Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Graham County supervisors approve two commercial rezones despite neighbor's access concerns
Summary
The board approved rezoning of two parcels to Commercial Manufacturing after public hearings; a nearby resident warned the change could increase truck traffic and affect a privately maintained access easement, but supervisors said highway-frontage sites are appropriate for commercial uses.
The Graham County Board of Supervisors approved two separate rezoning requests Tuesday that will allow commercial manufacturing uses on highway-frontage parcels, after a nearby resident urged caution over traffic and private-access impacts.
At a public hearing on rezone case 948-28 (APN 10617027), planning staff described the applicant's request to change an 11-acre parcel from General Land Use to CM (Commercial Manufacturing). The planning and zoning commission had unanimously recommended approval and staff reported no prior written opposition. A resident, identified in the record as Mr. Vertrice, spoke during the three-minute public comment period to oppose the rezoning.
"We do just have concerns of future traffic...we don't want to have to be going around trucks and buildings and that type of stuff when it comes to our access," Mr. Vertrice told the board, saying he and several neighbors own and maintain a private road and hold recorded access rights across the property in question.
Board members and staff walked through a zoning map during the hearing to show the distance between the existing homes and the parcel, explained that the county's standard notification radius is 300 feet, and clarified that the resident's recorded easement remains in place and cannot be unilaterally removed by a future purchaser. Planning staff noted the parcel's highway frontage makes it a typical location for commercial uses.
Supervisors acknowledged the resident's concerns but said the county must balance private property rights with broader development and access considerations. After deliberation, the board voted by voice to approve the rezoning.
A second rezoning (case 949-26, partial APN 10739031), a roughly 43-acre parcel near Buena Vista submitted by a property owner associated with a member of the planning commission, was presented next. Planning staff again reported no opposition and a unanimous favorable recommendation; the board voted to approve that zoning change as well.
Both motions passed by voice vote. The board did not specify conditional limitations on the rezones during Tuesday's action; any future development proposals will be subject to applicable permits, building codes and site-review processes.
The county record shows the planning commission's favorable recommendations and the board's approvals; staff also emphasized the easement and private access rights raised by the commenter remain recorded and would not be removed without the owners' agreement or separate legal action.
