Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and county spar over rezoning for large towing yard on Majolica Road
Summary
A contested rezoning hearing on Sept. 2 drew clashes between an owner seeking conditional CBI zoning for a 7‑acre towing and vehicle-storage yard and neighbors who cite spot‑zoning concerns, a prior fire and quality-of-life impacts; commissioners closed the hearing and asked staff to report back within two weeks on possible conditions.
Rowan County commissioners on Sept. 2 held a lengthy and sometimes heated legislative hearing over a request to rezone a 7-acre portion of a 21-acre parcel on Majolica Road for an automobile towing with storage operation.
Planning staff said the parcel (tax parcel 451058) is currently zoned RA and lies between an existing mobile-home park (Oakland Meadows) and a planned subdivision. The applicant seeks a conditional CBI district limited to towing and vehicle storage; staff noted the county adopted an 'automobile towing with storage' use standard in late 2024 and recommended careful scrutiny because the proposed zoning does not match the land-use plan’s medium‑density residential recommendation.
Opponents—represented by Oakland Meadows manager John Scarborough and other residents—argued the rezoning amounts to unlawful spot zoning, harms neighborhood values and public safety, and pointed to a March fire that they say spread to the manufactured‑home park. Scarborough presented photos and a video of the March 8 fire and a petition signed by about 50 residents opposing the rezoning.
The applicant and supporters, including a manager and representatives for the towing operation, said the business employs 18 people (including veterans), documents vehicle turnover, and takes steps (fencing, screening) to limit visibility and risk. The owner, identified in staff materials as Jeremy Good, said vehicles are rotated and removed—often within 60–90 days—and argued the operation provides needed services to local residents and police rotations.
County legal counsel Eli reviewed North Carolina case law on 'spot zoning' (citing Blades v. City of Raleigh, 1972) and explained a technical question: whether the definition requires single ownership of the small tract. Staff found the deed lists the owner and spouse (tenants by entirety), creating a legal ambiguity and potential litigation risk if the board were to treat this as classic spot zoning.
After extended testimony, planning staff urged that the board could either rule under spot‑zoning tests or treat the request under normal rezoning criteria and conditions. The chair proposed giving parties an opportunity to negotiate mitigation measures; the applicant declined to engage. The board closed the public hearing and asked staff to work with the parties and return within two weeks with a report on whether mutually acceptable conditions could be reached.
No final rezoning vote was taken at the Sept. 2 meeting.
Key details from the hearing included staff reports that the site had more than 100 cars moved on site by early 2024 and that the county issued a notice of violation in January–February 2024; the applicant purchased the property in December 2023. Planning staff said the zoning ordinance allows towing/storage with up to six-month storage limits and that the board could impose conditions (reduced operational area, increased setbacks or screening) if approving a conditional zoning.
