Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners approve four rezonings including self‑storage site; statement of consistency adopted

2113724 · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Jan. 13 meeting the Davidson County Board of Commissioners approved four rezoning requests, shifting three properties to less‑intensive districts and one to highway commercial; staff recommended approval in each case and the board adopted statements of consistency.

DAVIDSON COUNTY — The Davidson County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 13 approved four rezoning requests, including a change to allow a self‑storage facility along N.C. 150 and several down‑zonings that county staff said match existing development patterns.

The measures were routine on the board’s agenda and each carried after staff recommended support and commissioners moved, seconded and voted in favor.

County staff told the board the requests reflect changes in land use and development patterns near the sites and cited sections of the county zoning ordinance and land‑development plan in support. The board adopted statements of consistency for each approved rezoning as requested by staff.

Details and context: commissioners heard presentations or comments from applicants and their representatives on each case. A representative for RCP Acquisitions said proposed NCDOT right‑of‑way work, including a roundabout, reduced the site’s developable area and made multifamily housing less feasible; the applicant presented an illustrative plan for a fenced, secured self‑storage facility. Staff said the area already contains commercial, limited industrial and multifamily uses and that storage facilities are a common response to recent residential construction that lacks basement storage.

On two other cases, applicants requested down‑zonings from conditional commercial or RA1 to RA2 to return the parcels to lower‑intensity residential or rural designations; staff noted the parcels are surrounded by RA2 zoning. Another applicant sought to change a small parcel from highway commercial (HC) to rural commercial (RC) to gain a smaller front setback and thereby add more developable area; staff said nearby parcels have locally oriented commercial uses.

Votes at a glance

- Chase property (Linwood Southmont Road): CU ONI (conditional office/institutional) to RA2 (Rural Agricultural 2). Staff supported the down‑zoning as the parcel is surrounded by RA2. Public hearing closed with no opposition. Motion and second carried; the board adopted a statement of consistency.

- Barrier property (Snyder Station Road): RA1 to RA2. Applicant said the plan is to subdivide and place a single‑wide mobile home similar to adjacent lots. Staff supported the request; no public opposition. Motion and second carried; statement of consistency adopted.

- RCP Acquisitions (Hickory Tree Road, near N.C. 150): RM2 (high‑density residential) to HC (Highway Commercial). Attorney Nick Blackwood and a representative for the developer presented an illustrative plan and said a proposed NCDOT roundabout would remove roughly 1.13 acres of right‑of‑way and make multifamily infeasible; the applicant said a self‑storage use is the preferred alternative. Staff recommended approval pointing to existing HC zoning across Highway 150 and recent changes in the area. Motion and second carried; statement of consistency adopted.

- Durham property (N.C. 8 at Wofford Road): HC to RC (Rural Commercial). Applicant said RC would provide a more workable building footprint on a smaller lot; staff said RC is a down‑zone from HC and that nearby parcels already have small, locally oriented commercial uses. Motion and second carried; statement of consistency adopted.

What the approvals mean: Each rezoning will allow the property owner to pursue site plans consistent with the new zoning; any specific development remains subject to subsequent permitting and site‑plan review. County staff said the approvals reflect how the land around the parcels has changed and cited compliance with the county land‑development plan and zoning ordinance.

No recorded public opposition appeared in the hearing records for these items. The board moved on after each vote to adopt the staff‑draft consistency resolution required under the county ordinance.