his initial interest in this property, however with the slope of the land and setbacks from the right-of-way it was not a good location for a billboard. Mr. Tucker stated that if the property is rezoned it opens the door for a lot of things and after hearing testimony from the neighbors, he doesn’t feel that it’s in harmony with the area. There is no representation here tonight from the owners or what their plans are for the property if it is rezoned. He stated he feels the zoning should remain residential. Mr. Beals stated he lives in that neighborhood and feels that the owners should have been present tonight to represent this request. Mr. Casstevens stated he would like to see a future plan for what is intended on this property. Mr. Tucker motioned to recommend denial of zoning amendment petition ZCR1175 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID# 4954-03-11-0405 & 4954-03-11-0247 from RR (Restricted Residential) to HB (Highway Business) based on the fact that the request does not meet the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of this petition will not 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is not permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the HB district is to accommodate the development of retail, service, and related businesses which are located along, and have direct access to major roadways throughout the county; 4) approval will alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5)

5

the proposal is not in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Casstevens. All present were in favor except Mr. Beals who abstained from voting. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ MEMBERS DISCUSSION MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS Mr. Bates stated that from December 28th until January 26th there were four minor subdivisions approved resulting in four new lots. LAND USE PLAN Mr. Bates stated this Thursday will be the next Land Use committee meeting at 6:30 p.m. He passed out the results from a recent survey that was conducted online. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Childs stated that he had spoken with Mr. Bates about putting together some information on cell towers and co-locations. Mr. Bates passed out the info to the Board. The Board discussed options for denying cell tower requests and how most cell tower companies can do a co-location onto an existing tower instead of building a brand new one. __________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Beals motioned for adjournment at 7:04 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Caudle. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted


REGULAR MEETING

April 9, 2018

PRESENT: Tony Childs – Chairman; David Caudle – Vice-Chairman; Frank Beals; Freddy Hiatt; Corey Easter; Jon Tucker

ABSENT: Greg Casstevens


Assistant; Jesse Day; Jody Phillips; Tom Reeves; Doug Reeves

MINUTES Chairman Childs called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Chairman Childs called the roll. Chairman Childs requested approval of the February 12, 2018, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review the Minutes of the February 12, 2018, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Hiatt, seconded by Mr. Tucker. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS (S) Docket # ZCR1176 – Smith-Rowe LLC Owner: IDR LLC Tax Parcel ID# 5948-00-17-3367, 5948-00-17-5245, 5948-00-17-6338 Parcel Size: 3.63 Current Zoning: RA Proposed Zoning: MI Mount Airy Township Reason Given: Industrial Staff Representative: Kim Bates

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD


2

Mr. Bates stated the proposal is to reclassify three small contiguous parcels totaling 3.63 acres and adjoining a larger property under same ownership and with existing and active industrial zoning and use, for industrial purposes supporting/expanding the adjoining use. The subject property would be cleared of existing residential improvements to make room for the proposed expansion. Mr. Bates stated to the east and south, the land adjoins a 44.59-acre property zoned MI and in existing industrial use as a contractor’s office and open equipment storage yard. The existing land uses on the property consist of unoccupied dwellings and residential improvements would be removed for the proposed industrial use. The property is served by a Private Well and Septic. Mr. Bates stated the following Consistency Principles: US 52/Holly Springs Church Road Interchange – This interchange area has excellent potential for industrial type development based on the existence of multiple industrial sites, including the Mount Airy-Surry County Airport and the existence of public water and sewer. The large area designated for industrial development in this area is partially based on highest and best use of parcels in the area as well as the future need of the airport. Specifically, planned future land uses in the vicinity of any airport must be of a non-residential nature to ensure future support of the airport on the state and federal levels. Listed below are recommendations on various improvements regarding future development and transportation strategies. Infrastructure – Water: Available along Holly Springs, a portion of Old 52, and Airport Road. Sewer: Available to SE quadrant and Airport Road, Future Development and Transportation Strategies: Upgrade Holly Springs Church Road to a three-lane road from US 52 to Reeves Mill Road. Upgrade Old US 52 from I-74 to Holly Springs Church Road to a three-lane road. Encourage additional buffering/screening on property lines adjacent to parcels used or zoned for residential purposes. Install traffic safety measures at US 52 northbound-southbound ramps/Holly Springs Church Road intersection (deceleration lanes, stoplights). Area to accommodate Heavy Commercial and Industrial development. Mr. Bates stated that staff recommends adoption. The property adjoins a larger property with existing industrial use. Residential uses would be buffered largely by existing woods; remaining boundaries subject to required buffering and/or screening on the property for any industrial use proposed if rezoned. Chairman Childs asked if anyone had any questions for Mr. Bates.

3

Mr. Beals asked about the buffers. Mr. Bates stated the rezoned property would require buffers that abut residential lots if approved. Mr. Beals asked if we had received any phone calls. Mr. Bates stated yes, they are in attendance tonight. Chairman Childs asked that anyone wishing to speak concerning this request please come forward. Doug Reeves came forward and stated that he lives across the road from the property in question and he has lived in Holly Springs most of his life. He feels that the lack of zoning laws has allowed farm land to be rezoned for business. He hates what has happened to the quiet community. If the property is rezoned it will affect his quality of life, loss of scenic beauty, and property value. He presented pictures to the board of what the adjoining property currently looks like where Smith Rowe operates their business and he doesn’t want this property to look the same way. He mentioned the bright lights that stay on all night and the fence around the property that makes it unpleasant. He is in opposition of this rezoning request. Tom Reeves came forward and stated that he lives at 578 Old US 52S, across from the property in question and he is concerned with how this rezoning will affect his property taxes and the value of his land. He is in opposition of this rezoning request. Jody Phillips came forward and stated he is representing IDR LLC , which is the owner of the property. They want to be a good neighbor to the community. When they acquired the property there were 3 homes on the combined parcels. One home caught on fire and needs to be torn down, the second property was going to be restored and used as a rental property but the cost was too high, the third home needed repair as well and will be torn down. There is a barn on the property that will be maintained and all the large trees will stay. He would like to plant some trees to buffer the property along Old US 52. There will not be a lot of activity on these parcels, it will be used as a gravel area to park their overflow on. No lights will be installed on these parcels. They have owned the property where they run their current business since 1983 and there are several other businesses located along this road.

4

Mr. Phillips stated they will not be storing anything on these parcels therefor no fencing will be installed. They will not be creating any noise, or building additional structures. Mr. Beals asked the nature of his business. Mr. Phillips stated they build roads and bridges and install water and sewer lines. He stated they will spend approximately $50,000 to make this property aesthetically pleasing. He stated they have access to this property from Haymore Road and will buffer along Old US 52. Chairman Childs asked the reason for the lights being on at night on their current property. Mr. Phillips stated they have a fuel pump on the property for their employees to fill up at night and for security purposes. Mr. Tucker asked the neighbors how they feel about the proposal after hearing from Mr. Phillips. Mr. Doug Reeves stated they have a lot of vacant land on their current business property that they could park their overflow on. Mr. Phillips stated that when all their equipment is in, there is not enough room. Right now, most of their equipment is out on jobs. They also need a big area for their tractor trailers to pull in and fuel up. They would not be asking to expand if they didn’t need the additional space. Mr. Tucker stated that he feels if the property is rezoned it will be a vast improvement to the looks of the property to get it cleaned up. The Board discussed the option of a conditional rezoning for the property to satisfy the neighbors but the applicant had mixed thoughts about the process of having to draw up a site plan because it puts more burden on him and he feels like he will be beautifying the property by cleaning it up and planting trees. Mr. Caudle motioned to recommend a revision of zoning amendment petition ZCR1176 to a Conditional Rezoning to the Board of Commissioners; there was no second. Motion died.

5

Mr. Beals stated he feels like the Board cannot deny this request based on the Small Area Plan. Mr. Beals motioned to recommend approval of zoning amendment petition ZCR1176 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID #’s 5948-00-17-3367, 5948-00-17-5245, and 5948-00-17-6338 from RA (Rural Agricultural) to MI (Manufacturing Industrial) based on the fact that the request meets the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of this petition will 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the MI district is to provide locations for intensive industrial and/or manufacturing , processing, and assembly uses and to protect adjacent rural/residential areas from such land uses; 4) approval will not alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5) the proposal is in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Tucker. The motion was as follows:

Ayes: Beals, Tucker, Easter, Hiatt Nays: Caudle, Childs

Motion Carried.

___________________________________________________________________ MEMBERS DISCUSSION LAND USE PLAN Mr. Bates passed out a memo to the Board explaining that a new subcommittee needs to be appointed consisting of Planning Board members only. This was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Jesse Day came forward and went over items that were discussed at the last meeting. He stated that the next public meetings need to be scheduled for late May or early June. Mr. Day stated he would meet with some individual groups and have an update for the Board at the June Planning Board meeting. MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS

6

Mr. Bates stated that from January 29th until March 23rd there were fifteen minor subdivisions approved resulting in nineteen new lots. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Bates informed the Board that the Planning Staff would no longer be handling the zoning for the Town of Dobson. They will be doing their own zoning related issues soon. Mr. Bates stated he will be bringing back the text amendment for the weather station next month. ELECTIONS Chairman Childs stated that the Board will need to elect a new Chairman since tonight will be his last meeting. The Board discussed who they would like to see as Chairman and who would be available. Mr. Easter nominated Jon Tucker to serve as Chairman; seconded by Mr. Caudle. All present were in favor. Motion carried. __________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Easter motioned for adjournment at 8:08 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Caudle. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted


REGULAR MEETING

May 14, 2018

PRESENT: Jon Tucker – Chairman; Freddy Hiatt; Frank Beals; Greg Casstevens; Mark Johnson; Chad Chilton; Dale Badgett

ABSENT: Corey Easter; David Caudle

OTHERS PRESENT: Kim Bates, Planning Director; Johnny Easter,

Development Services Director; Tony Tilley

MINUTES Chairman Tucker called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Chairman Tucker called the roll. Chairman Tucker requested approval of the April 9, 2018, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review, the Minutes of the April 9, 2018, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Beals, seconded by Mr. Hiatt. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST (S) Docket # ZCR1178 – South Surry VFD

Owner: Betty Poindexter Life Estate Tax Parcel ID # 4994-00-30-5669 Parcel Size: 1.00 acre Zoning: RA Marsh Township Applied For: Fire Station Chairman Tucker asked that anyone present wishing to address the Board concerning this case step forward and be sworn in under oath. Tony Tilley was sworn in by Chairman Tucker.

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD


2

Mr. Bates stated the applicant proposes construction of a new fire station operation. The South Surry Volunteer Fire Department would be a satellite fire station located on US Hwy 601 approximately a quarter mile south of NC Highway 268. The area is agricultural, low density residential. The proposed building meets all required setbacks. The applicant proposes a buffer in compliance with zoning ordinance Section 154.242 (A) (2) “A buffer that is eight feet wide, which includes two rows, staggered, of eight-foot high, dense evergreen planting”, along the perimeter of the lot; excluding the frontage boundary of the right-of-way of US Highway 601; and comprising about 648 linear feet of buffered boundary. Mr. Beals asked how much of the remaining property would be left and would it be of use. Mr. Bates stated yes, there will be a little over 3 acres left. Mr. Tilley came forward and stated he is representing the South Surry VFD. He stated the ISO insurance rating that the satellite fire station will provide will aid in reducing residents’ home owners insurance. The new fire station will house 2 trucks, a tanker and an engine. He feels it is a public necessity for the community. Chairman Tucker asked if we had received any phone calls. Mr. Bates stated he received one call inquiring about the sign that was posted on the property. Mr. Badgett asked about the line of sight and signage. Mr. Tilley stated that DOT would have to do a study on the traffic pattern to see what type of sign would be required. Depending on the amount of traffic it could be a blinking sign if there is a large amount of traffic in that area. They plan to have everything completed by August 1st. Chairman Tucker asked if anyone had any further questions. No one had any questions. Chairman Tucker read the Finding of Fact Order. Chairman Tucker stated the Planning Board having held a public hearing on Monday, May 14, 2018 to consider application number ZCR1178 submitted by South Surry Volunteer Fire Department, request for a Conditional Use Permit to use the

3

property located at Hwy 601 South, Marsh Township, as a Fire Station, and further identified as Tax Map ID # 4994-00-30-5669, which is zoned RA (Rural Agricultural), in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the ordinance, and having heard all of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, makes the following Findings of Fact and draws the following conclusions: a.) That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, if located

according to the plan submitted if approved;

Evidence presented: Site plan shows project layout and location of existing structure, proposed new building, parking/turnaround areas, topography. Buffering plan presented verbally. No one presented evidence of potential endangerment of health or safety; none found by the Board

All present found item (a) to be true

b.) That the use meets all required conditions and specifications;

Evidence presented: Site plan submitted, and found by staff and Planning Board to meet all ordinance requirements for the proposed conditional use.

All present found item (b) to be true

c.) That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting

property, or that the use is a public necessity; Evidence presented: Applicant attests that the proposed use is a public necessity; that an area to be served by the new station is currently not sufficiently served by the existing fire department as located. Applicant also states that some homeowners’ insurance rates would likely be lowered as a result of a fire station being located nearer to their homes.

All present found item (c) to be true

4

d.) That the location and character of the use, if developed, according to the plan as submitted if approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the Surry County Land Use Plan.

Evidence presented: Staff presented the following element of conformity from the Land Use Plan: 5.3.5. Maintain rural character. 5.2.6 Preserve open space. 5.4.6.2 Appropriate non-residential uses should be permitted in rural and agricultural areas on a case-by-case basis, which blend well with the rural/agricultural framework. No one presented evidence of potential disharmony or inconsistency with the Land Use Plan; none found by the Board.

All present found item (d) to be true

Mr. Hiatt motioned to approve the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to South Surry Volunteer Fire Department for a Fire Station in the RA (Rural Agricultural)) zoning district on property located at Hwy 601 South, Marsh Township, identified as Tax Parcel ID # 4994-00-30-5669, as determined by the Boards’ Findings of Fact as stated above and on the attached Finding of Fact Order; seconded by Mr. Chilton. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Mr. Bates stated Surry County Administration proposes to amend the Surry County Zoning Ordinance text to ensure safe land use and development practices in the vicinity of the publicly owned airports of the County. Mr. Bates stated the NC State University Cooperative Extension Office provides the following recommendation: Establishment of solar farms has been noted as a potential hazard for airports and air traffic controllers. Generally, the requirements of notification are not necessary for solar panels established more than 5 nautical miles from an airport. Chairman Tucker asked why the County is approaching these issues.

5

Mr. Bates stated once the County took over the airport authority, they decided to clean up the books and become more modernized. Mr. Chilton asked how many solar farms are in Surry County. Mr. Bates stated there are none in the County’s’ jurisdiction. Mr. Beals stated the FAA still has the final say on where they are located. Mr. Bates stated we will continue to go with the guidelines of NC State. Mr. Badgett asked if individual home owners would be affected if they installed solar panels on their homes. Mr. Bates stated no. Mr. Beals motioned to recommend approval of the following zoning text amendment to the Board of Commissioners:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND

THE SURRY COUNTY

ZONING ORDINANCE

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C Gen. Statute 153A-342, as amended and for the purpose of promoting the health,

safety, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the County by lessening congestion in and around the

streets; securing safety; preventing the overcrowding of land; avoiding undue congestion; and facilitating the

adequate provision of transportation,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Surry that

§154.385 of the Surry County Zoning Code be amended as follows:

§ 154.385 SITE STANDARDS.

(A) Solar Energy System, Level 1.

(1) Can be roof mounted on any code-compliant structure or covering permanent parking

lot.

(2) Can be ground-mounted on an area of up to 50% of the footprint of the primary

structure on the parcel but no more than one acre.

(3) Structures and fixed equipment shall be setback at least 50 feet from all property lines

and public rights-of-way.

6

(4) Height. Structures, including mounted solar collection systems, shall not exceed a

height of 25 feet (excludes roof panels or shingles). The Planning Board may lower the

maximum height on a case-by-case basis as site conditions warrant, consistent with the intent

of this chapter.

(5) All solar collection systems shall meet state building code requirements and National

Electric Code, and shall be inspected by a county building inspector.

(6) Placement is not allowed in historical districts, such as the Village of Rockford.

(B) Solar Energy System, Level 2.

(1) The minimum lot size for this type of use shall be five acres.

(2) Structures and fixed equipment shall be setback at least 50 feet from all property lines

and public rights-of-way. The Planning Board may require greater setbacks on a case-by-case

basis.

(3) Height. Structures, including mounted solar collection systems, shall not exceed a

height of 25 feet (excludes utility poles and antenna constructed for project). The Planning

Board may lower the maximum height on a case-by-case basis as site conditions warrant,

consistent with the intent of this chapter.

(4) Electric solar collection system components must have a UL listing.

(5) All solar collection systems shall meet state building code requirements and National

Electric Code, and shall be inspected by a county building inspector.

(6) The portion of the property utilized for the facility shall be screened from adjacent

properties and from road rights-of-way. These buffers must meet the requirements of

§ 154.240 et seq. The Planning Board may require more extensive buffering and/or screening

on a case-by-case basis as site conditions warrant, consistent with the intent of this chapter.

(7) If a proposed Solar Energy System is within five (5) nautical miles of an existing

airport, the applicant shall notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) using FAA Form

7460-1. The applicant shall attach to the completed FAA Form 7460-1 a solar glare analysis

by methodology approved by the FAA and certified by a qualified engineer. A copy of the

materials submitted to the FAA shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. Final approval

of the proposed Solar Energy System may be subject to FAA notice of compliance.

(8) Placement is not allowed in a historical district, such as the Village of Rockford.

(9) Decommissioning. A decommissioning plan should be recorded with Register of

Deeds and signed by party responsible for SES addressing:

(a) Conditions leading to decommissioning (i.e. lease ends, no power produced in 12

months, etc.)

(b) Removal of non-utility owned equipment, conduit, structures, fencing, and

foundations.

(c) Restoration of property to condition prior to installation of SES.

(d) Name and address of person responsible for decommissioning.

(Ord. passed 9-19-2016)

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=jumplink$jumplink_x=Advanced$jumplink_vpc=first$jumplink_xsl=querylink.xsl$jumplink_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title;item-bookmark$jumplink_d=north%20carolina(surrycounty_nc)$jumplink_q=%5bfield%20folio-destination-name:%27154.240%27%5d$jumplink_md=target-id=JD_154.240

7

seconded Mr. Badgett. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Bates stated the second text amendment involves an Automated Weather Observing Station. Section 154.148 of the Surry County Zoning Code provides an overlay district that manages development of privately owned land surrounding the Mount Airy/Surry County Airport. The district primarily provides height restrictions to prevent physical obstructions to safe takeoff and landing of aircraft. The district currently does not include provision for obstruction-free operation of weather-monitoring instruments employed on airport land, whether such obstructions may potentially exist on or external to the airport property. Mr. Bates stated the AWOS critical area, along with the surrounding area up to 1000 feet from the AWOS shall be kept free of obstruction consistent with the following FAA standards (Siting Criteria for Automated Weather Observing Systems, Order JO 6560.20C, effective 09-06-2017) : “All obstructions (e.g., vegetation, buildings, etc.) must be at least 15 feet lower than the height of the sensor within the 500-foot radius and be at least 10 feet lower than the height of the sensor from 500 to 1000 feet.” Chairman Tucker asked if the hangars are immune to this? Mr. Bates stated yes. Mr. Bates stated that the County Attorney contacted the School of Government to make sure that Planning and Zoning has the ability to use these regulations and they said yes. The FAA only regulates the airport, the zoning is handled by the Planning Department. Mr. Hiatt asked if we had received any phone calls. Mr. Bates stated he received a call from Mayberry Automotive, which will not be affected. He also spoke with Eddie Bunn who is representing Eagle Carports whose property is the closest to the weather station and they had no issues. Chairman Tucker asked if there was any legal presidency. Mr. Bates stated yes, we are within our authority to set these guidelines. Mr. Casstevens motioned to recommend approval of the following zoning text amendment to the Board of Commissioners:

8

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND

THE SURRY COUNTY

ZONING ORDINANCE

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C Gen. Statute 153A-342, as amended and for the purpose of promoting the health,

safety, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the County by lessening congestion in and around the

streets; securing safety; preventing the overcrowding of land; avoiding undue congestion; and facilitating the

adequate provision of transportation,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Surry that

§154.148 of the Surry County Zoning Code be amended as follows:

§ 154.148 MOUNT AIRY/SURRY COUNTY AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT (AO-

2).

(A) General.

(1) The AO-2 District is established as an overlay district in the vicinity of the Mount

Airy/Surry County Airport. The purpose of this district is to protect the airport environs from

encroachment of incompatible land uses which present hazards to users of the airport as well

as to persons residing or working in the airport vicinity. The regulations imposed in the AO-2

District are designed to place height restrictions on buildings, structures and trees.

(2) It is the intent of this section to restrain influences which are adverse to

the property and safe conduct of aircraft in the vicinity of the Mount Airy/Surry County

Airport, to prevent creation of conditions hazardous to aircraft operation, to prevent conflict

with land development which may result in a loss of life and property and to encourage

development which is compatible with airport use characteristics.

(B) Definitions and word interpretation. The terms and definitions provided below pertain

solely to the regulation of development and land use in the AO-2 Overlay District as provided

in this section.

AIRPORT. Shall refer to Mount Airy/Surry County Airport.

AIRPORT ELEVATION. The highest point of an airport’s useable landing area measured

in feet above mean sea level (MSL). The Mount Airy/Surry County Airport elevation equals

1,248 MSL.

APPROACH SURFACE. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway

centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same

slope as the approach zone height limitation slope as set forth in division (C)(1) below.

APPROACH, TRANSITIONAL, HORIZONTAL, CONICAL AND HAZARDOUS

TERRAIN ZONES. These zones are set forth in division (C) below.

CONICAL SURFACE. A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of

the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

9

HAZARD TO NAVIGATION. An obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse

effect on the safety and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace.

HEIGHT. For the purpose of determining the height limits in the airport height restrictive

area, the datum shall be mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified.

HORIZONTAL SURFACE. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport

elevation, the perimeter of which in plan coincides with the perimeter of the horizontal zone.

MSL.Mean sea level.

NON-CONFORMING USE. Any pre-existing structure, object of natural growth, or use

of land which is inconsistent with the provisions of the ordinance or amendment thereto.

NON-PRECISION APPROACH ZONE. The inner edge of this approach zone coincides

with the width of the primary surface and is 500 feet wide. The approach zone expands

outward uniformly to a width of 3,500 feet, at a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the

primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the runway.

NON-PRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY. A runway having an existing instrument

approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area

type navigation equipment for which a straight-in non-precision instrument approach

procedure has been planned or approved.

OBSTRUCTION. Any structure, growth or other object, including a mobile object, which

exceeds a limited height set forth in division (C) below.

PRIMARY SURFACE. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. The PRIMARY

SURFACE extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on

the PRIMARY SURFACE is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway

centerline. The width of the PRIMARY SURFACE is 500 feet.

RUNWAY. A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and takeoff of aircraft along

its length.

STRUCTURE. An object, including a mobile object, constructed or installed by humans,

including, but not limited to: buildings, towers, cranes, smokestacks, earth formation and

overhead transmission lines.

TRANSITION SURFACES. These surfaces extend outward at right angles (90-degree

angles) to the runway centerline and extend at a slope of seven feet horizontally for each foot

vertically from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect the

horizontal and conical surfaces.

TRANSITIONAL ZONES. The transitional zones are the area beneath the transitional

surfaces.

TREE. Any object of natural growth.

VISUAL APPROACH ZONE. The inner edge approach zone coincides with the width of

the primary surface and is 500 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a

width of 1,500 feet at a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the primary surface. Its

centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the runway.

VISUAL RUNWAY. A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual

approach procedures.

10

(C) Airport zones. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no structure shall be

erected, altered or maintained, and no trees shall be allowed to grow in any zone created by

this section to a height in excess of the applicable height limitations herein established for each

zone in question as follows:

(1) Approach zone. AHD-A:

(a) Runway 18: slopes 20 feet outward for each one foot upward beginning at the

end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extending to a

horizontal distance of 5,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.

AWOS CRITICAL AREA. The land area encompassed by a 500-foot radius surrounding an

existing Automated Weather Observing Station (AWOS), located on the southwest portion of

the airport property at or near the following coordinates as of February 2018, subject to

amendment: Longitude: 80 degrees, 33 minutes, 17.43 seconds W; Latitude: 36 degrees,

27 minutes, 24.26 seconds N.

(b) Runway 36: slopes 34 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the end of

and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extending to a horizontal distance of

10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline.

(2) Transitional zones. AHD-T: slopes seven feet outward for each foot upward

beginning at the side of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and the approach

surface, and extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation or 1,398 feet

above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits sloping

seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides and at the same elevation as

the approach surface, and extending to where they intersect the horizontal surface.

(3) Horizontal zone. AHD-H: established at 150 feet above the airport or at an elevation

of 1,398 feet above mean sea level.

(4) Conical zones. AHD-C: slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the

periphery of the horizontal zone and at 150 feet above the airport elevation and extending to

an elevation of 1,598 feet above mean sea level. There are four conical zones (AHD-C-A,

AHD-C-B, AHD-C-C, and AHD-C-D), 1,000 feet horizontally each and rise 50 feet in

elevation. The maximum height of any structure within the conical zone are as follows:

(a) AHD-C-A: 1,398 feet MSL;

(b) AHD-C-B: 1,448 feet MSL;

(c) AHD-C-C: 1,498 feet MSL; and

(d) AHD-C-D: 1,548 feet MSL.

(5) Hazardous terrain zone. AHD-Z: any area in which the existing terrain encroaches

into any of the previously described surfaces.

(D) Use restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, no use may be

made of land or water within any district established by this section in such a manner as to

create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between the

airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others,

resulting in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the

11

airport, create bird strike hazards or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the

landing, takeoff or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport.

(E) Non-conforming uses.

(1) Regulations not retroactive. The regulations prescribed by this section shall not be

construed to require the removal, lowering or other change or alteration of any structure or tree

not conforming to the regulations as of the effective date of this section, or otherwise interfere

with the continuance of a non-conforming use.

(2) Markings and lighting. Notwithstanding the preceding provision of this section, the

owner of any existing non-conforming structure or tree is hereby required to permit the

installation, operation and maintenance thereon of such markers and lights as shall be deemed

necessary by the Mount Airy-Surry County Airport Authority to indicate to the operators of

aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport obstruction.

(F) Issuance of a building permit. The Inspections Department shall not issue

a building permit within an AHD-A, AHD-T, AHD-H, AHD-C or AHD-Z area, or within the

AWOS Critical Area, along with the surrounding area up to 1000 feet from the AWOS, until it

has been determined that the proposal upon which they are requested to act is in compliance

with the terms of these regulations by the Zoning Administrator.

(1) Future uses.

(a) Except as specifically provided in divisions (F)(1)(a)1., (F)(1)(a)2. and (F)(1)(a)3.

below, no material change shall be made in the use of land, no structure shall be erected or

otherwise established, and no trees shall be planted in any district hereby created unless a

permit has been applied for and granted. Each application for a permit shall indicate the

purpose for which the permit is desired, with sufficient information particularly to determine

whether the resulting use, structure or tree would conform to the regulations herein prescribed.

If such determination is in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted.

1. In the area lying within the limits of horizontal zone and conical zone, no permit

shall be required for any tree or structure less than 100 feet of vertical height above the

ground, except when, because of terrain, land contour or topographic features, such tree

or structure would extend above the height limits prescribed for such zones.

2. In areas lying within the limits of the approach zones, but at a horizontal distance of

not less than 4,200 feet from each end of the runway, no permit shall be required for any tree

or structure less than 100 feet of vertical height above the ground, except when, because of

terrain, land contour or topographic features, such tree or structure would extend above the

height limits prescribed for such zones.

3. In the areas lying within the limits of the transition zones, no permit shall be

required for any tree or structures less than 100 feet above the ground, except when such tree

or structure because of terrain, land contour or topographic features, would extend above the

height limit prescribed for such transition zones.

4. Amateur radio operators must comply with part 97 of FCC regulations.

5. The AWOS critical area, along with the surrounding area up to 1000 feet from the

AWOS. shall be kept free of obstruction consistent with the following FAA standards (Siting

12

Criteria for Automated Weather Observing Systems, Order JO 6560.20C, effective

09/06/2017): “All obstructions (e.g., vegetation, buildings, etc.) must be at least 15 feet lower

than the height of the sensor within the 500-foot radius and be at least 10 feet lower than the

height of the sensor from 500 to 1000 feet.”

(b) Nothing contained in any of the foregoing exceptions, shall be construed as

permitting or intending to permit any construction, alteration of any structure or growth of any

tree in excess of any height limits established by this chapter, except as set forth in

§§ 154.105 through 154.108 of this chapter.

(2) Existing uses. No permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment or

creation of an obstruction, or permit a non-conforming use, structure or tree to become a

greater hazard to air navigation than it was on the effective date of this chapter, or any

amendments thereto, or than it is when the application for a permit is made. Except as

indicated all applications for such a permit shall be granted.

(3) Non-conforming uses, abandoned or destroyed. Whenever the Zoning

Administrator determines that a non-conforming tree or structure has been abandoned for 180

days, or more than 60% has been torn down, physically deteriorated or decayed,

said structure or tree shall lose its non-conforming status and at such time shall be brought into

compliance with this chapter.

(4) Variances.Variances shall be administered in the AO-2 Overlay District as provided

for the AO-1 Overlay District, herein.

(Ord. passed 7-20-2009)

seconded by Mr. Hiatt. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ MEMBERS DISCUSSION MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS Mr. Bates stated from March 26th until April 27th there were four minor subdivisions approved resulting in five new lots. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Hiatt welcomed the new Board members. All Board members introduced themselves. _________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Badgett motioned for adjournment at 6:54 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Hiatt. All present were in favor. Motion carried.



13

Respectfully submitted


REGULAR MEETING

June 11, 2018

PRESENT: David Caudle –Vice-Chairman; Frank Beals; Freddy Hiatt; Greg Casstevens; Chad Chilton; Corey Easter; Mark Johnson; Dale Badgett

ABSENT: Jon Tucker-Chairman


Assistant; Brock Bowman; Eddie Bunn

MINUTES Vice-Chairman Caudle called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Vice-Chairman Caudle called the roll. Vice-Chairman Caudle requested approval of the May 14, 2018, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review the Minutes of the May 14, 2018, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Beals, seconded by Mr. Badgett. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS (S) Docket # ZCR1179 – Eddie Bunn, for Dr. Challie Minton Owner: Joe G. Brown Heirs Tax Parcel ID# 4060-00-65-6175 Parcel Size: 4.73 Current Zoning: RA Proposed Zoning: HB-C Stewarts Creek Township Reason Given: Business Staff Representative: Kim Bates

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD


2

Mr. Bates stated the proposal is to reclassify a 4.73–acre portion which would be subdivided from an existing 38-acre parcel fronting NC Highway 89 in northwest Surry County, for a conditional highway business use. He stated that all site plan requirements have been met. This request is encouraged by Consistency Principle:

5.4.5.9 Businesses in predominantly rural areas may be encouraged on a case-by-case basis if the amenities provided are not available in the immediate vicinity/community.

Mr. Bates stated staff recommends adoption. Mr. Beals asked if we had received any calls. Mr. Bates stated no. Mr. Badgett stated that this proposal is desperately needed and having the entrance off of Flippin Road is a good thing. Eddie Bunn came forward and stated he is representing this request along with Brock Bowman. He stated Dr. Challie Minton lives in Lowgap and wants to be able to serve the community. He presented the Board with drawings of the proposed medical clinic and stated that it will be good for the community. The proposed building will be 8,000 sq. ft. in size and rustic in appearance. There will be a place for EMS to be on duty and it will serve as a medical/dental clinic. This will not be a typical dental office, it will only be available for patients that need it due to medical reasons. There will be volunteer dentists to serve these patients a few days each month. Mr. Chilton asked if this medical clinic would be similar to an urgent care that anyone can use. Mr. Bunn stated yes. Mr. Bates explained the conditional rezoning process compared to a straight rezoning. A conditional rezoning only allows a specific use, in this case a medical clinic would be the only thing allowed on the property. After tonight it will be presented to the BOCC for final approval. Mr. Badgett stated that Cedar Ridge Elementary is located near this proposed facility and would be good for the kids if they needed to see a doctor.

3

Mr. Beals motioned to recommend approval of zoning amendment petition ZCR1179 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID # 4060-00-65-6175 from RA (Rural Agricultural) to HB-C (Highway Business - Conditional) based on the fact that the request meets the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of this petition will 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the HB district is to accommodate the development of retail, service, and related businesses which are located along, and have direct access to major roadways throughout the county, which cater to the traveling public, and should have access to public water and sewer systems; 4) approval will not alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5) the proposal is in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Easter. All present were in favor. Motion Carried. Docket # ZCR1180 – Eddie Bunn, for Chadd Development, LLC Owner: Chadd Development, LLC Tax Parcel ID# 5958-00-54-7306 Parcel Size: 11.56 Current Zoning: RR Proposed Zoning: RA, RA-C South Westfield Township Reason Given: Residential Staff Representative: Kim Bates Mr. Bates stated the proposal is to reclassify a 11.56-acre parcel to rural zoning for residential and recreational purposes. The site plan submitted by the applicant specifies House Lots #1, #2 and #3 as proposed to be rezoned from RR (Restricted Residential) to RA (Rural Agricultural, general use). The remainder of the subject parcel is proposed to be rezoned from RR (Restricted Residential) to RA-C (Rural Agricultural – Conditional). Mr. Bates stated the developers were not able to develop the property as originally planned and that is why they are requesting to rezone back to the original zoning of RA with the addition of adding rental cabins. Three lots will be used for Single Family Homes and the rest will be for the rental cabins. This request is consistent with the following Consistency Principles:

5.3.3 Encourage economic and commercial development that does not detract from the rural environment.

4

5.4.5.9 Businesses in predominantly rural areas may be encouraged on a case-by-case basis if the amenities provided are not available in the immediate vicinity/community. 5.4.5.12 Businesses should be served by roads and streets of a capacity sufficient for safe traffic flow; large businesses should locate at major intersections.

Mr. Bates stated he had not received any phone calls pertaining to this request. Eddie Bunn came forward and identified where the property is located. He stated the property has a paved entrance that was done in 2007. The property has been on the market but has not sold for individual homes. Therefore, the applicant is moving in a different direction with placing rental cabins on the property that will be 400 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Badgett asked if the 50-ft. right-of-way was large enough for 2-way traffic. Mr. Bunn stated yes. He mentioned that the property owner lives in Florida but will be moving here. He has done a lot of research and feels it will be a good location with easy access to Mount Airy and Winston Salem. Mr. Easter asked if he would be doing it in phases. Mr. Bunn stated no, his plan if approved is to build as many as he can at once. Mr. Casstevens motioned to recommend approval of zoning amendment petition ZCR1180 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID # 5958-00-54-7306 from RR (Restricted Residential) to RA, RA-C (Rural Agricultural - Conditional) based on the fact that the request meets the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of this petition will 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the RA district is to maintain a rural development pattern where single-family housing is intermingled with agricultural and appropriate non-residential uses; 4) approval will not alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5) the proposal is in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Badgett. All present were in favor. Motion Carried. ___________________________________________________________________ MEMBERS DISCUSSION

5

MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS Mr. Bates stated that from April 30th until May 25th there were six minor subdivisions approved resulting in six new lots. LAND USE PLAN Mr. Bates stated on May 21st a land use meeting was held and there was a good turnout. Mr. Day is going to keep the survey open through July and will then compile the results. __________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Beals motioned for adjournment at 6:28 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Chilton. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted


REGULAR MEETING

July 9, 2018

PRESENT: Jon Tucker- Chairman; Frank Beals; Chad Chilton; Corey Easter; Dale Badgett

ABSENT: David Caudle-Vice-Chairman; Freddy Hiatt; Greg

Casstevens; Mark Johnson

OTHERS PRESENT: Kim Bates, Planning Director; Aldrea Rife, Administrative Assistant; Brock Bowman; Eddie Bunn; Roger Taylor; JR Arrington; Ron Halstead; Sam Groome; Howard Jones II; Jimmy Rogers; Kay Rogers; Wade Gilley, Jr.; Wade Gilley; Wade “Ashley” Marion

MINUTES Chairman Tucker called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Chairman Tucker called the roll. Chairman Tucker requested approval of the June 11, 2018, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review the Minutes of the June 11, 2018, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Beals, seconded by Mr. Chilton. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS (S) Docket # ZCR1180 – Eddie Bunn, for Chadd Development, LLC Owner: Chadd Development, LLC Tax Parcel ID# 5958-00-64-7306 Parcel Size: 11.56 Current Zoning: RR Proposed Zoning: RA, RA-C

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD


2

South Westfield Township Reason Given: Residential Staff Representative: Kim Bates Mr. Bates stated this proposal was originally submitted last month and the Board made a recommendation of approval. At the BOCC meeting they encountered some opposition and concerns from neighbors. Therefore, it was sent back to the Planning Board for further review. Mr. Bates stated the proposal is to reclassify a 11.56-acre parcel to rural zoning for residential and recreational purposes. The site plan submitted by the applicant specifies House Lots #1, #2 and #3 as proposed to be rezoned from RR (Restricted Residential) to RA (Rural Agricultural, general use). The remainder of the subject parcel is proposed to be rezoned from RR (Restricted Residential) to RA-C (Rural Agricultural – Conditional). Mr. Bates stated the developers were not able to develop the property as originally planned and that is why they are requesting to rezone back to the original zoning of RA with the addition of adding rental cabins. Three lots will be used for Single Family Homes and the rest will be for the rental cabins. This request is consistent with the following Consistency Principles:

5.3.3 Encourage economic and commercial development that does not detract from the rural environment. 5.4.5.9 Businesses in predominantly rural areas may be encouraged on a case-by-case basis if the amenities provided are not available in the immediate vicinity/community. 5.4.5.12 Businesses should be served by roads and streets of a capacity sufficient for safe traffic flow; large businesses should locate at major intersections.

Mr. Bates stated that a mutual agreement would need to be reached between the County and the applicant on conditions that are added to this request. The Board may want to look at rental terms pertaining to the length of stay and address the buffer that has been added to the site plan. Chairman Tucker asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Easter asked why the BOCC didn’t address the issues at their meeting instead of sending it back to the Planning Board.

3

Mr. Bates stated that they could have, however they had a large agenda that night and wanted the Planning Board to take a careful look at this request. Mr. Easter asked why there was no opposition at the first meeting last month. Mr. Bates stated that some of the neighbors didn’t receive their letters in time to make it to the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Beals asked if the Board had approved a request like this in the past where there were this many houses on this small of a parcel. Mr. Bates stated that no rental cabins had been approved in the past 10 years. Mr. Easter asked if there were any campgrounds in the County that had rental cabins. Mr. Bates stated not that he knew of. Mr. Beals asked how the vacation homes would be enforced if renters stay longer than intended. Mr. Bates stated that the Board could set conditions on how long the cabins could be rented out. Chairman Tucker asked that anyone representing this request to please come forward. Eddie Bunn came forward and stated he is representing the owner Sam Groome. He stated that they were not prepared for the opposition that showed up at the BOCC meeting where neighbors questioned if this proposal would turn into a low rent permanent housing project. They were concerned with drugs coming in to the community and made comments that Mr. Groome was a ruthless developer. Mr. Bunn stated that Mr. Groome has been a successful business man that lives in Florida and wants to move to Surry County. He has owned property here for about 11 years. He has developed 2 residential subdivisions in Surry Co., one is Mtn. View Estates and the other one is Oriole Estates. He purchased Pheasant Run with a special desire for a camp ground/vacation rental. He is proposing 35 cabins that are 398 sq.ft. in size that will cover less property than if he had split the lots out to build 11 permanent homes on them. His plan is to rent the cabins out a week at a time, no more than two (2) weeks, or for weekend only rentals.

4

Chairman Tucker asked the cost of the rentals per week. Sam Groome stated during the summer months $175/night, during the winter months $125/night. Chairman Tucker asked what revisions have been made to the site plan. Brock Bowman passed out site plans to the Board. Mr. Bunn stated that Mr. Groome will have a policy in place that ensures it doesn’t become a low rent district. It will be for short term rentals only. They have added a 20 ft. planting buffer of evergreens around the property lines. The cabins will be set back 25 ft from the property line. They plan to have a walking trail and they have shifted the cabins to be further apart. A family member will be onsite at all times to make sure it is kept nice and quiet. No parties will be allowed. Mr. Beals asked if any marketing research had been done to see if there is a demand for this type of rental in Surry County. Mr. Groome stated that he had talked to several people that do the same thing in other areas and he feels it will be a good thing for this area because there is nothing like it here. Chairman Tucker asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against this rezoning request. Roger Taylor came forward and stated he owns a 30 acre farm across the road from this development. He is in opposition of this request because he feels it will create trouble for the community. There is nothing there to attract people that are vacationing. He fears that once it is built, nothing can be done to correct it. He doesn’t have a problem with a housing development but doesn’t want rental cabins being built that will create more traffic and its not a good location to enter in to off of Cook School Road. Ashley Marion came forward and stated he lives at 2012 Cook School Road and is in opposition of this request. He stated that Mtn. View Estates is a nice development but it can’t be compared to this request because it’s not the same thing. He is concerned with the increase of traffic and if the property is sold what could come in next. He stated this request is not a good fit for this community because it’s mostly farm land.

5

Mr. Bates stated this request is for a conditional rezoning, which means the property could only be used for the permitted use if approved. Chaiman Tucker stated that if the property were to be sold at a later date, it would have to be rezoned and brought back before this Board to allow a new use of the property. Wade Gilley, Jr. came forward and stated that he lives in King but he grew up on the property next door to the property in question. He stated that there is nothing in that area to attract a project of this nature. He is concerned with the water supply with having to serve that many cabins and the septic systems and how it will affect his dad’s property. Ronald Halstead came forward and stated that he lives at 941 Simmons Grove Church Road and did not receive a letter. He stated that he owned a campground in the past in Hillsville Virginia and when you rent out cabins you don’t know who is coming in and he had problems with traffic so he sold out. He doesn’t have a problem with 11 lots being sold for permanent homes, he would rather have homeowners living there instead of renters. He wants to keep his family safe. He doesn’t feel that a campground is going to bring in the amount of money that the applicant thinks it will. It’s not a good fit for the community and he is in opposition. Howard Jones came forward and stated that he lives at 720 Simmons Road where he owns a small farm. He stated that it is the job of the Planning Board to ensure a good fit between a conditional use and what is already there. There is farm land and families there and they need to preserve the nature of the land. If there are 35 cabins and 3 houses on 11 acres of land and an average of 4 people per house, there could be 60 to 70 cars coming and going out of the property. They are asking for more homes on this property than what other home owners in the community are allowed. He is concerned with what will happen if this plan doesn’t work out and they have to reduce the nightly rate. There is no place to eat or shop nearby, he asked where are the studies that prove there is a need for this. It will change the character of the neighborhood and property values. He asked the Board to require that they reduce the number of cabins to assure the community. Mr. Bunn stated that lots of people like to come to a community like this and Mr. Groome feels like he has a good plan. Mr. Groome came forward and stated that he bought this property 7 years ago. It will be a gated community with 3 homes on it, one (1) up front for check in and two (2) in the back. If he were to build 11 or 12 homes on this property there would be more

6

septic systems than what he is asking for. He decided to go with this plan so he could save the trees. He stated that the cabins will be high class with 1 bedroom, kitchen and living room. You can’t find cabins in this area to stay in and that is what started this project. He had room for 50 cabins but reduced it to 35. There will be less septic systems for the cabins than if he built homes on the lots. Chairman Tucker asked if he would consider reducing the number of cabins. Mr. Groome stated that he was willing to listen to anything and doesn’t want to hurt the community but he has done the math for a couple of years. Mr. Chilton asked if all the cabins would have 1 bedroom. Mr. Groome stated yes. Mr. Beals questioned how the septic systems would be less if every cabin was rented. Mr. Groome stated that he figured in the summer months they would have 80% rented and in the winter months only 50%. He stated that a 3-bedroom house has more people and they live there all the time. Mr. Badgett asked if there would be a staff member on site at all times. Mr. Groome stated yes. Mr. Bunn stated that 4 wells are planned for the property. Chairman Tucker asked Mr. Groome if he could reduce the number of cabins. Mr. Groome stated that he has reduced the number from 50 to 35 and 35 is the least amount he will agree to. Mr. Bunn stated that each cabin can only accommodate a couple and maybe a small child. Mr. Badgett asked how far the property is from Pilot Mountain State Park. Mr. Bates stated 8 miles.

7

Mr. Beals stated that he did not see the recreational activities that would bring people to the area. Mr. Bates read the following from the Zoning Ordinance concerning zoning amendments and no proposed zoning amendment will receive favorable recommendation unless:

1) The proposal will place all property similarly situated in the area in the same category or in appropriate complementary categories;

2) There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be in the general public interest and not merely in the interest of an individual or small group;

3) There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be appropriate in the area included in the proposed change; (When a new district designation is assigned, any use permitted in the district is allowable, so long as it meets district requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state that they intend to make of the property involved.)

4) There is convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not be materially or adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change; and

5) The proposed change is in accord with the land use plan and sound planning principles.

Chairman Tucker stated that the community doesn’t feel that it will be complementary. Mr. Chilton stated that he understands the concerns of the community but he also understands that it’s hard when someone tells you what you can and can’t do on your own property. He doesn’t feel that this location has a lot to offer for vacation renters. Mr. Beals stated that he doesn’t feel that it is in harmony with the community. Mr. Badgett stated that he has been involved with Planning Boards for over 25 years and it’s not an easy decision. He can see both sides. He stated that 750,000 people visit Pilot Mtn. State Park each year, but where do they stay. Mr. Bates read the potential conditions that have been discussed tonight.

1) Buffer plan to render the entire complex – not visible from the outside 2) 2 weeks maximum rental 3) 3 occupants per cabin

8

4) Staffed 24/7 5) Gated community

After review, Mr. Beals motioned to recommend denial of zoning amendment petition ZCR1180 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID # 5958-00-64-7306 from RR (Restricted Residential) to RA, RA-C (Rural Agricultural - Conditional) based on the fact that the request does not meet the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval of this petition will not 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is not permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the RA district is to maintain a rural development pattern where single-family housing is intermingled with agricultural and appropriate non-residential uses; 4) approval will alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5) the proposal is not in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Chilton. The vote was as follows:

Ayes: Beals, Chilton, Tucker Nays: Badgett, Easter

Motion Carried. ___________________________________________________________________ MEMBERS DISCUSSION MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS Mr. Bates stated that from May 28th until June 22nd there were four minor subdivisions approved resulting in six new lots. __________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Badgett motioned for adjournment at 8:00 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Beals. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted


REGULAR MEETING

August 13, 2018

PRESENT: David Caudle – Vice-Chairman; Frank Beals; Dale Badgett; Greg Casstevens, Chad Chilton; Mark Johnson

ABSENT: Jon Tucker-Chairman; Freddy Hiatt; Corey Easter,


Assistant; Frank Kinder; Ricky Casstevens; Bessie Comer; Todd Tucker

MINUTES Vice-Chairman Caudle called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Meeting Room, Surry County Government Center, Dobson, NC. Vice-Chairman Caudle called the roll. Vice-Chairman Caudle requested approval of the July 9, 2018, Planning Board meeting minutes. After review, the Minutes of the July 9, 2018, meeting were unanimously approved, upon motion of Mr. Chilton, seconded by Mr. Badgett. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST(S) Docket # ZCR1181 – Skull Camp VFD Owner: Eva Martin; property is under contract for purchase by the applicant Tax Parcel ID # 4979-00-02-6201 Parcel Size: 2.55 acres Zoning: RA Stewarts Creek Township Applied For: Fire Station Staff Representative: Kim Bates

SURRY COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD


2

Vice-Chairman Caudle asked that anyone present wishing to address the Board concerning this request come forward and be sworn in under oath. Ricky Casstevens and Frank Kinder were sworn in by Vice-Chairman Caudle. Mr. Bates stated the applicant proposes to construct a new fire station to serve as a satellite station in the Skull Camp Fire District. The property is located at 913 Woltz-Atkins Road and is accessed with 153-feet of frontage. This is a rural agricultural area with community oriented nonresidential uses consistent with west central Surry County. Two manufactured homes have been removed from the property. This request is consistent with consistency principle 5.4.6.2 Appropriate non-residential uses should be permitted in rural and agricultural areas on a case-by-case basis, which blend well with the rural/agricultural framework. Mr. Casstevens stated that he saw the letter that a resident sent in speaking in favor of this request and asked if we had heard from anyone else. Mr. Bates stated that he had not received any other letters or phone calls. Vice-Chairman Caudle asked that anyone representing this request come forward. Ricky Casstevens came forward and stated he is the Fire Chief of Skull Camp VFD and this satellite station will cover the entire district within a 5-mile radius for their insurance rating. They recently went from a Class 7 ISO rating to a Class 5 ISO rating. There are currently 19.1 million in building values that doesn’t receive the insurance credit. They are looking to better serve their district and give them the benefits that everyone else in their district receives. They are proposing a 50 x 50, 2-bay station. They have applied with DOT for their driveway permit but it is still in the process. Vice-Chairman Caudle asked Mr. Casstevens to explain the Class 7/5 ISO rating. Mr. Casstevens stated that fire departments are rated by the Department of Insurance to help determine how much residents have to pay for their home owners insurance. A Class 10 is the highest, meaning you have no fire protection. Anything outside of 6 miles from a fire station falls in that category. If you live within 5 miles you can be in class 9, anyone under 5 miles can get the rating of the fire department. Your savings improve with better ratings. They will be at an even better rating once this building is put in place.

3

Mr. Greg Casstevens explained that if this fire station is built, it will extend their radius out an additional 5 miles from this new building giving more people coverage and lowering their insurance. Mr. Badgett asked how many residents would be outside of the fire district if this new fire station is built. Mr. Ricky Casstevens stated this would cover everyone in their district within 5 miles of the fire station. Frank Kinder came forward and stated that the parking lot will be paved with a concrete entrance and they will be using an existing well with the septic system in the back of the property. Mr. Bates asked Mr. Kinder to get him a revised plan. Mr. Kinder stated there would be 12 to 15 parking spaces with 2 handicap spaces. There being no further discussion Vice-Chairman Caudle asked Mr. Bates to read the Finding of Fact Order. Mr. Bates stated the Planning Board for Surry County having held a public hearing on Monday, August 13, 2018 to consider application number ZCR1181 submitted by Skull Camp Volunteer Fire Department, request for a Conditional Use Permit to use the property located at 913 Woltz-Atkins Road, Stewarts Creek Township, as a Fire Station, and further identified as Tax Map ID # 4979-00-02-6201, which is zoned RA (Rural Agricultural), in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the ordinance, and having heard all of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, makes the following Findings Of Fact and draws the following conclusions:

a.) That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, if located according to the plan submitted if approved;

Evidence presented: Site Plan shows project layout and location of existing structure, proposed new building, parking/turnaround areas, topography. Existing woods shown to provide adequate buffering. All present found item (a) to be true

4

b.) That the use meets all required conditions and specifications;

Evidence presented: Site plan submitted and found by staff and Planning Board to meet all ordinance requirements for the proposed conditional use. All present found item (b) to be true

c.) That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting

property, or that the use is a public necessity;

Evidence presented: Applicant attests that the proposed use is a public necessity; that an area to be served by the new station is currently not sufficiently served by the existing fire department as located. No one appeared to oppose the project or to present any evidence that it would effect property values in the community. All present found item (c) to be true

d.) That the location and character of the use, if developed, according to the plan as submitted if approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the Surry County Land Use Plan.

Evidence presented: Staff presented the following as elements of conformity from the Land Use Plan: 5.3.5 Maintain rural character. 5.2.6 Preserve open space. 5.4.6.2 Appropriate non-residential uses should be permitted in rural and agricultural areas on a case-by-case basis, which blend well with the rural/agricultural framework. No one presented evidence of potential disharmony or inconsistency with the Land Use Plan; none found by the Board. All present found item (d) to be true

5

Vice-Chairman Caudle asked for a motion for this conditional use request. Mr. Beals motioned to approve the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Skull Camp VFD for a Fire Station in the RA (Rural Agricultural) zoning district on property located at 913 Woltz-Atkins Road, Stewarts Creek Township, identified as Tax Parcel ID # 4979-00-02-6201, as determined by the Board’s Findings of Fact as stated above and on the attached Finding of Fact Order; seconded by Mr. Casstevens. All present were in favor. Motion carried. ZONING AMENDMENT REQUESTS(S) Docket # ZCR1182 – Bessie Comer Owner: Bessie B. Comer by Life Estate Tax Parcel ID# 5012-03-00-9673 Parcel Size: 3.26 acres Current Zoning: RG Proposed Zoning: RA Stewarts Creek Township Reason Given: Business Staff Representative: Kim Bates Mr. Bates stated this proposal is to reclassify a 3.26 acre parcel for rural residential use. This reclassification would place the entire property in the Rural Agricultural District. The property is located at 257 Brushy Fork Lane off of Miller Road and borders two zoning districts, RG (Residential General) and RA (Rural Agricultural). The property is landlocked in terms of road access with a narrow right-of-way into the property. The applicants wants to add another home to the property but is not allowed to do that in the RG (Residential General) district, she would have to subdivide the land in order to place another home on there. The applicant is unable to subdivide the property because she doesn’t have adequate access into it. Therefore, she wants to rezone to RA (Rural Agricultural) because she would then be allowed to add a second home on the property for family members. Mr. Chilton asked if she has a current easement into the property. Mr. Bates stated yes but its only a 15-ft right-of-way, the subdivision ordinance requires a 45-ft easement and she was unable to acquire that from her neighbors.

6

Vice-Chairman Caudle asked Mr. Bates to explain the difference between the RA and RG districts. Mr. Bates stated that the RA district is not quite as restrictive and allows more than 1 home per parcel for family members if acreage is sufficient. The RG district is restricted to 1 home per lot but subdividing is encouraged if the road is adequate for subdivision. Both districts allow any type of residential dwelling. Bessie Comer stated that this property was originally her grandfather’s property and it was divided among the children. She would like to put a manufactured home on there for her daughter and family to live in, so they can look after her and her husband as they age. She stated that she has deeded the property to her daughter with a life estate. Vice-Chairman Caudle asked if anyone had any questions. No one had any questions. Mr. Casstevens motioned to recommend approval of zoning amendment petition ZCR1182 to the Board of Commissioners to rezone property identified as Tax ID # 5012-03-00-9673 from RG (Residential General) to RA (Rural Agricultural) based on the fact that the request meets the five criteria set forth in Article 4, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance; approval will 1) create an appropriate complementary use to the community in regards to this particular parcel of land; 2) this type of rezoning is permissible to anyone in the community with similar factors in regards to their particular parcel of land; 3) the intent of the RA zoning district is to maintain a rural development pattern where single-family housing is intermingled with agricultural and appropriate non-residential uses; 4) approval will not alter the character of the neighborhood based on the location and type of rezoning requested; and finally 5) the proposal is in harmony with the Land Use Plan development principles; seconded by Mr. Chilton. All present were in favor. Motion carried.

MEMBERS DISCUSSION MINOR SUBDIVISION MONTHLY TOTALS Mr. Bates stated from June 25th until July 27th there were nine minor subdivisions approved resulting in twelve new lots. Land Use Plan Update

7

Mr. Bates went over the notes from the April 9th and August 2nd meeting with the Board. He stated that we would be scheduling area community meetings at community centers and churches in the next few weeks. Mr. Bates passed out maps to the Board of the current Land Use Map and a draft copy with changes being made to the rural growth areas. Todd Tucker pointed out industrial property located along Gentry Road and Elkin Wildlife Road stating he would like to see those areas stay Industrial for future growth. He stated those are the only areas left in Elkin that are close to the interstate. Mr. Bates stated that September 10th will be our next meeting and he will notify the Board of the community meeting dates once they have been scheduled. Mr. Badgett left the meeting at 6:49 p.m. __________________________________________________________________ There being no further business at this time, Mr. Chilton motioned for adjournment at 6:50 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Beals. All present were in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted


122 hamby road surry county dobson, nc 27017 (336) 401 ... meeting minutes.pdf · 122 hamby road...

Documents