Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews Mac Development rezoning request for Union Hill Road; planning commission recommended denial
Summary
An applicant requested rezoning of 7.45 acres on Union Hill Road to Office-Institutional with detailed use stipulations. Planning staff summarized the applicant's proffered conditions and the Planning Commission's 5–4 denial; commissioners debated commercial spread vs. residential alternatives and no final vote is recorded in the transcript.
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners on March 4 reviewed a rezoning request from Mac Development for 7.45 acres at 7658 Union Hill Road, adjacent to Avery Elementary School, and discussed the applicant's offer of use and development stipulations.
Planning staff explained the application history: the applicant initially sought a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with concurrent variances but, following Planning Commission review, revised the request to Office-Institutional (O&I) with stipulations and no concurrent variances. The Planning Commission recommended denial by a 5–4 vote. "The applicant is now requesting office institutional with stipulations and no concurrent variances," staff said.
Proffered stipulations submitted by the applicant and summarized by staff included: prohibition of a list of uses normally allowed under O&I (the applicant tied prohibitions to NAICS codes), limiting vehicular access to a single entrance onto Union Hill Road, limiting the development to 2 to 5 buildings with a total not to exceed 50,000 aggregate finished square feet, architectural and material standards for buildings, vegetative landscape strips along street frontages, a four-rail wooden perimeter fence, a 30-foot buffer adjacent to Avery Elementary School, prohibition of interparcel access with the school property, limits on hours of operation, monument-style signage requirements, underground utilities and parking that complies with county standards. Staff said the applicant also proposed separate external entrances for all suites.
Commissioners discussed the land-use implications for the intersection, with at least one commissioner expressing concern that nonresidential approval at this corner could create pressure for similar nonresidential uses on the other three corners. A commissioner who said residential uses would be preferable argued medium-density residential could provide reasonable economic use for the property while protecting the intersection from broader nonresidential conversion; that commissioner acknowledged being in the minority on the board.
Another commissioner noted that commercial development does not always catalyze immediate spread and that any future applications for adjacent corners would be evaluated on their own merits. Staff noted the property is in a county character area identified as "country/state's character area" and that surrounding parcels remain agricultural or residential in zoning.
The transcript records no final board vote on the rezoning in the provided excerpt. A commissioner said he would be prepared to make a motion at the meeting, indicating this item was expected to return for a formal vote during the public meeting portion of the agenda.
Why it matters: Rezoning a rural parcel at a signalized or important intersection can affect traffic, school adjacency, neighborhood character and future development patterns. The applicant proffered a substantial list of restrictions intended to limit impacts if O&I zoning is approved; the Planning Commission recommended denial and the Board's final action was not recorded in the provided transcript.
