September 1, 2015 - 6:00 PM - County Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes (Rezoning)

10 776 Meeting of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners September 1 , 2015 6 00 pm The Johnston County Board of Commissioners met in regular session Tuesday , September 1 , 2015 at 6 00 pm in the Commissioners Meeting Room , Johnston County Courthouse Annex , Smithfield , North Carolina The following members were present Present Chairman Tony Braswell , Vice Chairman DeVan Barbour , Cookie Pope , Allen L Mims , Jr , Jeffrey P Carver , Ted G Godwin , and Chad M Stewart Absent None Also Present County Manager Rick J Hester , Clerk to the Board Paula G Woodard , County Attorney Jennifer J Slusser , and Paralegal Deputy Clerk to the Board Dana Cuddington Chairman Tony Braswell called the meeting to order at 6 00 pm and the following business was transacted 1 Public Comment None 2 Public Hearing Rezoning and Special Use Requests Advertised – The Smithfield Herald – August 19 and 26 , 2015 Certified letters were mailed to adjoining property owners on August 17 , 2015 Notices were posted at the locations on July 2 , 2015 for Cases 15 - 25 , 15 - 26 , and 15 - 27 The Chairman opened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 15 - 25 Case 15 - 25 Petition to rezone 359 acres of a 124 acre tract located at 565 Crantock Road SR 1504 in Smithfield Township from Agricultural Residential AR to Industrial 1 – Special Use District I - 1 SUD Tax ID 15I08025 Owner Chad and Kandie Spangler Applicant Chad Spangler Planning Director Berry Gray stated the petition is to rezone 359 acres of a 124 acre tract located at 565 Crantock Road in Smithfield Township from Agricultural Residential to Industrial 1 – Special Use District Mr Gray noted the special use request associated with the rezoning is to allow for a grading business Mr Gray stated the site is currently vacant The surrounding land uses are zoned Agricultural Residential and used for agricultural and residential purposes ; CLD and used for the County landfill approximately 700 feet away ; and General Business for a propane and landscaping company The area is located within a designated “ Secondary Growth Area ” on the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan which denotes areas in which low to moderate levels of growth pressures are anticipated over the next 20 years Mr Gray noted the location of the subject site on the aerial photograph for the Board and stated the surrounding property is owned by the applicant as well Mr Gray clarified that this rezoning case is for the grading business only and is separate from Case 15 - 26 which is for a land clearing inert debris landfill Mr Gray referenced a letter dated August 27 , 2015 from the Triangle Land Conservancy sent to the County Commissioners expressing concerns that the proposed rezoning could have an impact on a nearby conservation easement Chairman Tony Braswell instructed the Clerk to the Board to include the letter from the Triangle Land Conservancy as part of the record At the request of Commissioner Ted G Godwin , Mr Gray noted the approximate location of the conservation easement in relation to the subject site on the aerial photograph for the Board Attorney Chip Hewett , 768 Pondfield Road , Princeton , representing Applicant Chad Spangler , addressed the Board Mr Hewett stated Mr Spangler operated a grading business in another location so he is not new to the business and is very experienced Mr Hewett asked Mr Spangler to come forward and speak on the request Applicant Chad Spangler , 1925 Freedom Road , Smithfield , stated he has owned a grading business for nine years and the previous operation was located on Freedom Road ; however , due to the growth in their business they need more property Mr Spangler reported he currently has five tractor trailer trucks and four smaller service trucks He stated they would like to build a shop with three bays to service their trucks and hePage777 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued feels the subject site is a perfect location because it is approximately 500 feet off the road with a natural buffer surrounding it to help with noise concerns Mr Spangler stated there were concerns over traffic at the Planning Board meeting , but he explained that he would only have about seven trucks that his employees would leave on in the morning and then come back in the evening Mr Spangler commented a subdivision would generate more traffic than his proposed use Mr Spangler stated there would be no issues with lighting because no work would be done at night and the building would be for his employees to store their supplies equipment and perform maintenance work such as changing brakes on the trucks At the inquiry of Chairman Braswell , Mr Spangler stated he did have a meeting with his immediate neighbors and he believes some of those people are in the audience Tim Young , 587 Crantock Road , stated he lives next to where Mr Spangler is proposing to have his shop Mr Young stated Mr Spangler approached him about the proposed use and he believes Mr Spangler is a man of his word and will keep the business to a minimum Mr Young stated he would rather have the proposed use on the site than 50 more homes because as it is , there are 200 homes being developed across the street Mr Young stated that he hears Mr Spangler’s crews entering and leaving the site and they do not bother him Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr noted that Mr Young stated he has heard Mr Spangler’s crew entering and leaving the property and asked if they were already operating on the site Mr Young stated they are not on the site for business but he has heard them on the property a few times doing odd and end type things Ronald Moore , 326 Crantock Road , addressed the Board and stated he has no problems with the proposed grading business use Mark Bailey , 6239 Zack’s Mill Road , stated he is Mr Spangler’s business insurance agent Mr Bailey commented that from his experience with Mr Spangler he can state Mr Spangler runs a very good business and does things the right way Mr Bailey stated he has known Mr Spangler for many years and Mr Spangler always operates a first class business Mike Williams , 889 Freedom Road , stated he lives across the road from Mr Spangler’s former business location Mr Williams noted that when Mr Spangler was operating across from him there were no problems with Mr Spangler’s trucks or employees Mr Williams stated he enjoyed having Mr Spangler as a neighbor Sandra Ennis , 104 Brazil Nut Lane , Maplewood Run Subdivision , stated she has lived in Maplewood Run for over four years and she has no problem with Mr Spangler’s proposed plans Ms Ennis stated she thinks there would be more problems with subdivision traffic than what Mr Spangler is proposing Karen Johnson , 92 Brazil Nut Lane , Maplewood Run Subdivision , stated she has no issues with the rezoning case Kenneth Holderfield , 605 Crantock Road , stated he has no problems with the proposed use Kristen Turney , 122 Brazil Nut Lane , Maplewood Run Subdivision , stated she has no problems with the rezoning case Steve Hargis , 1199 Crantock Road , stated he is representing several people that oppose the rezoning request on Crantock Road Mr Hargis submitted a packet of information to the Board consisting of the earlier referenced letter from the Triangle Land Conservancy , an e - mail from Department of Transportation District Engineer Jiles Harrell regarding driveway permit information , and a petition in opposition signed by approximately 140 people Mr Hargis stated the subject area consists of farmland , single family homes , and three subdivisions along a pristine road He noted there is also a 200 + acre tract of land that is in a conservation easement which borders part of the subject site and he is concerned the proposed use could impact the land Mr Hargis stated it appears to him that the grading business is already operating on the site because he sees tractor trailer trucks as well as dump trucks going in and out of the site full of rubbish Mr Hargis also expressed concerns regarding the entrance to the property in relation to the hill and stated he does not believe it meets the requirements by the Department of Transportation for a driveway permit Mr Hargis stated Mr Spangler informed the Planning Board that he had obtained the driveway permit ; however , Mr Hargis referenced the e - mail submitted earlier from District Engineer Jiles Harrell stating that a driveway permit has not been approved Page778 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued Mr Hargis continued that he is concerned about large truck traffic considering the roadway and the hill in relation to where the driveway is located Mr Hargis stated there are numerous other places in Johnston County already zoned for what Mr Spangler is trying to do and he does not see a need for the business to be located in a rural area that has traditionally been agricultural and residential Mr Hargis asked the Board of Commissioners to deny the rezoning request and stated industry has its place which should be separated from where people live At the request of Chairman Braswell , approximately 30 people in attendance raised their hands in opposition to the rezoning request Commissioner Godwin commented that he has a hard time understanding why the nearby residents would rather have more homes and subdivisions with that associated traffic versus the proposed use Mr Hargis responded to Commissioner Godwin that car traffic is much easier to deal with than truck traffic Mr Hargis stated he does not believe that this will be the end of Mr Spangler’s plans for the property and he expects that Mr Spangler will at some point be back requesting to expand his business in the future Chairman Braswell noted the comments by Mr Hargis regarding Mr Spangler expanding in the future are speculation Commissioner Mims stated there are a couple of bridges on the road and he asked if there are any weight limits on those bridges Mr Hargis stated there are no signs posted on the road or bridges regarding weight limits ; however , he does not believe the road was designed to heavy truck standards because the area is a farm community Commissioner Chad M Stewart asked Mr Hargis if in the future someone wanted to construct a 60 - home subdivision on the property would he be against that use Mr Hargis stated he would rather see the area continue to be residential than put a business there with truck traffic Mr Hargis stated if the proposed use were just an office that would never grow he would have no problems , but he does have concerns that the proposed use would grow in the future Commissioner DeVan Barbour stated he understands the speculation by Mr Hargis ; however , the Board must base its decision on the information presented for this case and not speculation about future plans Sharon Stephenson addressed the Board on behalf of her parents who live at 800 Crantock Road Ms Stephenson expressed her concerns with the entrance into the subject site Ms Stephenson stated it is a bad spot for a driveway and she spoke on safety concerns with the road Ms Stephenson stated the Board needs to see the road before making a decision due to safety concerns Kay Howell , 1420 Crantock Road , addressed Commissioner Stewart’s earlier question would they be opposed to another subdivision on the site Ms Howell stated she would be opposed to another subdivision and noted when a developer proposed a subdivision down the road she attended the Planning Board meeting to speak against it , although it was approved anyway Ms Howell stated her main concern is traffic going in and out of the driveway to the subject site She spoke on the dangerous conditions for traffic around the area Eddie Godwin , 800 Crantock Road , stated he has lived on Crantock Road practically all his life and he also believes the subject site is a dangerous spot to have a driveway Mr Godwin expressed his concerns regarding the roadway and the hill William Betts , 1565 Crantock Road , stated he has lived on Crantock Road for 13 years Mr Betts stated he often rides his motorcycle on Crantock Road and he is also concerned with the driveway in relation to the hill noting it is a dangerous spot Mr Betts spoke on the site distance and the steepness of the hill as well as the sharp curve and stressed it is a dangerous spot for a driveway with large trucks to be using Tim Young , 587 Crantock Road , readdressed the Board and stated with regards to the driveway going into the subject site , it is in a spot where it could be dangerous ; however , he thinks a warning sign could be put up to slow down traffic which would be a blessing Mr Young stated he believes once people in the area know about the truck traffic then they would slow down and things would be okay Page779 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued Judy Sprout , 3319 Crantock Road , stated she and her husband purchased their property on Crantock Road to live in the country and she opposes a business use on the road Ms Sprout stated she and her husband have moved from other places because of businesses that located near their homes Tim Sprout , 3319 Crantock Road , stated he has been in the contracting business his entire life Mr Sprout stated at their former residence they had a paving company move into the area and the business grew to the point where they could not access their property easily Mr Sprout expressed his concerns regarding how a business use would impact Crantock Road Attorney Chip Hewett readdressed the Board and stated the site will require a driveway permit which Mr Spangler will have to go through the process to obtain Mr Hewett reported Mr Spangler’s plans are to pave the first 100 feet into the property so there should be no gravel concerns in the roadway Chairman Braswell asked Mr Hewett how he could be sure that the Department of Transportation would approve a driveway permit at the current location Mr Hewett responded the driveway permit is not within their authority so they do not know if it will get approved as it is a decision by the Department of Transportation Mr Hewett stated he realizes the rezoning is a tough decision for the Board , but he questioned what would be the next best use for the property He stated if a subdivision locates on the site there will still be traffic concerns Mr Hewett acknowledged that there has been some work on the subject site ; however , he believes that was an oversight Mr Hewett explained that a building permit was issued for the property , but it was later revoked and the site has not been operational since that time Upon questions by the Board regarding the building permit that was issued and then revoked , Mr Gray reported as he understands , the building permit that was issued was for a farm building initially Mr Spangler readdressed the Board and stated regarding the building permit , he was informed by the County that since the property was under his farm number if he submitted plans for a commercial use and built the building to those specifications , then the County would issue the building permit under his farm number However , when the inspector came out he asked what the building would be used for Mr Spangler stated when he explained his plans for the grading business the County revoked the permit because the property had not been rezoned Mr Spangler stated some of his crew does access the site occasionally because he has tools locked up on the site that they need Mr Spangler stated on the driveway permit issue , what he said at the Planning Board meeting was that he had a driveway permit drawn up by his engineer ; however , until the rezoning was approved he did not want to submit the permit application to the Department of Transportation and spend any money Mr Spangler stated Marcus Lee with the Department of Transportation did visit the subject site and has informed Mr Gray that there would be no issues with where the driveway is proposed Commissioner Mims commented that he realizes Cases 15 - 25 and 15 - 26 are two separate uses ; however , he asked if the rezonings are interlinked Mr Spangler responded the grading business is the most important and they thought the adjacent property would be a good place for a land clearing inert debris landfill since it is near the County landfill property There being no further public comments , the Chairman closed the public comment portion of the hearing Mr Gray reported the Planning Board recommended denial of the rezoning and adoption of a Resolution for the Statement of Consistency as submitted in the agenda packet Commissioner Ted G Godwin asked what staff’s recommendation was Mr Gray reported staff recommended approval due to the fact that the subject site is in the middle of a large tract with a natural buffer and because of its close proximity to the County landfill Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver asked about the applicant’s former business on Freedom Road and how that site was zoned Mr Spangler stated his former property on Freedom Road was rezoned for commercial PagePage pageNumber5780 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued Commissioner DeVan Barbour stated personally he is not too concerned about putting a business on the subject site because the Board could put special use conditions on the use that would limit any speculation for future growth without having to come back to the Board for more approvals Commissioner Barbour stated it bothers him that the applicant sold his other location and purchased the subject site without rezoning first Commissioner Barbour stated it is hard for him to get a feel for the site distance on the road and if the Department of Transportation would approve a driveway permit Mr Gray commented that the Department of Transportation will look at the site in detail and from past experience , the Department of Transportation could require a variety of improvements from installing turn lanes to raising or cutting down hills Commissioner Chad M Stewart stated he is struggling with the rezoning because on one hand he wants the applicant to have his business ; however , he understands the concerns of those that live in the area Commissioner Stewart also commented that the road situation concerns him as well Chairman Tony Braswell noted the applicant reported that there was a site visit by the Department of Transportation and he asked Mr Gray if he was a part of that site visit Mr Gray stated he did not attend the Department of Transportation’s site visit Mr Gray explained that the Department of Transportation provides preliminary comments during the Technical Review Committee’s initial review of the rezoning request He stated that one of those comments from the DOT was that a driveway permit needed to be obtained Upon a question by Commissioner Barbour , Mr Gray stated he knows for sure that the Department of Transportation reviewed the site plan , but he is unsure if a site visit was made Chairman Braswell commented it seems during the Planning Board meeting that Case 15 - 26 which was for the land clearing inert debris landfill got mixed up with Case 15 - 25 which is the grading business and he is trying to understand the Planning Board’s basis for recommending denial Mr Gray confirmed that both uses were discussed together at the Planning Board meeting , but he is unsure if that is how the Planning Board made their decision to recommend denial There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 15 - 25 Commissioner Carver commented that the decision is not an easy one to make as he can see all points Commissioner Carver stated the Board has always considered if the decision they are making is precedent setting Commissioner Carver indicated in this case , the subject site was purchased by the applicant six months ago , but those that have lived there should have their right of say Commissioner Godwin stated he lives in between Highway 301 and the Selma Oil Terminals so he certainly knows about large truck traffic Commissioner Godwin continued that he values living in the country also and in trying to put himself in the residents ’ situation , he believes he would rather see limited truck traffic than another subdivision Commissioner Stewart stated he has a farm house in an area where there are sand mines and large trucks which he is personally fine with ; however , his opinion is that if the area is already a residential farming area then those types of uses are what fit the landscape Commissioner Barbour stated if the driveway permit issue could be dealt with through the Department of Transportation then the Board could implement special use conditions to limit the truck traffic and if the business remains small then he is not sure how intrusive the use would really be Commissioner Carver stated he believes the Commissioners are pro - business and wants to help businesses grow ; however , there are plenty of other places where this type of business could operate without neighbors being in opposition who have already been living there Decision on Rezoning Case 15 - 25 Case 15 - 25 Petition to rezone 359 acres of a 124 acre tract located at 565 Crantock Road SR 1504 in Smithfield Township from Agricultural Residential AR to Industrial 1 – Special Use District I - 1 SUD Tax ID 15I08025 Owner Chad and Kandie Spangler Applicant Chad SpanglerPagePage pageNumber6781 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver moved the Board adopt the following Statement of Consistency Resolution for Case 15 - 25 Commissioner Ted G Godwin seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote DENIAL RESOLUTION FOR CASE NUMBER 15 - 25 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF JOHNSTON COUNTY WHEREAS , pursuant to NC Gen Stat § 153A - 341 , prior to adopting or rejecting a zoning amendment , the governing board is required to adopt a statement as to whether the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive zoning plan and why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest ; WHEREAS , the County Planning Board has reviewed a proposed amendment to The Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County , for the parcel identified as tax Tag ID 15I08025 located at 565 Crantock Road as shown on the attached Exhibit A , from Agricultural Residential AR to Industrial 1 - Special Use District I1 - SUD WHEREAS , based on a review of the proposed amendment the Planning Board found that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and further recommended that the Board of Commissioners deny the proposed amendment ; and WHEREAS , this Board has reviewed and considered the above written recommendation of the Planning Board and has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment , and this Board desires to adopt a statement describing why the adoption of the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and the Board considers the proposed amendment not to be reasonable and not in the public interest NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT 1 This Board finds and determines that the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County is not consistent with the Johnston County Land Use Plan and updates thereto because the Land Use Plan and updates indicate that a The amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in that the use is not compatible with the surrounding area 2 This Board finds and determines that it is not reasonable and not in the public interest to adopt the proposed amendment because a The request is not reasonable and not in the public interest in that the Industrial use would have a negative impact on the neighboring residential properties Adopted this the 1st day of September , 2015 Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver moved the Board deny Rezoning Case 15 - 25 to rezone 359 acres of a 124 acre tract located at 565 Crantock Road in Smithfield Township from Agricultural Residential to Industrial 1 – Special Use District Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr seconded the motion , which carried by the following vote Ayes Commissioners Cookie Pope , Allen L Mims , Jr , Jeffrey P Carver , and Chad M Stewart Nays Commissioners Tony Braswell , DeVan Barbour , and Ted G Godwin Rezoning Case 15 - 26 Withdrawn - Attorney Chip Hewett , representing Applicant Chad Spangler , withdrew Rezoning Case 15 - 26 on behalf of his client The Chairman reopened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 15 - 27 Case 15 - 27 Petition to rezone a 712 acre tract located at 227 Bertie Heights Road in Pine Level Township from Agricultural Residential AR to Agricultural Residential AR with the Interstate Highway Interchange IHI overlay district Tax ID 12O08007F Owner Robert Ernest Cribb , Sr Applicant Robert Ernest Cribb , Sr Planning Director Berry Gray stated the petition is to rezone a 712 acre tract located at 227 Bertie Heights Road in Pine Level Township from Agricultural Residential to Agricultural Residential with the Interstate Highway Interchange overlay district Mr Gray stated the existing use is zoned Agricultural Residential and used for such purposes The surrounding land uses are zoned Agricultural Residential and used for residential and agricultural purposes ; Agricultural Residential with Interstate Highway Interchange overlay and used for agricultural and residential purposes ; Community Business with Interstate Highway Interchange overlay and currently vacant Mr Gray noted the subject site is surrounded by the Interstate Highway Interchange zoning district and was also originally zoned Interstate Highway Interchange , but in 2003 the property owner at that timePagePage pageNumber7782 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued petitioned to downzone to Agricultural Residential for tax purposes The area is located within a designated “ Primary Growth Area ” on the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan which denotes an area in which high levels of growth pressures currently exist or are anticipated near term Chairman Tony Braswell asked if the property could be rezoned a different way with a special use Mr Gray explained the Board could rezone the property for special use ; however , a lot of the special conditions that would be put on the property are covered within the Interstate Highway Interchange district as permitted uses Mr Gray stated items such as buffers and fencing would apply whether the zoning is special use or Interstate Highway Interchange Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr expressed concerns with having an overlying zoning district that is not compatible with the underlying zoning district Commissioner Mims asked what the applicant plans to do with the property Mr Gray stated as he understands , the applicant wishes to build a residence on the property and the property is already zoned Agricultural Residential for that purpose , but the applicant also wishes to have his business at the front of the site Commissioner Mims stated it concerns him that the applicant wants to have a business and also a residence on the property Applicant Robert Cribb , 166 Fitzgerald Road , Selma , addressed the Board Mr Cribb stated he plans to build a shop approximately 200 feet off the front of the property and would like to move his home to the back acreage on the site Mr Cribb stated he has no problems installing a fence in between the shop and the adjacent mobile homes to buffer the use and reported the business will not be open all night Mr Cribb stated the property was zoned for commercial at one time and when he purchased it from the previous owner they explained it had been downzoned for tax purposes Mr Cribb stated the site will be maintained and the property owner that is disputing the request has a seafood place located across the street Mr Cribb stated he does not operate a junky business and he intends to keep the operation clean since he plans on living on the property as well At the inquiry of Chairman Braswell , Mr Cribb stated he is requesting the rezoning so he can have his business as well as his residence on the property Mr Cribb explained he wants to live on the site to watch over the business and its contents Mr Cribb reported he understands the requirements within the Interstate Highway Interchange district Commissioner Chad M Stewart stated he understands what the applicant is proposing to do , but there must be consideration for the neighbors Upon questions from the Board , Mr Cribb reported at the subject site he could have 10 or 20 cars come in a day He reported at his current location in Micro he averages 350,000 a year Mr Cribb stated the U - Haul rentals would remain at his other location which he plans to keep leasing Mr Cribb stated he is not on the Highway Patrol’s towing rotation so he will not be storing cars on the subject site Attorney Robert Roundtree , stated he is representing his aunt and uncle , CB and Anne Wood who own property immediately to the right of the subject site Mr Roundtree stated his relatives are generally in favor of development in the area ; however , they do have concerns about the inconsistency of the use by having a residence on the site with the business Mr Roundtree stated his relatives want to see the intersection developed but they worry about the residence being on the property if the business were to close Linda Pulley , 465 Seafood House Road , Selma , submitted a petition in opposition to the Board with approximately 34 signatures Ms Pulley clarified that she does not have a seafood market on her property as the applicant earlier suggested Ms Pulley stated she does have nice storage buildings on her property that were built by her husband Ms Pulley stated the area is nice with good people living there and she fears it will be hard to rent the property beside the subject site if the rezoning is approved Ms Pulley spoke on her concerns about the appearance of the applicant’s current business in Micro and stated she is opposed to the request Don Lassiter , 132 Batten Road , stated he is very much pro - business and would not be opposed to the rezoning request if it were not for the applicant’s current business in Micro Mr Lassiter expressed his concerns regarding the appearance of the applicant’s current location Mr Lassiter stated he counted 30 vehicles on thePagePage pageNumber8783 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued current location just today and many of those cars appear to have been there for a while Mr Lassiter also spoke on visibility concerns and asked the Board to consider how the use could impact the surrounding area Dr Sherill Glover , Princeton , stated his mother - in - law is Linda Pulley Dr Glover stated their concern is how the proposed use could affect the development of property in the area in the future Dr Glover stated they are concerned that it may be difficult to bring in either a hotel or restaurant with a business such as the proposed use there Dr Glover stated they are not against business , but would like for it to be the right business and not detract from the area CB Wood , 5634 Devil’s Racetrack Road , stated he inherited the property immediately to the right of the subject site 2 ½ years ago from family Mr Wood continued that the interchange has never really been developed , but he believes at some point in the future it could be a nice interchange with hotels Mr Wood stated he is for development , but he is opposed to the residence being located on the property behind the business because he feels it would devalue the property There being no further public comments , the Chairman closed the public comment portion of the hearing Mr Gray reported the Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning and adoption of a Resolution for the Statement of Consistency as submitted in the agenda packet There being no further comments , the Chairman closed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 15 - 27 Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver indicated that just like the previous rezoning request he plans to vote against this rezoning because of the concerns of the neighboring property owners ; however , he feels there is a deal that could have been worked out Commissioner Ted G Godwin stated he is sensitive to all the comments made , but all the surrounding property is zoned Interstate Highway Interchange Commissioner Godwin stated he also understands all the opposition with the applicant’s plans to have a residence on the property ; however , he reminded everyone that the property is already zoned Agricultural Residential and the applicant can have a house on the property right now He stated as to the business , if the site had not have been downzoned in 2003 , then the applicant would have already had the proper zoning for the business Commissioner Chad M Stewart stated he is not comfortable with the straight rezoning and would prefer to have special conditions applied on the use At the inquiry of Commissioner Carver , Mr Gray confirmed if the Board denies the rezoning as requested , the applicant could come back and request a different zoning such as a commercial zoning with a special use at which time the Board could restrict the use Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr commented that the applicant would not be able to build a house on the property unless he split the property and rezoned just the front part of the site for commercial Decision on Rezoning Case 15 - 27 Case 15 - 27 Petition to rezone a 712 acre tract located at 227 Bertie Heights Road in Pine Level Township from Agricultural Residential AR to Agricultural Residential AR with the Interstate Highway Interchange IHI overlay district Tax ID 12O08007F Owner Robert Ernest Cribb , Sr Applicant Robert Ernest Cribb , Sr First Motion motion was rescinded Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board adopt the following Statement of Consistency Resolution for Case 15 - 27 Commissioner Chad M Stewart seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote RESOLUTION FOR CASE NUMBER 15 - 27 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF JOHNSTON COUNTYPagePage pageNumber9784 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued WHEREAS , pursuant to NC Gen Stat § 153A - 341 , prior to adopting or rejecting a zoning amendment , the governing board is required to adopt a statement as to whether the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive zoning plan and why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest ; WHEREAS , the County Planning Board has reviewed a proposed amendment to The Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County , for the parcel identified as tax Tag ID 12O08007F located at 227 Bertie Heights Road as shown on the attached Exhibit A , from Agricultural Residential AR to Agricultural Residential AR with the Interstate Highway Interchange IHI Overlay District WHEREAS , based on a review of the proposed amendment the Planning Board found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and further recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the proposed amendment ; and WHEREAS , this Board has reviewed and considered the above written recommendation of the Planning Board and has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment , and this Board desires to adopt a statement describing why the adoption of the proposed amendment is consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and the Board considers the proposed amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT 1 This Board finds and determines that the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County is consistent with the Johnston County Land Use Plan and updates thereto because the Land Use Plan and updates indicate that a The amendment is consistent in that it aligns with “ Goal 1 Grow in a fiscally efficient , compact manner ” found in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2 This Board finds and determines that it is reasonable and in the public interest to adopt the proposed amendment because a The IHI overlay is compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning , which include multiple business and commercial zoning designations st Adopted this the 1 day of September , 2015 Upon the determination that the Board intended to deny the rezoning request , County Attorney Jennifer Slusser advised the Board that if it feels the request is not consistent with the public interest or that it is not consistent with the Land Use Plan , then the Board would need to rescind the previous motion and adopt another statement that the request is inconsistent Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board rescind the previous motion to adopt the Statement of Consistency for Case 15 - 27 as was recommended by the Planning Board Commissioner Cookie Pope seconded the motion which carried unanimously Second Motion Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board adopt the following Statement of Consistency Resolution for Case 15 - 27 Commissioner Chad M Stewart seconded the motion Discussion Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver commented that the applicant indicated he was advised to change his request from a commercial rezoning to Interstate Highway Interchange Commissioner Carver continued that the Board needs to be cognizant that the applicant paid a fee for a rezoning but was advised to change his request and therefore if the request comes up again there should be a credit Vote The motion carried by the following vote Ayes Commissioners Tony Braswell , DeVan Barbour , Cookie Pope , Allen L Mims , Jr , Jeffrey P Carver , and Chad M Stewart Nays Commissioner Ted G Godwin Commissioner Ted G Godwin stated he did not believe the Statement of Consistency was worded correctly DENIAL RESOLUTION FOR CASE NUMBER 15 - 27 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF JOHNSTON COUNTYPage0785 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued WHEREAS , pursuant to NC Gen Stat § 153A - 341 , prior to adopting or rejecting a zoning amendment , the governing board is required to adopt a statement as to whether the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive zoning plan and why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest ; WHEREAS , the County Planning Board has reviewed a proposed amendment to The Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County , for the parcel identified as tax Tag ID 12O08007F located at 227 Bertie Heights Road as shown on the attached Exhibit A , from Agricultural Residential AR to Agricultural Residential AR with the Interstate Highway Interchange IHI Overlay District WHEREAS , based on a review of the proposed amendment the Planning Board found that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and further recommended that the Board of Commissioners deny the proposed amendment ; and WHEREAS , this Board has reviewed and considered the above written recommendation of the Planning Board and has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment , and this Board desires to adopt a statement describing why the adoption of the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and the Board considers the proposed amendment not to be reasonable and not in the public interest NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT 1 This Board finds and determines that the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County is consistent with the Johnston County Land Use Plan and updates thereto because the Land Use Plan and updates indicate that a The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in that the zoning is surrounded by similar zoning 2 This Board finds and determines that it is not reasonable and not in the public interest to adopt the proposed amendment because a The request is not reasonable and not in the public interest in that the range of uses would have a negative impact on the neighboring residential properties Adopted this the 1st day of September , 2015 Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board deny Rezoning Case 15 - 27 to rezone a 712 acre tract located at 227 Bertie Heights Road in Pine Level Township from Agricultural Residential to Agricultural Residential with the Interstate Highway Interchange overlay district Commissioner Chad M Stewart seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote 3 Public Hearing Continued – Code of Ordinances Amendment – Solar Utility Facilities Advertised – The Smithfield Herald – July 22 and 29 , 2015 The Chairman reconvened the public hearing to receive public comment and discussion on a proposed amendment to the Johnston County Code of Ordinances Chapter 14 – Land Development Code , as it relates to solar utility facilities Planning Director Berry Gray stated at the August meeting staff presented a proposed amendment and the Board had questions regarding the bonding of a solar facility and when a facility ceases operation , how would the County ensure that the site was decommissioned properly Mr Gray stated he contacted three engineers to get estimates on the cost of decommissioning a site and only received one response He noted that even with the one response , that engineer was not comfortable giving an estimate for 20 years into the future , but did report that from today’s standards it would cost anywhere from 7,000 to 10,000 per acre to decommission a solar facility site Mr Gray also noted he and the County Manager met with Gary Bailey who works in the solar industry and Mr Bailey verified the estimated cost from the engineer Dalton Engineering Mr Gray stated staff was not able to get an estimate on the recycling value ; however , Mr Bailey did inform them that he believes the value of recycling the equipment would exceed the cost to decommission the site Chairman Tony Braswell stated with regards to a bonding requirement , it goes back to two questions for him 1 whether or not the land is purchased or leased by the solar company ; and 2 if the County were to ask for a cash bond in an amount to cover the full decommissioning would it eliminate future solar farms in Johnston County and is that what the Board is trying to do Commissioner DeVan Barbour stated he was concerned that because the County was getting so many solar farm requests at one time and knowing how technology changes as well as the fact that solar operations based on tax credits incentives , if a solar operation was to cease he did not want the taxpayers to be left paying for the decommissioning Commissioner Barbour stated he believes the industry is fragile and just wants to make sure the County is protected and he is not trying to make it difficult for a solar operation to locate here or eliminate them Page1786 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued Commissioner Ted G Godwin questioned if the tax credits and incentives are propping up the industry artificially and if so , then he would have no problem with the bonding requirement Commissioner Cookie Pope commented that she also thinks the industry is fragile Commissioner Barbour reiterated that he does not want the reclamation to fall back on the taxpayers Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver stated the industry is still in its infancy and he also thinks credits and incentives are what is keeping the operations in business Commissioner Carver stated his main concern with solar operations is the visibility and he wants to make sure it is well buffered Chairman Braswell commented that he does not know of any bonding company that would sell a bond for twenty years Commissioner Chad M Stewart stated the major concern he hears is with visibility The Board discussed the following proposed amendment and if items # 7 and # 8 should be removed Sec 14 - 123 - Solar and wind energy systems — As a utility facility a The provisions of this section shall be applicable to sections 14 - 83 Industrial - 2 b Solar and Wind Energy Generation Facilities shall require a Special Use Permit in this district c Solar energy generation facilities 1 Solar mounting devices shall be set back at least 20 150 feet from all property lines 2 Solar mounting devices shall be limited to no more than 40 12 feet in height 3 Ground - mounted equipment and accessory structures shall be set back at least 20 150 feet from all property lines 4 Site shall be enclosed by a 6 ’ fence topped with barbwire 5 Site will be enclosed by a landscape buffer consisting of 10 large evergreen trees and 10 evergreen shrubs every 100 linear feet Existing vegetation may be used if equal or more intense a Evergreen trees shall be at least 4 ’ high at planting Adjacent to all residential dwellings , trees shall be planted at a minimum of 6 ’ tall at grade or a minimum of 4 ’ tall on top of a minimum 2 ’ tall berm b Additional landscaping may be required depending on the intensity of adjacent residential uses 6 Site will be decommissioned within 180 days of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the facility is no longer being operated , maintained , or used in an operable state of repair 7 A Decommissioning Plan signed by the applicant and the landowner addressing the following shall be submitted with the Special Use Permit application and recorded with the Johnston County Register of Deeds as a condition of the Special Use Permit a Defined conditions upon which decommissioning will be initiated b The estimated decommissioning and restoration costs including estimated value of recyclable materials in current dollars as provided by a certified engineer c The method for ensuring that funds will be available for decommissioning and restoration d Removal of all non - utility owned equipment , conduit , structures , fencing , roads , and foundations e Restoration of property to a condition comparable to that which existed prior to the issuance of the original special use permit f The timeframe for completion of decommissioning activities g Copy of the written agreement with landowner regarding decommissioning 8 The Applicant shall , at its cost and expense , be required to execute and file with the county a bond , cash , or other form of security acceptable to the county in the amount of 125 of the estimated decommissioning and restoration cost as described in the Decommissioning Plan and with such sureties as are deemed sufficient by the county to assure the faithful performance of the terms and conditions of this section and conditions of any special use permit issued pursuant to this section The full amount of the bond or security shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the special use permit and or until any necessary site restoration is completed to restore the site to a condition comparable to that , which existed prior to the issuance of the original special use permit The bond or security will be returned to the applicant in full once the Zoning Administrator determines compliance with the recorded Decommissioning Plan Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr noted the Board has been adding in the special use conditions that the “ solar farm facility shall be removed , at the owner’s expense , within one hundred eighty 180 days of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the facility is no longer being operated , maintained , or used in an operable state of good repair ” Commissioner Mims asked if that condition gives staff the ability to enforce and levy fines if the facility is not decommissioned and removed Mr Gray confirmed the condition does allow staff to proceed with enforcement Page2787 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued Commissioner Mims stated with the recycling values to be considered he believes the sites will get cleaned up Mr Gray agreed stating that for the abandoned mobile home removal program , contractors will bid nothing on the project just so they can get the bid and recycle the material for money There being no further comments , the Chairman closed the public hearing Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board adopt the following Statement of Consistency Resolution for the ordinance amendment relating to solar utility facilities Commissioner Chad M Stewart seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF JOHNSTON COUNTY WHEREAS , pursuant to NC Gen Stat § 153A - 341 , prior to adopting or rejecting a zoning amendment , the governing board is required to adopt a statement as to whether the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive zoning plan and why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest ; WHEREAS , the County Planning Board has reviewed a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code of Johnston County , for Section 14 - 123 c as it relates to Solar Energy Generation Facilities WHEREAS , based on a review of the proposed amendment the Planning Board found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and further recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the proposed amendment ; and WHEREAS , this Board has reviewed and considered the above written recommendation of the Planning Board and has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment , and this Board desires to adopt a statement describing why the adoption of the proposed amendment is consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and the Board considers the proposed amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT 1 This Board finds and determines that the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code of Johnston County is consistent with the Johnston County Land Use Plan and updates thereto because the Land Use Plan and updates indicate that a The amendment is consistent with Goal 2 Upgrade Standards To Be Achieved In The Development Process because it seeks to mitigate incompatible uses and visual pollution It is consistent with Goal 5 Protecting Existing Neighborhoods because it requires more intense buffering than the current ordinance It is consistent with Goal 6 Preserve Farmland because it requires removal of the equipment if the facility is no longer functional 2 This Board finds and determines that it is reasonable and in the public interest to adopt the proposed amendment because a It preserves the rural landscape and lessens impacts of potentially incompatible uses by requiring greater setbacks , more intense landscape buffering , and removal of the equipment from the facility Adopted this the 1st day of September , 2015 Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board adopt the following ordinance amendment Commissioner Chad M Stewart seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote Sec 14 - 123 - Solar and wind energy systems — As a utility facility a The provisions of this section shall be applicable to sections 14 - 83 Industrial - 2 b Solar and Wind Energy Generation Facilities shall require a Special Use Permit in this district c Solar energy generation facilities 1 Solar mounting devices shall be set back at least 20 150 feet from all property lines 2 Solar mounting devices shall be limited to no more than 40 12 feet in height 3 Ground - mounted equipment and accessory structures shall be set back at least 20 150 feet from all property lines 4 Site shall be enclosed by a 6 ’ fence topped with barbwire 5 Site will be enclosed by a landscape buffer consisting of 10 large evergreen trees and 10 evergreen shrubs every 100 linear feet Existing vegetation may be used if equal or more intense a Evergreen trees shall be at least 4 ’ high at planting Adjacent to all residential dwellings , trees shall be planted at a minimum of 6 ’ tall at grade or a minimum of 4 ’ tall on top of a minimum 2 ’ tall berm b Additional landscaping may be required depending on the intensity of adjacent residential uses 6 Site will be decommissioned within 180 days of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the facility is no longer being operated , maintained , or used in an operable state of repair Page3788 September 1 , 2015 – 6 00 pm Continued 4 Manager Reports and Comments None 5 Board Reports and Comments None There being no further business , Commissioner Cookie Pope moved the Board adjourn Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote The meeting adjourned at 8 00 pm Tony Braswell , Chairman Paula G Woodard , Clerk to the BoardPage