Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning RZ 01 2026 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff recommends rezoning of 24.05-acre parcel; commissioners move to consider change
Summary
Planning Director Dan Jones told the board staff found a rezoning request for roughly 24.05 acres (RZ-01-2026, McCall Living Trust) consistent with the land-use plan; commissioners asked questions about mobile-home placement, lot size and water and a motion to adopt a statement of consistency was moved and seconded; the recorded vote is not in the provided transcript.
At the March 17 meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, Planning Director Dan Jones presented a staff report recommending approval of rezoning case RZ-01-2026, a request by the McCall Living Trust to rezone about 24.05 acres identified as parcel 754700213211 on Kapelsi Road from the mobile-home-park district to Residential 3.
Dan Jones said the staff report (packet pages 9–12) reviewed the property's history, applicable zoning standards and the county land-use plan and concluded all five rezoning criteria were satisfied. "Based on this review, staff recommends approval for the rezoning request," Jones said.
Commissioners questioned practical implications: whether mobile homes can be sited in R‑3 (Jones and commissioners explained R‑3 allows primary residences and limited doublewide placements depending on lot size), the minimum lot size (Jones noted a 20,000-square-foot minimum per home is relevant to determining unit count), and whether county water serves the site (staff said no waterline was indicated on their map and a common well had previously served the former mobile-home park).
The applicant did not appear; staff said real-estate agents represented the owner and described the rezoning as intended to make the property more marketable. A commissioner moved to approve the rezoning and to adopt a statement of consistency finding the amendment consistent with the Montgomery County Land Use Plan and reasonable in the public interest under North Carolina General Statute section 160D-604; the motion was seconded. The transcript provided does not record the vote or final outcome for that motion.
Because the board only approves zoning classifications and not any specific future development, staff reminded commissioners the rezoning itself does not bind a future detailed project. The planning board had recommended approval prior to the county meeting.
Next steps: the motion to adopt the statement of consistency was moved and seconded; the transcript does not include a recorded vote or final disposition in the provided excerpt.
