Rowan County denies rezoning for Majolica Road towing and storage facility

The Rowan County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 20 denied a petition (Z11-24) to rezone about 7 acres at 1124 Majolica Road from RA to CBI CD to allow an automotive towing and vehicle storage facility.

County staff presented the file and said the petition had been before the board previously (public hearings were held and the matter was tabled at earlier meetings). Commissioners then discussed whether the request would constitute spot zoning and whether the proposed use fit the Western Area Land Use Plan.

A commissioner who opposed the request said the tract is relatively small and surrounded by uniformly zoned residential property and that granting the petition would likely be spot zoning under the statutory and case-law factors the board must apply. The commissioner outlined the four-factor “reasonable basis” test used in North Carolina spot-zoning reviews—size of the tract, compatibility with the comprehensive plan, benefits and detriments to neighbors, and relationship between proposed and adjoining uses—and concluded those factors weighed against approval in this case. The board read a formal statement of reasons into the record, referencing a General Statute citation and two appellate decisions discussed during deliberations.

Another commissioner said he could not in good conscience deny the owner’s request given the business’s operations and the effect on employees, but the motion to approve failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to deny carried; the board directed staff to work with the applicant and the planning department to discuss compliance/transition options for the existing business rather than immediate enforcement action.

The board’s adopted written rationale (read into the record) said the property is small—about 7 acres—surrounded by residential and rural agricultural parcels; the Western Area Land Use Plan encourages medium-density residential in the area and identifies other corridors for heavy-impact uses; public comments were primarily opposed; and the rezoning therefore failed each factor of the reasonable-basis test and was denied.

Next steps recorded by the board included directing the planning department to engage with the property owner to explore a compliance period or other options to transition operations, and to return to the board with any recommended timelines or additional actions.

Ending: The board closed deliberations on Z11-24 with denial and asked planning staff to continue discussions with the applicant about possible transition or compliance timelines.