Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rezoning request for landscaping contractor site on Highway 92
Summary
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners unanimously denied a request to rezone a 1.74-acre property on Highway 92 from General Commercial to Light Industrial; the Planning Commission had recommended denial and the board cited inconsistency with the area plan and buffering and setback issues.
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to deny a rezoning request for a 1.74-acre parcel at 4,725 Highway 92 that would have changed the zoning from General Commercial (GC) to Light Industrial (LI).
County staff said the applicant, represented by Fletcher Kaye Law on behalf of property owner Phyllis Roberts, operates a grading and landscape contracting business and sought the rezoning to permit ongoing contractor operations at the site. The application included three concurrent variance requests: reduce a 25-foot side building setback to 10.8 feet to reflect the existing building; reduce a 30-foot zoning buffer adjacent to GC property to accommodate existing asphalt; and permit an eight-foot privacy fence for open storage within the front building setback area.
Staff told the board the parcel sits within the Highway 92 Village overlay district and the county's Southwest Cherokee area plan, and that the Planning Commission recommended denial. The applicant submitted a revised letter of intent and a revised site plan in October proposing to move the privacy fence back to 30 feet from the front property line, to remove an existing boat lift, and to add roughly 5,000 square feet of additional streetscape screening along the frontage.
Planning staff also noted the property contains an existing industrial structure and asphalt parking, a detention pond and nearby commercial uses including a CVS and RV dealership. The applicant proffered a condition that no equipment or materials would be stored within the 50-foot front yard building setback.
After a short discussion the board's motion to deny cited incompatibility with the surrounding development pattern and the county's land-use plan for the area. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). The board told staff that because the Planning Commission had already held a hearing and recommended denial, any decision to approve the rezoning would require a new advertised public hearing.
Votes
The motion to deny the rezoning request (Case No. 2508023) passed unanimously, 4-0 (Commissioners present: Harry Johnston, Carter, Cagle, Wetherby).
