Loading...
06JunePB Planning Board June 4, 2024 Page 1 of 2 RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING 204 E Academy Street, Asheboro NC 27203 (336) 318-6555 RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JUNE 4, 2024 1. Call to Order of the Randolph County Planning Board. 2. Roll call of the Board members. (Completed by staff.) 3. Consent Agenda: ● Approval of agenda for the June 4, 2024, Planning Board meeting. ● Approval of the minutes from the May 16, 2024, Planning Board meeting. 4. Conflict of Interest: ● Are there any Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication that should be disclosed? (If there is a Conflict of Interest, the Board must vote to allow the member with the Conflict of Interest to not participate in the hearing of the specific case where the Conflict of Interest has been identified.) 5. Old Business. 6. New Business. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00001019 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Quasi-judicial Hearing on the request by ROSA MUNOZ, Ramseur, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 545 NC Hwy 22 N, Columbia Township, Tax ID #8702043017, 37.11 acres, RR - Residential Restricted and RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a third home on the property for a family member. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000928 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Page 1 of 155 Planning Board June 4, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Legislative Hearing on the request by GREGORY BENNETT, Liberty, NC, and their request to rezone 5.51-acres on Andrew Hunter Rd, Franklinville Township, Tax ID #7781799897, Primary Growth Area, from RR - Residential Restricted District and RA - Residential Agricultural District to HC - Highway Commercial District. It is the desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by right in the HC - Highway Commercial District. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000001 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by RESCUE RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Trinity, NC, and their request to rezone 0.68-acres at 5868 US Hwy 311, New Market Township, Randleman Lake Protected Area Watershed, Tax ID #7745379293, Primary Growth Area, from O-I-CD - Office and Institutional - Conditional District to RR - Residential Restricted District. It is the desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by right in the RR - Residential Restricted District. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00022002 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by MICHAEL & TERESA BRIGGS, Julian, NC, and their request to rezone 31.79-acres on Old 421 Rd, Liberty Township, Tax ID #8727786650, Primary Growth Area, from RA - Residential Agricultural District to LI - Light Industrial District. It is the desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by right in the LI - Light Industrial District. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00001244 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC, Kannapolis, NC, and their request to rezone 2.11-acres on Zoo Parkway, Union Township, Tax ID #7657963715, Primary Growth Area, from RR - Residential Restricted District and RA - Residential Agricultural District to CVOE-CD - Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive - Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the division of lot number three to create a fourth lot. 7. Update from the Planning Director. 8. Adjournment. Page 2 of 155 DR A F T Page 1 of 14 5/16/2024 May 16, 2024 1.Call to Order of the Randolph County Planning Board. There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on May 16, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in Meeting Room A, Randolph County Office Building, 725 McDowell Rd, Asheboro, NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. 2.Roll call of the Board members. (Completed by staff.) The County Planning staff completed the roll call of the members of the Board as they arrived to the meeting. Reid Pell, John Cable, Melinda Vaughan, Reggie Beeson, Ken Austin, Brandon Hedrick were present. Kemp Davis was absent. County Planning Director Tonya Caddle and County Attorney Ben Morgan were also present, along with County Planning staff members Kayla Brown, Melissa Burkhart, David Harris, Kim Heinzer, and Tim Mangum. 3.Consent Agenda: ●Approval of agenda for the May 16, 2024, Planning Board meeting. ●Approval of the minutes from the April 2, 2024, Planning Board meeting. On the motion of Cable, seconded by Austin, the Board voted 6-0 to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. 4.Conflict of Interest: ●Are there any Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication that should be disclosed? (If there is a Conflict of Interest, the Board must vote to allow the member with the Conflict of Interest to not participate in the hearing of the specific case where the Conflict of Interest has been identified.) There were no Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication identified by any Planning Board member. 5.Old Business. 6.New Business. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2023-00000665 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified quasi-judicial hearing on the request by TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE, New York, NY, and their request to obtain a Special Page 3 of 155 DR A F T Page 2 of 14 5/16/2024 Use Permit on Wall Rd, Liberty Township, Sandy Creek Balance Watershed, Tax ID #8725469448, 19.58 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a two-hundred forty-foot telecommunications tower as per the site plan. Property Owner: Barbara Kivett Wall Caddle presented the first case of the night and site plans for the Tillman Infrastructure Special Use Permit Request. Pell opened the public hearing and called on someone representing the applicant to address the Planning Board. Morgan administered the oath to Tom Johnson, an attorney with William Mullins, 301 Fayetteville St, Raleigh, and Johnson asked for the application and all the provided materials to be submitted for the record and Morgan stated that information is already a part of the record. Johnson stated that as part of his presentation, he, or others with him, would establish the finding of facts that are required to approve Special Use Permits in North Carolina. Johnson started with the first finding of fact, "That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved." Johnson stated that the proposed tower exceeds all the required setbacks on the property line and that it meets building code and zoning requirements. Johnson stated that the proposed tower would provide wireless telecommunications service and internet services to an area that is not well served by telecommunication services. Johnson then moved to the second finding of fact, "That the use meets all required conditions and specifications." Johnson referred the Planning Board to the information included in the agenda packet. Johnson stated that the applicant wants to use the existing trees and vegetation so they could be used as a buffer instead of the required Level III buffer required by the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as they feel that the proposed trees and vegetation should be sufficient. Johnson stated that the site would be enclosed with a chain link fence and all setbacks are being met as the closest property line is 260 feet away from the proposed tower. Johnson stated that the proposed tower is more than 1,500 feet from the existing tower in the area and that the facility would be unmanned once construction was complete other than for occasional maintenance. Johnson referenced a letter showing the hardship and expenses caused by staying on the existing SBA Communications tower. Johnson stated that the proposed tower would be designed to allow other co-locations and that all approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had been given since there was no evidence of hazards to air travel or interference with other telecommunication equipment. Page 4 of 155 DR A F T Page 3 of 14 5/16/2024 Johnson stated that if the tower was no longer used by carriers, it would be removed from the site. Johnson then turned to the third finding of fact, "Thet the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity." For this portion of the discussion, Johnson called up Michael P. Berkowitz, 1100 Sundance Dr, Concord, with MPB Real Estate, LLC, to discuss the impacts on property values. Johnson passed out Exhibit 1 to the Planning Board. (See Exhibit 1 at the end of the minutes.) Berkowitz stated that he has been an appraiser for over twenty years and that he conducts studies on the impacts of telecommunications towers on property values. Berkowitz stated that it is often difficult to study the impacts of telecommunications towers in rural areas but that there is data that shows that the towers do not injure property values. Berkowitz shared a story of a location where a property owner had a tower constructed on his property and then successfully built a subdivision on the remainder of the property. Berkowitz stated that homes in that subdivision are selling in the range of $600,000 to $700,000. Berkowitz did say, and pointed to Exhibit 1, that there is quantitative and qualitative evidence to show that towers do not injure property values and that these towers are designed to be able to handle the increased demand placed on them. Pell asked if the Planning Board had any questions for Berkowitz. Austin stated that he noted in the packet that many of the comparisons are all in Robeson County. Berkowitz stated that some in the packet are also in Bladen County as he could not find anything similar in Randolph County. Austin asked how Randolph County compared to other counties and Berkowitz stated that it is"not so much the county, as the location." Cable stated that most of the towers in the exhibit are 195 feet and one tower is 295 feet and he asked how this compares with the proposal. Berkowitz directed the Planning Board back to the information about the tower at Cypress Village subdivision in New Hanover County. Austin asked Berkowitz how a developer looks at towers and if there were deterrents to development. Berkowitz again referred the Board to the Cypress Village subdivision and stated that towers are not that important when establishing the valuation of the property. Berkowitz said that other factors such as power lines, nearby operations, etc., like the Liberty Raceway Park impact property values more than telecommunication towers. Pell asked if the Planning Board had any other questions for Berkowitz. Johnson came back to address the Planning Board on the last part of the third finding of fact, "... that the use is a public necessity." Johnson stated that subdivisions often do not have access to cellular communication and internet Page 5 of 155 DR A F T Page 4 of 14 5/16/2024 services in rural parts of the County and that this tower will provide these services along with access to emergency services in the case of emergencies or natural disasters. Johnson then moved to the last finding of fact, "That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with this Ordinance." Johnson stated that case law and General Statutes make this point clear--if the use is allowed in the zoning district, the use must be allowed. Johnson stated that Ashely Cline with Verizon Wireless was present and could present information on the location and character of use if the Planning Board wants to hear this information. Johnson then addressed the fact that Robert E. Hornik, Jr, 1526 E Franklin St, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, an attorney with The Brough Law Firm, was present in opposition to this request but he did not feel that Hornik had standing to present on this request and that he would raise an objection at the appropriate time. Morgan said that now was the time for Johnson to present his objection based on standing. Johnson objected to Hornik being able to address the Planning Board based on standing as Hornik's client, SBA Communications has not suffered any monetary damages and they have no reason to complain other than Tillman Infrastructure is one of their competitors. Johnson said that there is nothing in the laws that allows competitors to complain and that SBA Communications is not a neighbor and asked the Board to find that Hornik has no legal standing. Pell asked if the Planning Board had any questions for the applicants. Austin asked who determines when the tower is not being used. Johnson stated that based on the UDO, if a tower is not used for 120 days it must be removed and that is determined by seeing if there is any power being used. Austin asked if checking the power meter falls back on the County and Johnson said that is part of the code enforcement process. Cable asked about a backup generator at the site. Johnson said that the generators that they use are very quiet and may only run on a testing cycle or if there is a loss of power. Hedrick asked about the utility poles shown on the site plan and asked if there was an easement for the powerlines and pole and Johnson stated that he did not recall. Hedrick said that he asked the question because if there is an easement, the power company could come in at any time and cut the existing trees and then there would be no buffer on the site. Johnson said he is willing to amend the application to state that if the existing trees are cut in the utility easement, the applicant would plant a Level III buffer as needed. Pell asked if Johnson was making this planting of Level III buffer if the trees in the Page 6 of 155 DR A F T Page 5 of 14 5/16/2024 existing easement are cut as part of the conditions for the application and approval and Johnson said yes. The applicant was updated and signed by Johnson. Hedrick asked about the distance and height to the existing right-of-way and Johson said that the proposed tower would not have any impacts on the power lines as many times power lines run beside the telecommunications tower and the towers are engineered to withstand multiple hits from debris in the case of natural disasters. Cable asked if the proposed tower was an all-steel structure and if it would be made to look like a tree that can be seen in surrounding communities. Johnson said that the tower would look like a tower because they have found that making a telecommunication tower look like a tree, it attracts more attention. Austin asked about the schedule for maintenance at the site and Johnson stated that most of the maintenance could be done remotely but someone may come to the site every thirty days or so to ensure that there are no problems. Johnson stated that there would be more traffic there during construction and a crane might be brought in from time to time for maintenance, etc. Austin asked if the gate was secured and Johson said the gate would be locked and the site would be secured and there would be 24/7 remote video monitoring. Beeson said that there is a telecommunications tower at the end of his drive on a neighbor's property and the tower has been on the site for maybe 15 years. Beeson said the tower is not really an issue and it does not have a buffer and that he would rather have cellular service in the case of an emergency instead of being without access to emergency services. Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board members. Morgan stated that he wanted to address the standing issue and he stated that it is the policy of the Board to allow anyone who wishes to speak, to address the Planning Board. Morgan stated that there is nothing in State rules that clearly defines what standing is and the decision is up to the Courts. Johnson objected stating that standing does go to the weight of evidence presented and it is relevant to the decision made by the Board. Johnson stated that he reserved the right to re-address the Board due to information presented by Hornik. Hornik, rose to address the Planning Board on behalf of his client, SBA Communications who is the owner of the existing telecommunication tower close to this site. Morgan administered the oath to Hornik who stated that he agrees with Morgan's statement about standing but that Hornik will not concede anything about standing. Hornik stated that Verizon Wireless is currently a tenant on the SBA Communications telecommunication tower and that the lease will expire in March 2028 and Verizon Wireless is going to be a tenant on the proposed telecommunications tower. Page 7 of 155 DR A F T Page 6 of 14 5/16/2024 Hornik asked about the economic hardship letter that Johnson mentioned earlier and Horkin said that no such letter was in the application packet and that he checked as early as the morning of the meeting to see if the letter had been submitted and he stated that there was an affidavit but no letter regarding the economic hardship was in the agenda packet. Hornik then turned to the UDO, specifically Article 600, Section 621, and the section on Telecommunication Towers. Hornik stated that the UDO has a policy to encourage co-location and not have multiple telecommunications towers all over the County and that the policy has a one-mile requirement. Hornik stated that he tried to submit information to the Planning Board but was not allowed to due to the provision in the UDO requiring comments to be received two business days before a public hearing. Hornik then submitted Exhibit #2 into the record. (See Exhibit #2 at the end of the minutes.) Hornik stated that the proposed lease with Tillman Infrastructure is going to be $10.00 less a month than staying on the SBA Communications telecommunications tower and that there is no need for an additional tower only 2,700 feet away. Hornik said the proposed telecommunications tower is the same height as the SBA Communications telecommunications tower and that the submitted application and supplemental information do not meet the requirements of the UDO and that the request should be dismissed and denied. Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members. Austin stated that based on the testimony, Verizon Wireless has a contract to use the existing SBA Communications tower. Austin asked if there was a penalty for early release. Hornik stated that Verizon Wireless has asked for an early release from the contract but the SBA Communications has denied the request to terminate the contract early. Cable said that the Planning Board is being drawn into a contractual agreement between different vendors and that is not the role of the Planning Board. Austin asked if, under the existing contract, there is additional capacity on the SBA Communications tower. Hornik referred the Planning Board to the information in the exhibit and stated that Verizon Wireless had been on the SBA Communications tower since 2021 and two telecommunications towers this close could cause interference. Cable asked if Verizon Wireless is the only carrier on the SBA Communications tower and Hornik stated that he was not sure. Austin asked if the current SBA Communications tower would be out of use if Verizon Wireless left the SBA Communications tower. Hornik stated that the existing SBA Communications tower would have a user so it would not be required to be removed. Page 8 of 155 DR A F T Page 7 of 14 5/16/2024 Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board. No one else had signed up to speak in opposition to the Special Use Permit request so Johnson came back to address comments raised by Hornik. Johnson apologized to the Planning Board and stated that he thought the economic hardship letter had been submitted but they discovered during the meeting that it was not submitted. Johnson submitted Exhibit #3, the economic hardship letter, to be included in the record. (See Exhibit #3 at the end of the minutes.) Johnson called on Ashley Cline with Verizon Wireless to address the economic hardship letter. Cline rose to address the Planning Board and stated that he works with Verizon Wireless and that Verizon Wireless does look at many factors when deciding whether to stay on an existing telecommunications tower or move to a new telecommunications tower. Cline said that their first consideration is cost and that they do data analysis and look at user data to determine locations for their equipment as Verizon Wireless wants to provide their customers with the best service possible. Cline stated that the company also looks at expenses versus capital as Verizon Wireless is a publicly traded company that has to answer to its shareholders. Cline stated that management wants to save money and the way they do that is by looking at existing contracts like the one with SBA Communications. Cline stated that the contract between Verizon Wireless and SBA Communications is a "supplement contract" and to move forward with this proposed site, the agreement would need to be redone. Cline then talked about the annual cost differences as shown on page two of Exhibit #3 and he said that there is data to support the findings of economic hardship by staying on the existing SBA Communications telecommunications tower. Cline said the problem is with SBA Communications and their leadership due to the expenses of Verizon Wireless staying on the existing SBA Communications tower. Cline stated that many of the contracts between Verizon Wireless and SBA Communications contain language that allows "modifications" to impact rent. Cline stated that Verizon Wireless is constantly changing their equipment and every time they touch the tower, the rent is increased by SBA Communications. Cline also told the Planning Board that the average modification that Verizon Wireless does on existing towers can cost more than $200,000 and that requires engineering work to make sure existing towers can support the new equipment. Cline said in this case, the SBA Communications tower cannot support the improvements that Verizon Wireless wants to make. Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board. Cable asked if Cline knew how many towers Verizon Wireless operates and Cline said he did not have the exact number but would assume it is in the thousands. Cline said that Verizon Wireless wants to build its network and not be in the business of building and managing telecommunications towers. Hornik rose to remind the Planning Board of language in UDO that the applicant has Page 9 of 155 DR A F T Page 8 of 14 5/16/2024 to provide information that they investigated other towers in the area and Johnson stated that that specific information has already been submitted into the record. Johnson stated that the master agreement that has been discussed tonight is for the entire country--not just this one site. Johnson stated that rent on an SBA Communications telecommunications tower is 101% higher than on a Tillman Infrastructure-owned tower. Johnson restated Cline's statement that the site rent goes up every time the tower is touched for whatever reason. Johnson said that the application meets the requirements of the UDO and Verizon Wireless will be able to save money at this site and be able to invest those savings in other locations. Pell asked if there were other questions from the Planning Board members. Hedrick talked about the information that had been provided according to page 232 of the UDO. Pell closed the public hearing. Hedrick stated that there is nothing in the UDO about economic hardships. Cable stated that as much as he travels it is important to be able to contact emergency services and that he does not want to cover the landscape with telecommunication towers but after hearing the testimony, it sounds as if this is a contract dispute between Verizon Wireless and SBA Communications. Cable stated that other businesses close because they cannot serve their customers and move to different locations to serve the customers. Cable said he was concerned with citizens losing service and it sounds like Verizon Wireless is not going to stay on the SBA Communications tower. Cable said he thought the hardship had been met and that the service was needed and all four tests for the finding of fact had been satisfied. Hedrick stated that the plan meets the requirements but that he would like to see a Level III buffer on the site. On the motion of Cable, seconded by Beeson, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00000061 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified quasi-judicial hearing on the request by KIMBERLY BUSH, Seagrove, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 7207 Erect Rd, Brower Township, Tax ID #8606731562, 174.37 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a second residence to be placed on the property for a family member. Page 10 of 155 DR A F T Page 9 of 14 5/16/2024 Caddle presented case and site plans for the Kimberly Bush Special Use Permit request. Pell opened the public hearing. Morgan administered the oath to Kimberly Bush, 7207 Erect Rd, Seagrove, the applicant for the Special Use Permit request. Bush stated her desire to put a home on the land near the existing pond and that the existing residence on the property is where her elderly parents live. Bush stated that they do not plan to divide the property or create a subdivision. Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members. Beeson asked about the dirt road going through the property and Bush stated that the road starts on Erect Rd and it continues through to Antioch Church Rd and they are planning to only use the Erect Rd portion of the road. Bush stated that the neighbors have never had any problems due to the road being present, Morgan asked Bush if she understood that if the Planning Board approves the Special Use Permit, both residences that would be on this property would have to be sold together with the land and Bush stated that she understood that requirement. There were no more speakers signed up to speak on this request and Pell closed the public hearing. On the motion of Cable, seconded by Austin, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00000855 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified quasi-judicial hearing on the request by RAEFORD DOUGLAS SPIVEY, Asheboro, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 6454 Clyde King Rd, Richland Township, Tax ID #7676908544, 15.10 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a third residence to be placed on the property as per the site plan. Caddle presented the case and site plans for the Raeford Douglas Spivey Special Use Permit request. Pell opened the public hearing. Morgan administered the oath to Raeford Spivey, 529 Hoover St, Asheboro, and Page 11 of 155 DR A F T Page 10 of 14 5/16/2024 Hannah Spivey. H. Spivey stated that they wanted to place a third residence on the property in the location as indicated on the site plan. Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members. There were no other speakers signed up to speak on this request and Pell closed the public hearing. On the motion of Hedrick, seconded by Beeson, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00000892 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified quasi-judicial hearing on the request by KRYSTAL POUNCEY, Thomasville, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 1842 Fuller Mill Rd N, Tabernacle Township, Lake Reese Balance Watershed, Tax ID #6794636233, 16.95 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a second residence for a family member. Caddle presented the case and site plans for the Krystal Pouncey Special Use Permit request. Pell opened the public hearing. Morgan administered the oath to Krystal Pouncey, 1842 Fuller Mill Rd N, Thomasville. Pouncey stated that she wanted to place another residence on the property for a family member. Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members. There were no other speakers signed up to speak on this request and Pell closed the public hearing. On the motion of Austin, seconded by Vaughan, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000767 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified legislative hearing on the request by COLLINS & LINEBERRY CONSTRUCTION, Liberty, NC, and their request to rezone 6.89-acres on Low Bridge Rd, Columbia Township, Sandy Creek Critical Area Watershed, Tax ID #8704315721, Rural Growth Area, from RA - Residential Agricultural Page 12 of 155 DR A F T Page 11 of 14 5/16/2024 District to RLOE-CD - Rural Lot Subdivision Overlay Exclusive - Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the division of lot number three of the existing minor subdivision that would result in a fourth lot being created. Caddle presented the case and site plans for the Collins and Lineberry Construction Rezoning Request. Pell opened the public hearing. Russell Lineberry, 6841 Layton Rd, Liberty, addressed the Planning Board and stated their desire to divide existing lots three as shown on the proposed plat. Lineberry stated that they plan to build a site-built home on lot number four and that the existing house on proposed lot number three is already under contract. Lineberry stated that they had already remodeled the existing house and had cleaned up the property. Lineberry also stated that they do not plan to remove any trees on the property, and they plan to do very limited clearing on the property and that they have already obtained the driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members. Austin asked if there would be individual drives to each house and Lineberry stated that each house would have one driveway and that each lot would have its own well and septic system and they are only planning on installing the new well and septic system on the proposed lot number four. Cable asked if the new drive would be off of Sandy Ridge Dr or Low Bridge Rd and Lineberry stated that the new drive would be on Low Bridge Rd as that is the only frontage for the property and he estimates that the proposed house would be 200 feet from Low Bridge Rd. Austin asked about the speed limit along Low Bridge Rd and Lineberry stated he thought the speed limit is 55 miles per hour since it is not posted. Pell asked for anyone in opposition to address the Planning Board. Amy Howe, 1680 Sandy Ridge Dr, Liberty, rose to address the Planning Board in opposition to this request. Howe stated that the lot is 14.08 acres based on the recorded plat. Howe stated that the applicants purchased the property in July of last year and that in February of this year, they divided the property. Howe stated that this area is in a Rural Growth Area and it was the desire of the GMP to preserve farming, wildlife, and other features important to the rural community. Howe stated that this request would harm agricultural land and could cause an increase in population in this part of the County. Howe concluded her remarks by asking the Page 13 of 155 DR A F T Page 12 of 14 5/16/2024 Planning Board to consider what the community wants and to maintain the culture of the area by following the rules. Pell asked the Planning Board if they had any questions for Howe, Hearing none, Pell asked Lineberry if he wanted to address the concern raised by Howe and Lineberry declined to speak. Pell closed the public hearing. Hedrick stated that when the County was going through the GMP update, part of the discussion was on protecting the rural lot subdivision and that the Plan does not recommend conventional subdivisions in the Rural Growth Area. Hedrick stated that based on the UDO, Rural Growth Areas require a minimum lot size of three acres with 100 feet of State road frontage. Hedrick stated that he felt the existing buffer was adequate and that the applicants had cleaned up the property and the request meets the standards for the rural lot subdivision. Beeson stated that the distance on the roadway is over 360 feet and this request is very good compared to the normal 100-foot lot widths that the Board normally sees in subdivisions. Vaughan said that she felt there was not much the Planning Board could do about the loss of farmland as often families sell the property to be able to take care of the older family members. Cable said that he wanted to commend both speakers for using this forum, Cable stated that he does not expect farming to take place on this property and the applicants are planning to place the drive in an area of the property that would be less invasive to the surrounding community. Cable stated that he felt this request was more suited for this area and the proposed lot sizes would be greater than the lot sizes in the adjoining Sandy Ridge subdivision along Sandy Ridge Dr. Cable stated that the proposal meets the GMP and the UDO. Austin stated that the GMP update looked at adjoining developments and he thinks this request fits with what is in the area and also fits into the acceptable growth outlined in the GMP.. On the motion of Cable, seconded by Vaughan, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000895 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified legislative hearing on the request by HARDIN II, LLC, Liberty, NC, and their request to amend the Conditional District Permit on 16.70-acres at 2604 Old 421 Rd, Columbia Township, Rocky River Balance Watershed, Tax ID Page 14 of 155 DR A F T Page 13 of 14 5/16/2024 #8735602322, Rural Growth Area, from HC-CD - Highway Commercial - Conditional District to HC-CD - Highway Commercial - Conditional District. The proposed amendment to the existing Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow an additional sixty-foot by two-hundred-foot building for mini-warehouse storage as per the site plan. Caddle presented the case and site plans for the last case of the night for Harin II, LLC, Rezoning Request. Pell opened the public hearing. Billy Hardin, P O Box 400, Liberty, the applicant, addressed the Planning Board and stated that he wanted to add another building to the site. Hardin said there would be no other changes to the property and that everything else would be the same as the existing buildings. Cable asked if the new building would be using the same entrance and Hardin replied yes. Austin asked which building is the new building and Hardin stated that is building F as shown on the site plan. Beeson reminded the Board that in the previous rezoning request in 2022, there was a neighbor with complaints about water. Beeson asked if the problem had been resolved. Hardin stated that this building location is lower than the other locations but that he did go by the site when it was raining earlier in the week and all of the run-off was in the ditch along the road. Hedrick asked about the lighting plan and Hardin said the lights were only on at night but he tried to keep the light pointing down and that there are only three lights along the building and a light at the entrance to help people entering the site. Hardin stated that there is a berm between his property and the adjoining neighbor. Austin asked if the proposed building was for storage only and Hardin stated the buildings are only for storage. Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board. Caddle advised the Planning Board about the different GMP in the site and that if the Planning Board approved this request, due to State law, the GMP would be amended to make the plan and this use "consistent." Beeson stated that he thought this area and corridor should be Primary Growth Area. Hedrick stated that he expects to see changes in the GMP like this due to proposed Page 15 of 155 DR A F T Page 14 of 14 5/16/2024 uses and rezonings. Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing. On the motion of Beeson, seconded by Austin, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet. 7. Update from the Planning Director. HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REVISIONS Proposed changes to the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance as it pertains to the HC - Highway Commercial zoning district. Caddle explained the proposed changes that staff had made regarding the updates to the HC - Highway Commercial District. Caddle stated that she wanted to present these ideas to see if it is more in line with what the Planning Board wants for the proposed update. The Planning Board discussed the proposed changes and that they felt it was a step in the right direction and also wanted to know about design standards, colors of buildings, and other items such as trash management that could make commercial uses blend into their surrounding community. Caddle said that staff would review these suggestions and bring information back to the Planning Board probably in July 2024. 8. Adjournment. At 8:45 p.m. on motion of Cable, seconded by Vaughan, the Board voted 6-0 to adjourn. ________________________________ Chairman ________________________________ Clerk to the Planning Board Page 16 of 155 12082 CN 'pTOCUOC A^riO aaUepunS OO L L c]] 'll.vtsl lvlu 8dh tzoz 'q r AVN -/ \- srsMoI llac lo tcedurl * SISAIVNV ]AIIVIIINVNO a \ {fr. Page 17 of 155 Rural Towers This example includes three towers in Robeson County that provides a reflectionofthe impact. ifany. ofa cell tower. Ihe first tower is located at.l74 Long Road southeast of Lumberton. As wilh mosl rural areas. the market data is sparsei however. lhe lbllowing provides adequate information to isolate the visual impact ofthe tower. - 474 Long Road The tower is a monopole wi$ a height of 195 f'eet. -lhe land uses in the area are primarily agricultural. The low-density residential developments include homes constucted over a wide time span. The market dala for single family dwellings are summarized in the following chart. SFD SALES Addre6a Sale Oate Sales Prico Year Built SF si sF 46 SURRY 121 SURRY 5t2 2005 1012912007 s68, $93, 000 000 1986 1978 1,152 1,443 234 1 $ 59.03s 64.45 285 JUNE 5/15t2449 $41.000 2000 1,632 1 $ 25.12 992 LONG RD 812012007 $57.500 1978 972 1 $ 59 16 867 LONG RD 111512009 927.000 1962 800 152 $ 33 75 719 LONG RD 6t4t2015 $87,000 1989 1,437 437 $ 60 54 1148 LONG RD 8t14t2015 s227.500 2005 2 429 18 $ 11212 The analysis of these sales as well as other sales presented later in this section includes several factors including but not necessarily limited to size, age, and lot size. The most compelling market data is the consistency in the pdces paid per square foot forthe highlighted properties. The comparison of the data shows some ofl'setting characteristics bul does e- -:X '1 r= Page 18 of 155 LAND SALES Address Sale Date Sales Price Acres $/Acre 18T TROY DR 6n t2010 $150,000 19 63 $ 7.641 WILKES RD 51112013 $20,000 739 $ 2,706 859 LONG RD OFF LONG RD 8122J2012 3t24t2015 $15,000 $22,000 1.24 3.43 $ 12,097$ 6,414 provide evidence that the cell to\rer located along Long Road does not substantially injure property values in the area. The second data s€t is lbr land sales fbund in the area. fhe highlighted propenies are lbr residential lots consislent with the low.density development pattems in the neighborhood. Contrary to the market data for single family dwellings. the most compelling inlbrmation from this data set is the price point for the residential lots. The size ofthe lots is the most influential t'actor on price point. Again. the market data indicates that the tower has not impeded demand for land along the Long Road corridor nor has it diminished and/or impaired land values in the area. This tower is a guyed to\er with a reported height of295 tcet. The market does providc information adequate to isolate to the greatest extcnt possible the impact ofthe touer. I have applied the same methodology with the previor-rs analyses and segregated the data into single family dwellings and vacant land. The sales for single family dwellings are summarized in the lbllowing chart. 7746 E. 5rh Street ) .-/ :EE 9 *a?-! Page 19 of 155 SFD SALES Sale Oate Sal6s Price Year Bualt SF S/SF 913 ttARRtS RO 4642 OLD ALLENTON 146 BEAR 8AY 877 OLD ALLENTON 1131t2017 12t712015 11t13t20',14 6t25t2013 $6s 000 $64 000 $48 000 $46 500 2005 1950 1980 1969 1,443 912 1.456 1,506 1 1 2.69 1.5 $ 4s 05 $ 70.18 $ 32.97$ 30.88 9697 NC 211 8355 E NC HWY 211 6t26t2012 6/3/2015 $61 000 s75.000 1955 1988 1,170 1,152 124 $ 52.14$ 65.10 LAND SALES Addres6 Sale Date Sales Price NC HWY 211 699 BAY BEAR 12t1712014 611e/2015 $17,500 $17,000 0.59 8.13 $ 29,661 $ 2,091 HARRIS RD HARRIS RD 3 PIT]MAN WILKES 511412015 811712015 41412014 511t2013 $8,500 $9,000 $250,000 $20 000 1 1.27 739 $ 8,500s 7 087 $ 2,682 $ 2,706 481 HARRIS RD 21812013 $2s,500 n.92.u 5 ,,j17 538 DERWOOD OERWOOD PIT]MAN 9t1?t2012 7t19t2012 5121t2012 $45 000 $80,000 $15,000 17 74 24 84 14 08 $ 2,s37$ 3,221 $ 1,065 1'he physical variance in this data sel \aould require a higher level ofadjustment. Notwithstanding this t'act. the sales along the 2l I corridor provide a similar price point and price paid per square foot. The ol'f'setting nature of the variances is rellecled in the similar price point fbr most sales with the propeny closest to the tou'er having the highest price point. 'Ihe analysis ofthis dau set provides f'urther evidence to our conclusion. 1'he lbllowing chart provides a summary of land sales for the area. Again. applying the same methodology as the previous analyscs. The best matched pair in this data set is from the sales of tuo mobile home lots. While the price point was higher for the sale on Harris Road. the price per acre was higher for the lot on Highway 2lL This indicates that size was a significant f'actor in the price paid. The only other sale found lies on the lower end of the range of the data set. which is considered reasonable given its physical characteristics including some areas that appear undevelopable. Page 20 of 155 1097 Kinlaw Road -l he land sales in the area provide evidence of the impact ol the tower on property values. The following chart provides a summary ofland sales in the area. The sale closest to the tower sold fbr the highest price peracre. Again. the markel data tbr land around this cell tower indicates thal lhe tower does not diminish the prices paid fbr land in the neighborhood. The following is a summary o1' single-famill-. dwelling sales tbund in the neighborhood. LAND SALES Address Sale Date Sales Price $/Acre HOWELL RD 5t25t2012 $98.000 47 $ 2,085 TARHEEL RO 346 BARNHILL 5168 TARHEEL 12J12/2012 9/3/201 3 1t3t2011 113,000 $28,500 130,000 3.37I s.{5 s 3,858$ 3,563t 3,279 KINLAW RD 91412014 $27,000 6.87 $ 3,930 SFD SALES Address Sale Date Sales Price Year Built SF $/sF 88 BARNHILL 4/3U2412 s76.000 1995 1 458 2.01 $ 52 13 6876 HOWELL 7889 HOWELL 512212012 121712012 $ss,000 $37.500 1988 1950 1 1 344 454 1.98 $ 40.92$ 19.23 5168 TARHEEL 6225 HOWELL 6257 HOWELL 306 TARHEEL 5t912013 8110t2016 211012017 10117t2013 $125,000 $200.000 $225,000 $177,500 1958 1999 2007 1953 1.980 2 A37 3,303 3.087 5 101 1 5.03 $ 63 84 $ 100 05 $ 112.11 $ 90 89 3M7 TARHEEL 9t5t2014 $46,000 1992 1,296 $ 23.09 5478 TARHEEL 1013t2014 $125 000 2AA2 1.920 84 $ 62.44 819T HOWELL 1111012014 $71,000 1980 1,032 1.O2 $ 35.86 470 KINLAW RD KINLAW RD 12t3',12014 6t15t2015 $42 500 $73 500 1982 1962 1.338 1.485 1.5 0.89 $ 21 44 $ 37 46 ,.l -rI7 Page 21 of 155 I he review ofsales of single-l'amily dwellings reveals that age and condition of the improvements is the most signilicant tactorin the prices paid. Development in the area is sparse and supply side pressures in the market and low number of lransactions indicates that the neighborhood is in the stable phase of its economic development. This is similar to the subject's neighborhood. The sales price paid lbr the propenies along the corridor wilh a tower and other corridors is consistenl. 'I he market activity in the area indicales that the presence of the cell to\\er does not impede normal development pattems as sales along Tarheel and Kinlaw Road corridors are proceeding consistent with other teniary roads in the area. Most land maintains its agricultural uses \\'ith lo\! densitv residential interspersed. The area also has seveml mobile home parks. which arc common lbr rural areas throughout the Carolinas. Page 22 of 155 Gaston Drive This tower is in Bladen County. The tower is located otT Gaslon Drive. The single-family dwelling sales in the neighborhood were insumcient quantity (two sales found). to provide a credible analysis. However, the sales of land as shown on the following chart provide a refleclion of the market. The following chan is a summary ofthe sales. Note the two first sales in the cha( are for mobile home lots. The land sales fbr lots near lhe tower are consistent with other lot sales lbund with no visual influence fiom the tower. The two lots highlighled in yellow reflect the upper end of the range for vacant land. The market data indicales that development near the tower has not influenced the normal course of development lbr the immediate area. Further. the market data indicates that buyers are paying similar prices lbr lots within the visual sphere ofinfluence ofa cell tower. LAND SALES Address Sa16 Date Sales Price $/Acre 2392 GUYTON 7t19t2412 s10.000 1 $ 10 000 3OO GASTON DR 212312015 $19,000 1.7 $ 11,176 I\,,IASSEY RD GUYTON ROAD GUYTON RO MASSEY RO MASSEY RO 1023 STORMS RD 303 GASTON DR 1011612012 5131t2013 10118t2013 12t3t2013 4t23t2014 3t20t2015 8/29t2015 $25,000 $9,000 $20,000 $6 000 $31 500 $9 000 $11,000 15.35 0.98 5.57 0.9 12.37 2 0.89 $ 1,629 $ 9,184 $ 3.591$ 6.667 $ 2,546 $ 4,500 $ 12,360 Trl 1ljjl l. f s Page 23 of 155 A tower is in Ro\aan County in a residential area ofTareyton Drive. This is an older residential area u'ith most of the dwellings constructed in lhe I970's. As sho.,m on the lbllowing aerial. the tower is in an open field with a highet visual impact than most towers. The touer is a monopole lelecommunications tower with a height of 195 t'eet. The following sales were lbund in the area. The two properties highlighted in green have the highest level of visual impacr f'rom the tower. Sales 5ummary Parcel Address Land (Acres)Bedrooms Baths 5F Year&/ilt Sele Date Sales Price P.elsl 102 561 :tflB DaisyCt 0.25 3 1 1,500 1974 1/13117 S 3s,m S 21.88 102622 442 Newcastle Rd o_22 3 1 1,lm 1974 12129/11 S 4s,m S 40.91 102 501 3218 Sprinq Valle!0.34 4 2 1,518 1972 10/to/16 s 78,000 5 s0.72 102 491 3220 Sprins Valley 0.3 3 1 1,82 7972 12h4/11 S 99,0m s 90.56 152 857 655 Kilborne Dr o.2 3 1 1,050 19/A 812UtS s 32000 S 3s.24 1s2 839 60l Dundeen Dr o.22 3 1 1,075 1978 12/3r/15 $ 36,000 S 33.49 152420 630 Dundeen Dr o2 3 1 1,050 1/5/11 S 48,ooo s 45.11 752791 636Col€brook Dr 0.2 3 1 1,mo 1977 11/Tl16 S 6o,om s 50.m 737166 609 Belfast Dr o.27 3 1 1,050 1976 7 /28/14 s 45,0m S 42.86 11115a 602 Belfast Dr a_2 3 1 1,050 1976 8/2r/1s S 3o,om S 28.s7 137114 657 Eelfast Dr 0.21 1 1,050 1975 tl/21111 s s3,0m 5 so.48 All the sales have similar lot sizes. location and year built. As with many older homes. the most signiticant factor influencing the price paid is the condirion of rhe improvements. The first "green" sale in the chan included a basement. u'hich would require an adjustment. The presence of the basement skews the price paid per square foot. Upon 1911 3 l II Page 24 of 155 lirrther research. this dwelling was reported as 'needing some work." From a price point. the sale is on the louer end ol'the range. which is reasonable given the reported condition ol'the improvements and presence ofa basement. The second "green" sale did not include a basement and was reponed to be in I'air condition. Again. this sale is consistent with the other sales in the data set. The analysis of this sale sho*s consistency with other residential sales in the area despite ils location and visual impact from the tower. We note lhat the tower is only panially visible from this property. Page 25 of 155 A toller in (iaston County visually impacts some lo\ {ensity residential developments. I'his tower is close to the road in an open lield with a higher level of visibiliq. The lbllouing exhibits provide an aerial and street scene for the tower. 1852 County Line Road As shown on the previous aerial, there are residential developments across the s[eet liom the tower. This lgs-tbot tower is a monopole construction. The lbllowing data consists of some modular homes that sold along County Line Road across the streel from the lower to some modular homes that sold in Lewis ['arm Estates. The tbllowing chan provides a summary ofthe sales. Property Sales Summary Address Sale Date Sales Price Acres SF Price/SF Year Buill 1848County Line Road sl24/11 s 100,000 1 1,908 5 s2.41 1999 1846County tine Road 11/16/O7 S 9o,oo 1.03 7,512 S 59.s2 2004 1519 Lewis Farm Road 3/s/ls 5 116,m 2.42 1,842 s 62.98 1999 1526 Lewis Earm Road 8/2s/07 5 17o,mo 2.88 2,881 S 59.01 2006 There are several factors that contribute to the price paid. The smaller lot sizes tbr the propenies near the tower \rould warrant a downward adjustment to these sales. Regardless. the range of prices paid per square tbot is considered small. The indication from this analysis is that similar single family dwelling prices paid are compamble despite the visual impacr of the cell tower. The market data indicates that even with 7" i' Page 26 of 155 absence of a vegetative bufler. the tower does not substantially injure the value ofadjacen abutting properties. Another tower on a residentially zoned property is located along the NC Highwa] 138 corridor in Stanly Counry. The tower is a monopole with a height of 195 l'eel. Research of the market tbr the adjacent prope(ies revealed a sale of thc adjacent property to the north ofthe property improved with the to$'er. The following chart provides a summary of sales lbund in the area. The sale of the adjacent propert-v is highlighted in yello*. 1he other sales are for properties providing similar utiliry. As shown on the previous chan. the sale of the propeny adjacent to the tower sitc is on the upper end ofthe range on a price per square foot as well as price point. After researching and adjusting these sales for physical and market variances in comparison to the sale adjacent to the to\^er, the analysis indicates that there is no diminution in value caused by thc presence oia to\ er on the adjacent properB-. Matched Pair Analysis Sale Date Address size (SF)Year Built BR BA Sale Price Price/sF 3112120 7l30l20 6113179 t1l26lL7 sho/20 th7 /19 4h6/19 6/18/8 6/16/19 12i183 NC Hwy 138 12514 NC Hwy 138 32621Chapel Rd. 32512 Chapel Rd. 33515 S. Stanly School Rd 12028 NC Hwy 138 12018 NC Hwy 138 11636 NC Hwy 138 12273 Old Aquadale Rd. 2 1.91 2.59 2.M 14.46 1.06 0.95 0.68 L.2 1,s00 1,070 1,734 1,42\ 1,008 1,860 1,501 1,709 1,865 1955 1954 1993 1981 1959 1947 1949 1945 1965 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 I 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 S r4o,ooo S 103,ooo 5 lso,ooo 5 114,ooo s 117,000 s 150,000s 149,000 s 115,000 s 170,000 s 93.33 s 96.26 5 86.s1 5 80.23 5116.07 s 86.02 S 99.27 5 61.29 S 91.1s Page 27 of 155 Residential Subdivisions ffi The data for the subdivision was limited as only six homes sold. The six sales closed within a six-monlh period in 2021. I \ The first data set is fiom a subdivision located o1T Carolina Beach Road called Cypress Village in New Hanover Count!. This subdivision was in the conslruction phase a1 the time ol' the analysis. The fbllo*ing provides an aerial and a PLAT of this development. 'Ihe tower. constructed in 1999. is located on the adjacent properi-. t d ,a \ 7 IE( il 1 t a-aaa r ,) J il rl H Page 28 of 155 Two of these properties \^,ere closest to the tower. The sales closesl to the to\lerwere in the middle ofthe range ofthe data set. While the quantity of data is limited, the sales priccs do not reflect a diminution in value based on the proximity and visual impact of the touer. Further research of this subdivision showed consistency in the price paid for the lots. The third factor extracted is the t'act that a developer was attracted to the site knowing the visual influence ofthe to$.er. The market data and activity provide evidence that the tower does nol present an adverse impact on property values. Page 29 of 155 The next example is from a suMivision in Comelius, Nonh Carolina. Victoria Bay is a waterfront communily. This development is adjacent lo Lake Noman. This subdivision includes some homes with frontage on the water. We have excluded these sales to assist in isolating the influence ofthe tower if any. The fbllowing chan provides a summary ofthe sales. The sales highlighted in yellow have visual inlluence fiom the tower. The sales highlighted in green are for a resale ofthe same propeny. l,|L-'.r tT [:ll T I -t &, I \i ,rf";ra { F I I Page 30 of 155 Victoria Bay sire (sr)S/sr 003 381-44 003 381 40 003-381-30 19911 Marina Village Or 18505 Victoria 8ay Dr. 18526Victoria 8ay D.. Aprit13,2018 November 13,2018 ]!ly 1,2020 1,620 1,620 2,279 s 138.27s 1ss.86 s 145.11 s 5 s 224,OOa 252,500 322,000 003 381-62 003 381,65 lE6UVictona 8ay Or 18623Victona Bay Or November15,2018 february28,2018 1,620 1,620 5 146 91 5 139.51 5 s 238,000 226,OOO 003-381-55 003-381-25 003-381 14 003-382 02 003-19s 09 003 195-05 003-195-01 003 195-23 003-19612 (x)3-19&12 003 196 36 003-194 57 003-195 59 003 194 51 003 194,25 003 194-25 003 194-25 003-194-34 18627 victoria Bay or. 18524 Victona 8ay 0r. 20030CoralCove Cl. 18122 Bluff lnlet Rd 18111 Blufl lnlet Rd 18021 Eluff lnlet Rd. 18001 Eluff rnlet Rd. 20E15 BinkreySt. 18208 hrtorMin Rd. 18208 H. ftor Mist Rd. 20933 Brinkley 5t. 20102 BeardSt. 20U5 Bea rd St. 20914 BinkleySt. 18307 Victo a Bay Dr. 18311 Victoia 8ay Dr. 18327 Victoria 8ay Dr. 18409Victoria Bay 0.. october18,2018 November20,2018 lanuary 11,2018 1une19,2020 May 18,2018 l!ly 16,2018 April17,2020 )rne !7, 2O2O February23,2018 Autust 3, 2018 September 7,2018 A06ust 21,2020 September4,2018 oecember27,2018 February21,2018 September21,20l8 lanuary 24,2018 AuAUst 13,2018 1,620 2,O52 1,520 2,077 2,052 2,072 1,645 2,610 2)@ 2,7(B 2,524 2,385 2,263 2,@9 2,332 2,582 2,@9 2,555 5 1s1.23 I 119.40 5 134.s7 s 1s3.31 5 121.83 s 136.68 5 151.98 5 128.35 S ro8.9os 124.03 s 128.56 5 r5s.07 s 124.61 5 109.62 s r25.2t 5 l!4 25 s 105.40 5 tt9.i1 245,m0 245,000 218,000 317,500 250,000 275,000 2s0,000 33s,000 295,@0 336,000 325,000 370,000 282,000 285,000 292,OOO 295,000 275,000 318,000 s s s s 5 s 5 5 s st 5 5 s The sales shown have an average price per square foot of $132.1l. Three ofthe four sales with visualinfluence fiom the tower are above the average. Six of the sales in the data set were of the same model. Three of the sales have visual inlluence from the tower. The prices paid per square foot are comparable. The indication fiom the market is that the visual impact from the tower does not adversely impact propedy values in Victoria Bay. Page 31 of 155 l'he next louer with adequate data is a latticc tower located al 2517 Providence Road in Weddington. North Carolina. This tower as sho\an on the photograph the tower has a large visual footprint on the subdivision to the north, Invemess al Providence Road. The following chart provides a summary ol' market data lbr homes in the subdivision. The sales highlighted in yellow have visual impact from lhe tower. The sales highlighled in green are resales ofthe same property to rellect the appreciating markel. ilt u il" x lnverness Minimum Maximum Average Median 3,105 S391,500 S 89.63 5,s07 S 568,500 S 186.17 3,894 Ss01,287 S 130 6s 3,879 5 500 5 128.09 .J - Summary Sire Sale Price S/SF Page 32 of 155 The most significant t'actor in the analysis of the data is the date ofsale. The housing shortage resulted in a spike in prices paid. The price poinl averages approximately $500.000. The sales prices for the houses with visual influence from the tower range fiom $448,000 to $553.500 which is consistent with the sales ofhomeswithout avisual influence despite their older sale date. The price per square foot fbr the impacted houses ranges from $ll5.ll to $141.45 per square foot. Again. the rates bookend the median and averages for the neighborhood. The indication ftom the analysis is rhar the presence ofa celltower posing a higher level ofvisual impact with a light did not significantly impact rhe value of properties. Page 33 of 155 The Vickery subdivision located in Waxhaw. Nonh Carolina has acell touerjust north ofthe lots atthe terminus ofVickery Drive. The analysis lbr fiose properties closest to the tower is compared to those $ithin the remainder of the subdivision. The lirllowing chart provides sales within the subdivision with the properties closesr ro rhe rower highlighted in yellou. Page 34 of 155 707s308 7075305 6742@2 6't8S G6 0.{45 3 104,@ 3 43&@ l,!53 ,,421 !,78S s 110 56 s 129 4t s 117,89 s 11s.@ 9/211fi16 9/2!7a$ 9/26/2ot6 9tzetm$ 9t$t2,t6 5 393,200 5 353,1@ s 3&2@ 1159( 2015 2D15 2016 7075315 7Ur5lO9 7075303 61 91t 6&7 378 5€O7 603 0.604 0.s3 S 39,@s 436,s00s 49s,ses so,8!5 S 435,@ 1,03 3,S5 3,571 s 133.47 I 142.04 s 122.89 s 13L65 s 121.31 Lal4/?016 to/27/2at6 10/24/2ot6 fil2,l?016 to/3!2!16 5 316,9@ 5 140,2@s 387,3e $ {6,70 5 152,4@ 123% tza* lzsx tlJl. 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 m7!14 70r5r7 ml5326 7D75330 7D75335 7D75331 m75332 ml5112 6835 5' &32a2 6843 !67 5€.a2al 6413 737 5&a 307 635172S 6451304 0.514 0 49a 0.529 0.504 o 542 !t23 VrCtGiY 0i 2028 DONOVAN DR 2011 CHA€I u.l 5 {&,706 s 4&,9@ S 470,@s 4so ses 433,5@s 4)5,N7s 492d8s 454,3A 1.9$ 1,850 1,612 2,922 3,42 3,672 4,432 3,037 s 121.s1 s Lb.ls I 12&@ s 19t.13 s 120.40 5 119.41 s 101.82 5 125.42 s 137.31 1,Ulbt6 12h6/2A$ 12/t9/,ot6 12lr9l?ot6 D/22/2016Dlr/mfi 11/21t2016 12/29/7016 \U29/mt6 s 388205 37s,es 3615@s 324,1@s 3sts@s 363,7&s a20,5@s 3588es 333,s@ t24% Lga 496 !2i% 131% t21% t2i% 2016 2016 2016 mt6 2016 2016 )o16 6459111 6a62 313 s !62,fi 5 448,836 5 152.29 5 123.17 !Blmt1 !B/mt1 5 33,m 5 375,sm 2016 m75313 70753tt 6880472 6342 304 6aa3 $0 0€3 0513 s 476,851 5 4s9,09 s 499,9@ s 11625 I 133 33 s 117.90 u2umD u24/mt1 2/212Afi s 39t1O s 406,5@ rli% 2016 bL6 7075333 m75117 7075331 7qr5306 701s13, 5346 457 6491603 6892 523 6494 492 689607r 0.517 0 531 4.4'71 0 534 0.rt52 0.557 3021 CHALET LN 3015 CHALET tit 2012 DONOVAN 0R S 506,@s 442,890 s 432,@ S 4s5,os 469,9@ 3,303 3,036 3,4€8 3,430 s 131.05 t 145.33 t 13r,.05 5 133 95 s t8,68 s B7.m 3/21Nt7 1/LOlNll !8tzai 1/16lNt1 3lmlfrl7 r/3o/2a17 s 36qes 323,s@s 382,s@s 3l6jes 366,6@s 35910 t29% t2a% 131% 2oL6 2016 mt6 2016 2016 70L6 mE3l5 7075143 6924779 69y oto 0.521 3&3 CHALET U,l ]OU CHALET U{ s 558,532s s02,@ a,2$ 3,t46 3,609 5 131 13 s 137.69 s 13a13 5/9/N!1 3/ta/2a17 sl3117a17 s 4o3,7ms !66,5a05 166,2@ 1341"2otl mll 20t7 to)5322 74',75797 7075351 7ar1t6 6955 571 @5125) 6961816 6&1621 6&2472 @5130 055 0.516 o53 o.492 0.509 0 554 ]@CHALET LX ,O]oCHALET tx s s12,Ss s12,ms 499,9@9 465,335s 493,500 s s07,5@ 5 rr49,9@ 3,910 4,1O2 3,413 3,8a5 3,523 !524 s 126.36 s 130,95 s 122.31 s 12O 31 s 131.1) 5 1O.63 s t24.12 5171.52 6taN!', 6/$/2A11 6/E/mr7 6/2V&t1 6/2A/2lr7 6/2A/&r7 5/3a/2017 6/{/j011 s {@,3m S 333,s5 39s,6@s 3$,7m 5 39s,105 3s8,3@ 5 371,9@5 353,2m s 353,4& 125* 132% t% 132r( 1319( Lt6X 125% lr% 2016 xt7 mr1 2A]7 2017 2016 2016 6973225 o \6'7 s s28,250 1,913 5 13s.@ 1/2!?ot7 s 390,2@ r35%2at1 7o1s 29 0 541 s ts2.47 9/27/Nt7 s 341,2@ ml5123 7075323 tu75339 7029 563 7043 655 0 505 0512 3031 CHALET U{ s rr59,5@ s 513,50s 443,@ s !71,0€5 3,963 3,@9 s 1s2.73 5 129.57 S 1,14.11 s 130.51 \0/6/mt1 \a/3a/2071 s l42,cos 391,.4@s 333,8@ s 153,S 131% L13% 133% 2017 ?o77 mrl 0 52S 5 495,0@ 14!s/20t1 s r}3e 7131330 s 509,m 3,715 s 116 23 4/9/zala s 362,s@ 2016 For lhe anal]',sis. we used several units oi comparison. The pdce point tbr the propertics closest to the tower are within the range of the resl ofthe subdivision. While one sale is on thc lower end oithe range another is on the upper end olthe Page 35 of 155 range indicating that the proximity to the cell tower does not influence the price point. We also looked at the price per square foot. Again. the sales in proximity to the tower werc consistent with nominal variances with other propenies in the suMivision. We also compared the sales prices to the assessed values of the propenies. Again. this comparison yielded the same results that the market and prices paid for properties in proximity to the tower were not impacted by the tower. Page 36 of 155 The next tower found is located southeasl of thc Prestwick subdivision in Charlotle. North Carolina. Thc fbllou'ing aerial shows the tower to the southeast ofthe subdivision. The tower is a monopole tower with some trees between the lower and the residential propenies within Prestuick. The following chart provides a summary of sales within the subdivision with the propenies highlighted in yellow having some level ofvisual inlluence from the tower. N jr ri., 't l :!1 1 il I Page 37 of 155 Boot & Pde Sire SID{Sr)5. € hte xol Y€rB!ill 7115197 71t5211 7115214 7L)52l, 713S2iU rusia 7l35238 7135243 7D5A0 7135193 7135196 7135198 7135213 7135215 1135731 74589 745279 7135284 7135201 713"56 71i517! 705E3 6710543 ml1t$ 6918096 6991S6 6636ml 5728 U4 6756 020 nz8n74 7\914n 77,J47\ 7154843 6S1572 7199856 6S505 6r{m 68m854 ru7p6 7131065 7m2t0 6ml9 7212 509 a43l'3 016 015 014 015 017 017 0.111 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 016 0.14 014 017 0.a 014 016 018 014 015 015 5810 PARruTONT DR 5&}7 PARrcIONI DR 5m1PARI(STONEDR 5TlTPARKSTOIII DR 5707 PART'IONE DR 57S PAXISr0U 0N 3107 R0YAI n00N tN U5 ROYAT TROON IIi SD4fAUlRl( tN 58M PARKSTON E DR gBPARKSIONI OR S8I2PAfiKSIONIDR $03 PAR$roflt 0R 5723 PARKSION E DR 5714 PARIcIOI{E DR ]105 ROYAT NOON DR 911 PAR(STONT DR 5SI PAR$IOIIE DR 5818 PAR(STONE DR 5mtALXtR( u{ 5910 PAR(STONE DR 5S] PAR$TOI{I DR S247,om s20,m t24tm u71m S2!o,m S242,0 52m,m Sasm t74 m s287,5m 52s6,m $262,m tzm t4s,m s88,m t6o,m 5211m tB,m s2m,0m $82,m 973,m0 5255,m 3,2t8 1844 2,14 2,82 1,144 2,662 1,1U 1,955 2,855 3,026 2,1U 1,7U l,Bt 1258 1,794 I,nz lan l$3 l&17 2,104 1075 t6v 57s.u S9r42 S89.D 599.19 S9r11 $125 S94.7s s120.14 Sgs.94 s95.01 S93.D 59s.48 s10r39 s74.97 sl3z66 595.17 579.s0 s93.19 S9r6s s110.S ls.E t96.fr 1l26lnt6 9l8lnt7 4l24lni tholn'\7 ,lnlnt6 l79et6 8/29/m$ 8Arma l10/ma 81 n18 s/r/na rltal7{iT Tlryna 71N1011 3/&/2017 r!1611016 10/212018 glqM8 u1512011 th912016 tholzot' 5l nfl 5246,m S24,m Szr,4m sll8,5m $2m,m $21l3m 5217,m S1,9,4e s2t3,6m 52n6m sn9.m $217,50 S2E m 5244,m $176,m 52.25,m Snl,2m sstm S24m Sr92,m 52ltm 52n,n lcf{ 116i( 113% D4% 11r( 1149( 12096 11196 Dj* D& 11S( Dg, l1fl, lff" 1l5X 115% w lMl 11696 ulx 116% flk 2m 2ffi 2m6 2ffi 2m 2ffi 2m 2ffi 2ffi 2006 2m 2m6 2fl16 2m6 2m6 2m6 2m7 2m7 2m7 2m7 2m7 2m7 Despite consideration of adjustments to the data set for a variety oi physical and market variances. the single-t'amily dwelling with the highest level of visual impact fiom the tower lies within the range of the data set presented. This anal,vsis indicates that the visual impact ofthis tower does nol impact prop€I!)* values of residential properties. Page 38 of 155 QTJALIFICATIONS OF TH 1: ANALYST Michael P. Berkowitz MPB Resl [strte. l,LC | 100 Surdance Drir€ Concord. NC 28027 Phone (70.1) 6040595 EDUCATION AND CREDENTIALSr Duke University Major: llconomics I 985- I 989 Centrsl Piedmont Communitv College R-l - R-2 - G-t - Introduction ro Real Estate Appraisal. 2002 Valualion Principles and Procedures. 2002 Applied Residendal Propert) Valuation. 2002 Introductt)n to Income Propeny Appraisal. 2003 Advanced lncome Capitalization Procedures, 2003 Applied Property Income Valuation 2004 Highesl and Best Use and Market Analysis. 2004 Rates. Multipliers and Ratios 2005 Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches 2006 Aparlment Appraisal. Concepts & Applications 2009 Appraising Distresses Commercial Real Eslate 2009 Appraising Convenience Stores 201 I Analyzing Operating Expenses 201 I Bob Ipock and Associltes (i-2 - (i-3 - Apprsisol lnstitute 520 Seminar 530 Seminar Seminar Seminar Seminar AFFILIATIONS AND ACTIVITIESo AssociationMemberships North Carolina State Cenified General Real Estate Appraiser. October 2006. Cenificate No A6169 RELATED EXPERIENCEr Provided real estate consulting seNices for a variety ofclients including real estate brokers, property owners and financial planneN.r Performed financial feasibilig srudies fbr mulriple property rypes including golfcommunities. and renovation projects.o Developed plan for self-contained communities.. Racetrack expertise Page 39 of 155 APPRAISAL EXPER]ENCE A partial list oftypes ofproperties appraised include: Retail Propenies, Single and Multi-'fenant. Proposed and Existing Oflice Single and Muhi-Tenant Proposed and Existing Mixed-Use Properties. Proposed and Existing Industrial Prope(ies, Warehouse, Flex and Manufacturing Vacant Land Condemnation C-Stores Racetracks (.LIEN'I'ELE Bank of America Transylvania County Cabamx County Mecklenburg County City ofStatesville NC Department of Transponation Henry County, GA Town ofLoudon- NH First Citizens Bank RBC Centura Bank City ofcha otte City ofConcord Union County BB&T Aegon USA Realty Advisors Sun Tmst Bank First Chaner Bank Regions Bank Charlotte Housing Authority Alliance Bank and Trust Broadway Bank Duke Energy Corporation Hamilton. Fay. Moon. Stephens. Steele & Manin Senalor Marshall A. Rauch Perry. Bundy. Plyier & Long. LLp Robinson. Bradshaw & Hinson CSX Real Propeny Baucom. Cumberland. Burton. Morgan & Wood. pA City of Mounr Holly Our Towns Habiht fbr Humanity Parker. Poe. Adams & Bemstein- I-l-p Central Carolina Bank Southem Community Bank and Trust Page 40 of 155 Atta(hments: Sent: To: Subje(t L6 Thursday, May 15, 2024'l1:00 AM Tim.Mangum@randolphcountync.gov SUP Request #23 00000655//Tillman lnfrastructure, Wall Road Telecommunications Tower/Opposition of SBA Communications Corporation sba villa tillman letter.pdf; SBA Letter - Jason Laskey Randolph County. 5 16-2024 PDF.pdf You may recatt that you and I spoke a iew days ago about the above referenced Sup apptication which is on the Ptanning Board's agenda this evening. I represent SBA Cornmunications, which owns and operates a tetecommu nications tower at 6958 watt Road in statey, tess than % mite from the location ol the proposed new tower for which Tiltman seeks approvat. please find attached two (2) tetters from my cLient onerfromMikeVitta,SBA'sSeniorDirectorofSiteMarketing Site Leasing and one frorf Jason Laskey, Principat Zoning Manager providinginformationfortheplanningBoard,sconsiderationin opposition to TiLtman's SLJP AppLication. As you witl note, Tittman's proposed "tenant" shoutd its new tower be approved and buitt is Verizon, which is currentl.y a tenant on the existing SBA tower (and has been for more than 20 years). According to my ctient, Verizon has not expressed to them any economic hardship for Verizon to remain on the SBA tower (the current [ease term woutd expire in 2028, as I understand the situation). f4oreover, as expressed in Mr. Vitta's tetter, SBA witI match whatever monthty rentai rate Tittman has offered to Verlzon, tess $10.00, contingent on Verizon providing SBA with a copy of bona fide documentation of the monthty rentaI rate offered by Tittman. I\4y cLient submits that the Tiltman apptication does not satisiy the requirements of Randotph County's UDO Section 621, which requires TitLman to provjde certain information documenting its efforts to coordinate cotocation on towers within a 1 mite radius ofthe proposed site. Ptease distribute copies of this emait and the attached tetters to the Ptanning Board members for their consideration this evening. I witt be present to discuss my ctient,s position and answer any questions the Ptanning Board may have. RespectfuLty, Bob Hornik TH T BROUGH LAW FIRM,ILLC a,l EXHIBIT II IIH Phone 919 929 3905 Mobite 919-614 0204 Robert E. Hornik, Jr Robert Hornik l4ay 16,2024 Tim: I Page 41 of 155 w€b W!!!.blaqqhl@tltrr!.lsB E rnai I lqrk{Oblalq[byrlt!!.laD 1526 E. Frankln St., Ste. 200 chapelHrll, NC 27514 contid.nthllt! Noti.e. This messaqe and its aftachne.ts may be an atlorney.liEnt communlcatlon and as such ls orvleqed and confldentlal, Ifthe readerofthis message ls notthe lntended reclpent or a. aqent respons ble for dellverinq ltto the lntended reclp ent, you are hereby rotified that yo! recelved this docoment in error and that any revlew, disseminatlon, dstrtbution or cooyinq ofthis messaqe ls stn.ny prohlblted. It you have r.ceived thrs communicatlo. rn eror, please nohfy me mmediately by e-mail and delete Public R..o.ds: This messaqe and lts attachments, and any response you may provide, may be subject to North carolina Publrc Records law. 1 Page 42 of 155 SBA D SBA Communicalions Corporation 8051 Consress Av€nue Boc€ Raton, FL 33487-1307 T + 561 995 7670 F + 561.995.7626 May 16, 2024 Randolph County Department of Planning & Development 204 E Academy St. P.O. Box 771 Asheboro- NC 27204 RE:'Iillman lnfrastruclure, LL( ("Tillman") request for a Spccial llse Pcrmit to construct a 2J0-foot telccommunicxtions to$ er at \\'all Road, Stalel, \C 27355, I)ear Commission Members My name is Mike Vill4 and I am the Senior Director of Site Marketing for SBA Communications Corporation ("SBA") in North Carolina. It is my job to interact with carriers, such as Verizon Wireless ("Verimn"), who have collocated antennas, or are interested in colocating, onto an SBA cell tower. I maintain an open line of communication with the carriers to discuss tenant issues. including but not limited to collocation, tower mounted equipment changes or additions, pricing and facilitating the €xecution ofnew agreements. This would includc the 250 foot tall cell tower SBA has owned, operated, and maintained since December 1999 on property commonly known as 6958 Willard Road, Staley, NC 27355 ("Existing Cell Towei'). Tillman InAasiructure, LLC ("Tillman") has submitted a Special Use Permit Application requesting approvalto construct a new 240-foot self-support tower with Verizon antennas mounted at an antema height of 235' AGL. fhe proposed tower is located a mere 2,400 feet from the Existing Cell Tower on which Verizon is colocated at the same height. In my p or conmunications with Verizon, they havc not mentioned any concems or issues with the Existing Cell Tower nor inquired whether the Existing Cell Tower could acconrnodate additional equipment. Accordingly, I was quite surprised by Tillman's application. Verizon has been a tenant on the SBA tower since 2001. Over the years, SBA has worked with Verizon on numerous requested network improvements, antenna changes and equipment upgrades, Mth the most recent upgrades completed in 2019. SBA has never denied or delayed any request by Verizon to modify their installation as nceded. On April 21, 2021, Verizon and SBA entered into a Master Lease Agreement ("MLA") pertaining to Verizon's lease ofSBA towers nationwide, which includes the Existing Cell Tower. The MLA established mutually agreed upon rental rates and lease extensions between Verizon and SBA. Notably, there has been no discussions with Verizon surrounding any cost concems for this site which is furtler govemed by thc MLA. 'fo the extentthatthere exists an ecoromic burden for Verizon to remain collocated on the Fixisting SBA Tower, as claimed and asserted in l'ilkDan Infrastructure's application, the existence of the 2021 Master Lease Agrcement between Verizon and SBA establishes that ongoing colocation is Page 43 of 155 reasonably feasiblc. Tillman's application refereflces an "Economic Hardship Letter" provided by Verizon as the basis for which the proposed tower should be approved under the county ordinance. SBA has not been provided a copy ofthe letter nor can we confinn the letter exists or was included in f illman's submiftal. As a furthcralce ofSBA willin8ness to accommodate Verizon Wireless for continued collocation at this site. SBA will malch the corresponding monthly rental rate cu(ently offered to Verizon by Tillman lnfiastructure on thc abovc referenced site. less $10.00. contingent upon Verizon providing a copy of bona fide documentation of the monthly rc[tal rate offered by 'fillman Infiastructure. Verizon is currently a tenant on over 6,750 SBA cell towers nationwide, including ten (10) towers in Randolph County. Given our relationship with Verizon we would certair y appreciate the opportunity to work with Vedzon to stay collocated on the Existi[g Cell Tower. Verizon remaining on the Existing Cell l'ower would prevent the unnecessary and needless prolif'eration ofcell towers in the area. Respectfully, we request thal the Tillman Special use application be denied by the Planning Commission as there is no evidence thal the Existing Cell Tower is conmercially impractical or that SBA as the tower owner is unwilling to negotiate a fair market value, to the cxtent one even exists. We look forward to continuing to work with Verizon and Randolph County to provide access to wireless networks via SBA's telecommunications infrastructure. Kind Regards, /s/ Mi*e lilld Mike Villa Serior Director of Site Marketing - Site Leasing Mvilla@sbasite.com sBA 0 Page 44 of 155 sBA 0l SBA Communic€tions Corporalion 8051 Congress Avenue Boca Raton, FL 33487-1307 56'1.995.7670 561 995.7626 T+ May 16,2024 Randolph County Department of Planning & Development 204 E Academy St. P.O. Box 771 Asheboro, NC 27204 RE: Tillman Infrastructure, LLC ("Tillman") request for a Special Use I'crmit to construct a 2.10-foot telccommunicatiotrs lorver rt Wall Road, Stalef, N('27-155. My name is Jason Laskey, and I am a Zoning Manager for SBA Communications. I have over twenty ycars ofsite acquisition and zoning experience in the wireless industry and have been employed by SBA Communications for over fou(een years. ln 1999. SBA Communications (SBAC). apublicly traded company, made a long-term investment in Randolph County in developing multiple strategically placed towers thal would provide a platfom from which multiple wireless service providers and other users can provide reliable wireless coveragc and in way that minimizes the proliferation oftowers. SBA and other Wireless lndustry Representatives worked closely with the Randolph County Planning Board in drafting the county's wireless ordinance that addrcssed the needs and goals for both the residents and the wireless industry. The Planning Board's resulting ordinance was recommended for approval by the Board on June 24, 1999, and then adopted by the County Cornrnission on August 2,1999. On September 28, 1999, nine towcrs meeting the goals of responsible and appropriate to$ er siting eslablished by the new ordinance received Special Use approval from the Planning Board. The SBA tower located at 6958 Willard Road, Staley, NC 27355, was one ofthe nine approved. ['he tower is a 250' self-support tou,er which cu[ently provides antenna space for T-Mobile at 250 feet and Verizon at 235' feet AGL. Traditional tower developers, like SBA, coordimte with wireless carriers as true build -to-suit partners placing new towers wherc coverage is needed with a goal to encourage colocation, expand coverage in communities and minimize tower impacts on local communities. This benefits the local community ftom a common-sense planning perspective and minimizes tower proliferation. 1he carriers benefit by not having to use capital to construct and maintain the tower from which their equipment opeEtes. Leasing space to multiple tenants on a structue is an obvious benelit to the owner. If new towers can simply be approved dght next to one another, it sets a bad precedent foi future tower applications and it removes a major incentive for tower owners to invest in that jurisdiction. Page 45 of 155 Spccialirts in "lluild to Relocate" atrd "Overbuilding" Tillman Infrastructure has submitted a Special Use permit application which has no benefit to the local community. Tillman Infrastuctue specializes in "Build to Relocate" tower development. It is the practice ofbuilding cell towers next to an existing legacy tower to siphon ofitcnants with the offer oflower rents and reduced costs. They larget existing towers in rural areas and jurisdictions where there are minimalto no zoning regulations. They typically seek tower heights slightly taller than the existing nearby stucture to promote as an advantage. The result is overbuilding. This is the construction ofunnecessary dllplicative towers somctimes within 100's of feet ofan existing flrlly ftlnctional tower. There is no public benefit in terms of new or expanded cell service since the relocation tower serves the same geographic area that is alreadv served. SBA does not have a tower monopoly in Randolph County, nor does il oppose tower dcvelopment by competitors. It would be more appropriate for Tillman to develop new towers in areas where there is no existing wireless infrastructure. Towers that would actually provide new coverage and wireless signal improvements. SBA is not unique or alone. Tillman Infrastructure is actively developing duplicative "Build to Relocate" tou.ers targeting not ody SBA but also American Tower, Crown Castlc, and othcr independent towcr owners using similar tactics, claims, form lefteB and assertions. Respectfully. we request that the Tillman Special use application be denied by the Plauring Commission as there is rro evidencc that the Existing Cell Tower is commercially impractical nor does the proposal meet the goals established by the county wireless ordinance. We look tbrward to continuing to work with VerizoD and Randolph County to provide access to wireless networks via SBA's leleconrmunications infrastructure. J6son Laskey Pindpal Zoning Manager 561.981 7455 + T 954 822 1496 + c sBA 0 Page 46 of 155 Jat\vary 31,2024 Attn:Tonyacsddle PlannarE Oi€cto. Randdph County Officot Plan*rg and Zryltlg 204 E Academy St Ceitral P8rmittng Bulldng Ashebo.o, NC 27205 RE Special Lrse PermitApdicatbn byTillrnan lnfrastruchneLLo f'fi rnan') lornewcellulat tower ('TillIl|an Tower Applicatbo'). Ste Name TIOPP-1975$4ZI Uberty Site Localbft WaI Bod, Stanly, NC Dear Ms Caddle I 8m employ€d by V€rizon and s€rl/ts on its Neturcrk Resl Estate T€am. Wiob dut* indude ovsrsight ol high rent to\.rsr sites in tie State of l\lorfi Carolina Plesse scceDt this letter on b€hall o, V6.izoo to serve as substsntatiq tor the abow rofs€nc€d coltulsr tov6r applicatbn, bssd upon th6 €conornic burdefl experienced by Vedzoo. Specifcally, piJrsusnt to fre Rsndclph Corty Unified Oarslop.neot Code (1JDC'), &th-le 600, Sectitn 64, Guildines and R€qulrements tor T€hcommuicatico Tor€rs, Rsndolph County'rnaycondde. the reasorlaue teastitty ol co{ocatirE rEn, anternss and eqiprn€nt oo an axbting wireless s.rpport sfucture or structrrrB within an appliEnt's s€srcfi ring." Furthennore, in accordSncs wi0l the UDC, collocatbn of Verizon's wird€cs laciitiG fi the exigtjng tor\.€. is not r€sorEbly teasible because 'collocation is commercislv impraclixble or the oti,ner of the existing to{er is unwitllng to eiter into a contract lor sucfi use at lsir markol vetJe,'sa furh€r d€€crib€d b€lo,v. AccordinSv, the Tiflrnan Appicatioo sf|ouE be appro/ed. Vsizon p.essr ry l€ss€s sp€ce q| at existirE cs[rar tol,r,€., ot,\,r|€d 81610r op€r8t€d E SBA Tcmers (SBA) and locat€d d 7214 mted RD. Stanly. NC. Vsizoo d6i6s to retocate its widoss l*imk}s hom th€ existirE SBA Eitgto tne fropossd ne1 /c€0u|a[tor€r to be olvn€d, and op€.eted by'Iillrnan, whkfl is tho cliect Ttlhun Apptcatim ($e'Tlfnan Tov/€r'). Tlis letter eviJ€ncss Vrizon's intsnt to retocate its wireless racilities onto the propo€ed lllrnan Torr€r tor the r€ssons sat fofth her€in, Verizon does not rursua relocalbn lrom exMng gtss witurt a consilerable arnount of careful and deliberate corlideratoo, gi\€n the addtional the, costg ard otfort required fo. r€locatim a site This isparttularv the case wh€.t it &termiEs that a site rolocatioo 6 n€cessary due lo mrasooabbeconomb corditixls at extslirE dtes flat far exc€€d rnarket conditbrs, cofitrnooly reteryed to as llilhrEotrelocati]fts'. h sucfi instarces, th6 high costs llavs s lnitir€ imDet on caniers'finsncialrcsotrces to s€rve a psrtcuh. corrnunity, whin !h$| limils a canies abifty to expsd 8nd impro!€ wirebgss€rvbes need€d to mset ths d€,nands ol its custoriers ln some instanc€a, a single cell tower in ajurisdiction can 6eate an anti-competitiw, nrcrlopolMc conditioo, where the tolver owrrer controb tneertire local markot and l€aves csriers with no other t€aEtus optbn. ln thbc8e V€rizon r€qu€sts as(qrdot th. IfmenApplc, b, b€cause of sgA's €co.Efl*:fyureasonsdecoct& Rontal Fsfid Elcahddl$ 3 EXHIBIT verizonr' Page 47 of 155 Based upofl vqi@n's cunent market rat6 pail ior neu, to\,rr€.s h similar locations, the lair market raie for this l@tixr suppo.ts a rnonthly reotsl rats bstlve€o $1,8OO 8rd $2250 witrl I2 to 3% annuai escalator. By way ol illustration, SBA'S cunent rental lee ctErg€d to Verizon ls approximately 101% higher than the reflt Verizon wguld pay oo ths'Iillman Tor\rer. a p.ile ditfe.ence that would signifrcantly grow o\,/er thg years, giwn Tillman's la, rnore llexibl€ terms For illushation, in 10 years, the SBA rent will be in exce€s of $'IOO,OOO 8nd 20 frBars o/er $160,000 annua y in comparison to Tillrnan's rent of approximatev $29,OOO 8rd $3O,OOO annual rent respecf^/ely. This does not include equipment modification. Eouioment Modificatir Cosis, .'nllrnan'spricesarcalFirdusive,wtl€rsesSBActraryssadditionel,unreasorEbleteesandr€ota, increases for almost e\rery tectlItological upgrade or rnodincation - wiotler Verizoo s€6ks to add or replace its equipment Due to SBA'8 coet-prohtiti\,/e rentalrat6, e€cahtion terrrs and oti€r costq Verizon has held ofi on modificatixrs or upgrad6 to it9 €q[iprnent m the SBA Tow€a. In cootrast the Inrlran Tolrr,€r end lsae teflrB \rrould irm€dbtely ofter d€dicated space io accornmodate Veaizon's rE€(E to irlprov€ and modily fie wireless tecinology ssrving the Staflly comrurity lor many ys€Is, . Furfiefipre, the SBA Tower may require c6tty stnrctural tq,ver npdificatirrs to accomrnodate nev,/ Verizofl equipm€ot whictr slso has I chilling ettect on making improv€ments The Tillrnan Tower is design€d to proviJo amplo sltsrctural support tor luture wireless eqiprEnt n€eded to meet the growing needs and demands ot tie Stanly community. ln summary. urder the existing lease tor the SBA Tover, Verizm would be forced to spend o\rer 10096 more than wt|at Verizoo lr/ould pay und€( its agreernent tor the Tillman Tower. This amount assumes that Vedzoo vould perform !e tednologi, ufprades io its oreot oquignert on the SBA Tou.er, which wouH resutt in additioml reot increas€s. Vefiofl co.[inuously wo.ks to mske upgrsd€s lo its equiDment on towers to irrcrovo service fo. its ostomers Verizon seeks to rdocate its facilities to the p.opos€d Tllman Towef, whjcfi will proliije a towsr oplrcn with economicalv ressonsble rates and te€s, consistent with cunent market rat6. and will provide Verizon an opportunity tro rnaks technicai improvem€nts uMer reasonable terms and conditioos in accordsnce with Artide 64. Thank you in ad'\rance for your consideration of $6 fillman fuplication. Sincerely Eric Mann Sr. Director, Ngtwgrk Engineering Carolina/Teon€ssae Resion Et verizonr' 'y(- Page 48 of 155 CASE SUMMARY FOR ROSA MUNOZ SPECIAL USE REQUEST #2024-00001019 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Quasi- judicial Hearing on the request by ROSA MUNOZ, Ramseur, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 545 NC Hwy 22 N, Columbia Township, Tax ID #8702043017, 37.11 acres, RR - Residential Restricted and RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a third home on the property for a family member. ALL WITNESSES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS MUST BE SWORN IN BEFORE GIVING TESTIMONY. Page 49 of 155 OATH FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS (Special Use Permit Request, Variances or Appeals) NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY Before opening the public hearing on a case, the Chair must administer an oath or affirmation to those wishing to speak on a specific case. (This oath is specified in NCGS 11-11.) The Chair should say, “The Planning Board will now hear testimony for and against this request. Anyone wishing to testify on this request must come forward and take the oath. Only those taking the oath may give testimony for this request. “Do you swear, or affirm, that the evidence you shall give to the Board in this action shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God.” Page 50 of 155 PARCEL INFORMATION: ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: RR-RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED DISTRICT Zoning District 2: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Zoning District 3: Specialty District: N/A Watershed Name: NONE Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: YES 3710870200JFlood Plane Map #: Total Permit Fee: $100.00 COMMENTS: The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a SPECIAL USE PERMIT as required by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. By making this application the owner/applicants acknowledge that no work may be done pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued by the County Planning Board except in accordance with all conditions that may be imposed by the Board. It is also acknowledged that any restrictions or conditions imposed shall be binding on the owner/applicants and their successors in interest. SPECIAL USE REQUESTED: TO ALLOW A THIRD HOME ON THE PROPERTY FOR A FAMILY MEMBER Signature of Applicant: Timothy Mangum Authorized County Official Applicant: MUNOZ, ROSA City, St. Zip: RAMSEUR, NC 27316 Address: 545 NC HWY 22 N Owner: MUNOZ, ROSA MARIA Address: 545 NC HWY 22 N City, St. Zip: RAMSEUR, NC 27316 Permit #: 2024-00001019 Parcel #: 8702043017 Date: 04/12/2024 Location Address: 545 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 27316 Permit Type Code: PZ 3 CONTACT NAME:MUNOZ, ROSA Contact Phone:910 434-1371 TERRY L JONES5 + TR 1 Acreage: Township:37.1100 06 - COLUMBIA Subdivsion: Lot number: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page: 1 of 1 - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER - Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Development 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page 51 of 155 Munoz Special Use Permit Request Location Map JORDAN R D CA M P S T M I SS I O N H T S G R E E N H I L L RD PATTERS O N GR O VE RD ADMIRA L D R FO R E S T V I E W S T ELIZABETHST NCHWY22N U S H W Y 64 E DUCKWO R T H C O X R D WR I G H T S T RAMSEUR LAKERD 1 inch equals 750 feet I¤ ?ø Franklinville Ramseur Directions to site: US Hwy 64 E - (L) NC Hwy 22 N - Site on (L) just past Duckworth Cox Rd at 545 NC Hwy 22 N. Page 52 of 155 Munoz Special Use Permit Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( CA M P S T FO R E S T V I E W S T NC H W Y 2 2 N DUCKW O R T H C O X R D US HWY 6 4 E Sandy Creek S a n d y C r e e k DeepRiver DeepRiver San d y Cre e k 1 inch equals 500 feet 30,000 gallon LP gas tank (Rezoned 1993) Request location I¤ ?ø ?ø Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Multi-address Structure !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Duplex/Complex !(Miscellaneous Structures Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Flood plains Municipal zoning County zoning Districts HC RA RR Town of Franklinville Town of Ramseur Page 53 of 155 Munoz Special Use Permit Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( CA M P S T FO R E S T V I E W S T NC H W Y 2 2 N DUCKW O R T H C O X R D US HWY 6 4 E Sandy Creek S a n d y C r e e k DeepRiver DeepRiver San d y Cre e k 1 inch equals 500 feet 30,000 gallon LP gas tank (Rezoned 1993) I¤ ?ø ?ø Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Multi-address Structure !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Duplex/Complex !(Miscellaneous Structures Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Flood plains Municipal zoning County zoning Districts HC RA RR Page 54 of 155 Munoz Special Use Permit Request CA M P S T FO R E S T V I E W S T D U C K W O R T H C O X R D NC H W Y 2 2 N Deep River DeepRiver S a n d y C r e e k S a n d y C r e e k 1 inch equals 426 feet 30,000 gallon LP gas tank (Rezoned 1993) I¤ ?ø ?ø Legend Parcels Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Flood plains Page 55 of 155 Munoz Special Use Permit Request Picture 1: Request location. Picture 2: Adjacent residence. Picture 3: Adjacent residence. Picture 4: Adjacent residence. Picture 5: Request location on left as seen looking toward Patterson Grove Rd. Picture 6: Request location on right as seen looking toward Camp St. Page 56 of 155 4/16/2024 Randolph County GIS Current Owner Information Randolph County, Its Agents and Employeesmake not warranty to the correctness of the information set forth on this document. PIN TAX_ACRES DESCRIPTION DEED_BOOK/PAGE OWNER ADDRESS ADDRESS2 CITY_STATE_ZIP779294624636.21 R22;S 002577/01263 BYRNES, CELESTE BRADY LIFE ESTATE 807 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 2731677929498040.44 TERRY L JONES;TR2 001709/02261 PATE, GORDON 719 HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 27316 7792957173 5 R22;S 001675/01403 PATE, GORDON A (PATE, CATHY G)719 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 27316 7792958552 1.6 R22;N 001472/00311 TOWN OF FRANKLINVILLE P O BOX 277 FRANKLINVILLE, NC 2724887020208813.98 TERRY L JONES;TR4 001720/01221 TOWN OF FRANKLINVILLE P O BOX 277 FRANKLINVILLE, NC 2724887020235862.6 R64;BOTH 001690/00706 TOWN OF FRANKLINVILLE P O BOX 277 FRANKLINVILLE, NC 27248870203861916.61 R22;S 002270/01038 CHILTON, LARRY THOMAS 509 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 27316870204301737.11 TERRY L JONES;TR5 +TR1 002743/00316 MUNOZ, ROSA MARIA (SOTO, RENE BRIONES)545 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 2731687020459460.33 R22;S 002825/00041 HERNANDEZ, MARIA GONZALEZ 545 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 2731687020469130.35 R22;S 001258/00705 AYDELETTE, KELLY DON (AYDELETTE, TREVA R)565 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 27316 8702047888 0.35 CALL CRAV LLC;TR2 001913/00249 WELCH, KEVIN B PO BOX 1206 RAMSEUR, NC 27316 8702047903 0.2 R22;S 002412/00238 WELCH, KEVIN P O BOX 1206 RAMSEUR, NC 2731687020488840.34 R22;S 002533/00976 VELAZQUEZ, ROSA RIVAS 543 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 2731687020523230.95 ALVIN DUCKWORTH;L2 001614/00959 GRAY, KENNETH L (GRAY, TONYA R)612 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 2731687020530241.28 TERRY L JONES;TR1 002691/01913 GOMEZ RODRIGUEZ, MELISER 595 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 2731687020551730.1 R22;N 000000/00000 COX, DAVID L (COX, SHARON A)5016 FOREST OAKS DR GREENSBORO, NC 2740687021407261.63 JAMES A CHILTON ESTATE 002270/01034 CHILTON, LARRY THOMAS (CHILTON, ANITA GAIL)509 NC HWY 22 N RAMSEUR, NC 27316 Page: 1 of 1 Page 57 of 155 COUNTY OF RANDOLPH SPECIAL USE PERMIT REMINDERS A Special Use Permit is a quasi-judicial action designated by the Randolph County Board of Commissioners to the Randolph County Planning Board. Special Use Permits only allow the specified use and the Randolph County Planning Board must find the following findings of fact: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved; 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications as outlined in the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance; 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity; and 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance. Only testimony by “expert witnesses” that can prove their status as an expert witness can be considered by the Planning Board for approving or denying a Special Use Permit. In granting the Special Use Permit, the Planning Board may designate only those conditions as authorized by the North Carolina General Statutes. Any conditions shall be agreed to by the applicant or property owner in writing before the vote of the Planning Board for the conditions to be enforceable. When denying a Special Use Permit, the Board Member making the motion to deny the request should cite which of the above required findings of facts were NOT met. Page 58 of 155 COUNTY OF RANDOLPH ORDER Choose the decision. SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY ROSA MUNOZ SPECIAL USE REQUEST #2024-00001019 NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Having heard all the evidence and argument presented at the hearing on June 4, 2024, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the application is complete, that the application complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance for the development proposed, and that therefore the application to make use of the property located at 545 NC Hwy 22 N for the purpose indicated is hereby Choose the decision., subject to all applicable provisions of the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Choose the decision. THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSA MUNOZ BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 2. That the use meets all required conditions and specifications. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 4. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Growth Management Plan for Randolph County. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. Page 59 of 155 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Randolph County Planning Board has caused this Special Use Permit to be issued in its name and the property owners do hereby accept this Special Use Permit, together with all its conditions as binding on them and their successors in interest. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 60 of 155 MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this Special Use Permit request on the specified parcel(s) on the Special Use Permit application, based upon the sworn witness testimony that is included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed-upon revisions, and that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, the use meets all required conditions and specifications, the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, that the use is a public necessity and the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan(s) as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 61 of 155 MOTION TO DENY SPECIAL USE PERMIT NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this Special Use Permit request on the specified parcel(s) on the Special Use Permit application, based upon the sworn witness testimony that is included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed-upon revisions, and that the use may materially endanger the public health or safety, or the use does not meet all required conditions and specifications, or the use may substantially injure the value of adjoining property, that the use is not a public necessity and the location and character of use if developed according to the plan(s) as submitted and approved, or will not be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 62 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 1 of 6 RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND MAP AMENDMENT EVALUATION APPLICATION #2024-00000928 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by GREGORY BENNETT, Liberty, NC, and their request to rezone 5.51-acres on Andrew Hunter Rd, Franklinville Township, Tax ID #7781799897, Primary Growth Area, from RR - Residential Restricted District and RA - Residential Agricultural District to HC - Highway Commercial District. It is the desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by right in the HC - Highway Commercial District. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner: Gregory R Bennett Hearing Type: Legislative Small Area Plan: None Flood Plain Overlay: None Airport Overlay: None Existing Use: Vacant SITE INFORMATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Direction Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North RR - Residential Restricted District Single-family residence South RR - Residential Restricted District Vacant East HC - Highway Commercial District and RR - Residential Restricted District Commercial Sales/Service Building and Single-family residence West RA - Residential Single-family residence Page 63 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 2 of 6 Agricultural District TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Information from North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): No comments have been received from NC Department of Transportation. ZONING INFORMATION Zoning History: On January 10, 2023, the Randolph County Planning Board held a public hearing on rezoning the entire parcel to HC – Highway Commercial District. The Technical Review Committee recommended that the request be approved by the Randolph County Planning Board and voted unanimously to deny the rezoning request. Proposed Zoning District Standards from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, Article 600, Section 613 (ex. Fencing, buffers, etc.): HC: HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PURPOSE The purpose of the Highway Commercial (HC) District is to provide a place in which the principal use of land is for the retailing of durable goods, the provision of commercial services to industrial areas, and the provision of services to tourists. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE Lot size with a minimum of 100 ft. of State road frontage 40,000 sq. ft. Water Quality Critical Area: 80,000 sq. ft. Lot size with less than 100 ft. of State road frontage 5 acres Lot width 100 ft. at building line Front setback 35 ft. from any road right-of-way Corner side setback 35 ft. from any road right-of-way Side setback 10 ft. from any side property line Rear setback 30 ft. from the rear property line DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Road setback 20 ft. from any road right-of-way Property line setback 5 ft. from any property line DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NOTES 1. Lot areas and setbacks shall be increased if required by Randolph County Public Health. Page 64 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 3 of 6 2. Lot areas in designated Watersheds and Protected Areas are controlled by the Randolph County Watershed Protection Regulations. 3. Front yard setback shall be maintained on all road rights-of-way. 4. Minimum lot size requirements within Primary Growth Areas may be reduced to a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. or 20,000 sq. ft. with public utilities. 5. The minimum lot size requirements within Rural Growth Areas are 3 acres. 6. Lots in major subdivisions within Rural Growth Areas must maintain a 1:4 ratio. 7. The minimum lot size requirements within the Natural Heritage Overlay are 6 acres. 8. Conditional Districts are identical to the general use districts except for site plans and individualized development conditions are imposed only upon the signed petition of all owners of the land to be included in the Conditional District. Possible allowed uses in the HC - Highway Commercial District include the following from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance: 1. Accessory uses; 2. Agricultural uses; 3. Amusements, indoor commercial (e.g., bowling alleys, skating rinks); 4. Amusements, out-of-doors commercial (e.g., roller coasters, fairgrounds); 5. Apparel and accessory sales; 6. Auction sales, yards, permanent; 7. Auction sales, temporary, one-time use; 8. Automobile and truck rental; 9. Automobile body shops (excluding open storage of wrecked vehicles); 10. Automobile carwash, drive-through, requiring vehicle stacking; 11. Automobile parts sales; 12. Automobile sales; 13. Automobile service stations; 14. Automobile storage (excluding wrecked and junked vehicles); 15. Bakery; 16. Banks, savings and loans, credit unions; 17. Barber and beauty service; 18. Boats, recreational vehicles sales, and service; 19. Bottling plants; 20. Builders supply sales; 21. Bus station; 22. Cabinet making; 23. Churches and their customary uses including childcare on-premises; 24. Clinics, medical, dental; 25. Clubs and lodges, private, non-profit; 26. Clubs and places of entertainment (commercial); 27. Community centers, public or private non-profit, for assembly and recreation; 28. Compartmentalized storage for individual storage of residential and commercial goods; 29. Contractor’s yard and outdoor storage area; Page 65 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 4 of 6 30. Convenience store; 31. Daycare facility (freestanding); 32. Drive-in window services (banks, laundries, fast food) if permitted in the district; 33. Drugstores; 34. Dry cleaning and laundry; 35. Event center; 36. Exterminating services; 37. Farm machinery sales, 38. Farm supplies sales (feed, seed, fertilizer); 39. Fire, sheriff, and emergency services; 40. Fitness and recreational sports center; 41. Flea markets (indoors); 42. Flea markets (out-of-doors); 43. Florist; 44. Funeral homes; 45. Gift shops; 46. Glass Manufacturing; 47. Governmental offices; 48. Grocery stores; 49. Gun sales, 50. Gunsmith; 51. Hardware, paint, and garden supplies; 52. Home occupations; 53. Hotels and motels; 54. Home furnishings and appliance sales; 55. Health and social services centers; 56. Industrial equipment sales and service; 57. Laboratory, medical, and dental; 58. Laundry or dry cleaning, self-service; 59. Library, public; 60. Locksmith; 61. Machine shop, welding shop; 62. Medical/Dental clinics or laboratories; 63. Mini warehouse; 64. Mixed commercial and residential use where commercial use is primary and both occupy the same structure or lot; 65. Mobile home, travel trailer, camper, marine, recreational vehicle sales; 66. Monument and cut stone manufacture and sales; 67. Nursery and plant cultivation and sales; 68. Office supplies sales; 69. Outdoor storage yard; 70. Pharmacy and drugstore; 71. Post Office; 72. Pottery manufacturing and sales; 73. Printing and reproduction shop; Page 66 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 5 of 6 74. Radio or television studio; 75. Retail sales, not listed elsewhere; 76. Repair, rental, and service of products sold at retail in the same district; 77. Restaurant; 78. Retail stores and shops (excluding vehicle sales) not otherwise listed herein; 79. Schools, business/trade; 80. Service stations; 81. Services establishments include but are not limited to barber and beauty shops, small-item repair, and rental; 82. Sign, directional gateway; 83. Sign, on-premise; 84. Tailor shop; TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The Technical Review Committee has reviewed this request finds that this request: • Meets all technical requirements of both the Ordinance and the Plan; • Is consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest; and • Should be APPROVED by the Randolph County Planning Board. The following policies from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan were identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting the above conclusion. Policy 3.1.c: Commercial uses should be encouraged or incentivized to develop by consolidation and/or further development or existing commercially zoned property when developed in a manner that lessens the effect of incompatibility with adjoining residential and rural land uses. The County recommends that developers submit plans that address the management of increased traffic, parking, and lighting plans to ensure compatibility with the surrounding community. Consistency Analysis: There currently exists at the intersection of US Hwy 64 E and Andrew Hunter Rd a parcel that is zoned HC – Highway Commercial and has been zoned that way for many years. By approving this request, the Planning Board be allowing the “consolidation” of commercially zoned property. It should be noted that since this is a “straight” rezoning request, no site plans are required nor can be considered by the Board, and only those uses allowed by right in the HC – Highway Commercial district would be allowed. Page 67 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 6 of 6 Policy 3.3.a: Provide for sites in Randolph County jurisdiction where rural commercial activity can be located with the goal of increasing economic activity, job creation, and providing services to the rural community. Consistency Analysis: By approving this request, the Planning Board could be meeting the goals of “increasing economic activity, job creation, and providing services to the rural community.” Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these recommendations. Page 68 of 155 PARCEL INFORMATION: ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Zoning District 2: RR-RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED DISTRICT Zoning District 3: Specialty District: Watershed Name: NONE Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: NO Flood Plain Map #: 3710778000J Growth Management Areas:PRIMARY GROWTH AREA Flood Plane Map #: Total Permit Fee: $100.00 COMMENTS: REQUESTED CHANGE: The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. Area To Be Rezoned: 5.5100 Lot Size Indicator: ACRE(S) Proposed Zoning District: HC-HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Proposed Use(S): Condition(S): Applicant: BENNETT, GREGORY R City, St. Zip: LIBERTY, NC 27298 Address: 7590 OLD 421 RD Owner: BENNETT, GREGORY R Address: 7590 OLD 421 RD City, St. Zip: LIBERTY, NC 27298 Permit #: 2024-00000928 Parcel #: 7781799897 Date: 04/04/2024 Location Address: Permit Type Code: PZ 2 CONTACT NAME:BENNETT, GREGORY Contact Phone:336 953-0849 GREGORY R BENNETT & ANGELA LEAK1 Acreage: Township:5.5100 08 - FRANKLINVILLE Subdivsion: Lot number: Melissa Burkhart Authorized County Official Signature of Applicant: APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1 - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER - Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771 APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page 69 of 155 Bennett Rezoning Request Location Map AN D R E W H U N T E R R D INDIAN SPRIN G S R D FO X F I R E R D PINE RIDGE RD ERNEST RD US HWY 64 E 1 inch equals 400 feet I¤I¤ Directions to site: US Hwy 64 E - (L) Andrew Hunter Rd - Site on (L) approx. 400 feet. Page 70 of 155 Bennett Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( FO X F I R E R D ERNEST RD US HWY 64 E AN D R E W H U N T E R R D 1 inch equals 400 feet Special Use Permit for auto repair shop (2003)Rezoned for church (2004) Rezoned for mobile home sales lot (1997) Request location Special Use Permit for auto dealership (1996) I¤ I¤ Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer County zoning Districts HC RA RR Page 71 of 155 Bennett Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( FO X F I R E R D ERNEST RD US HWY 64 E AN D R E W H U N T E R R D 1 inch equals 400 feet Special Use Permit for auto repair shop (2003)Rezoned for church (2004) Rezoned for mobile home sales lot (1997) Special Use Permit for auto dealership (1996) I¤ I¤ Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer County zoning Districts HC RA RR Page 72 of 155 Bennett Rezoning Request US HWY 64 E AN D R E W H U N T E R R D 1 inch equals 200 feet I¤ Legend Parcels Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Page 73 of 155 Bennett Rezoning Request BROOKDALERD VALEWOOD DR TANGLEWOOD LN PINE RIDGE RD SY L V A N D R GL E N N D R MEADOW RD BROADOAKSST CHANEYRD GREENBRUSHRD PINE CT W A L N U T CREEK LN ERNEST RD ORLENDO DR F O X F I R E R D AN D R E W H U N T E R R D A L L I E L N INDIAN SPRINGS RD US HWY 64 E ACORNRDG P L E A S A N T CROSSRD 1 inch equals 1,000 feet I¤I¤ Legend Roads Growth Management Municipal Growth Area Primary Growth Area Secondary Growth Area Page 74 of 155 Bennett Rezoning Request Picture 1: Request location. Picture 2: Adjacent residence. Picture 3: Adjacent residence. Picture 4: Adjacent residence. Picture 5: Request location on left as seen looking toward Ernest Rd. Picture 6: Request location right as seen looking toward US Hwy 64 E. Page 75 of 155 Leak, Angela J 171 Andrew Hunter Rd Asheboro, NC 27203 Henley, Neal H 187 Andrew Hunter Rd Asheboro, NC 27203 Richards, Susan L 207 Andrew Hunter Rd Asheboro, NC 27203 Seawell, Robert Keith 242 E Bayside Dr Chocowinity, NC 27817 Arellano, Jose 433 Fern Dr Asheboro, NC 27203 Cheek, James R Jr 7748 Lanes Mill Rd Bennett, NC 27208 Pell, Hilda B 2641 NC Hwy 42 S Asheboro, NC 27205 Bennett, Gregory R (Bennett, Tyra S) 7590 Old 421 Rd Liberty, NC 27298 Bennett, Gregory Ronald 7590 Old 421 Rd Liberty, NC 27298 Nunez, Graciela Corina Godoy (Valencie, Anselmo Espinoza) 1272 Rachel Ln Slaisbury, NC 28147 Sommer, Clayton Alexander 4251 Us Hwy 64 E Asheboro, NC 27203 Page 76 of 155 May 30, 2024 Re: Gregory Bennett application #2024-00000928 Dear Randolph County Planning Board, My name is Crystal Davis. My address is 374 Pleasant Cross. I am respectfully requesting the Randolph County Planning Board deny Mr. Bennett's rezoning request, scheduled to be heard Tuesday, June 4, 2024. My reasoning is based upon the content of this email: My family has lived and worked in this neighborhood for well over 100 years. I own and manage Kingdom North Home Rentals, based in Randolph County. Along with this business, I am a pastor's wife at a very active local church, volunteer frequently, and serve on the Board of Directors for a leading need-based community assistance organization. Community well-being, peace, and quality of life for our residents are an everyday priority. Prior to my father, Gary Robbins’ passing in 2020, he built, owned and operated the special use garage located at 321 Andrew Hunter, listed on Mr. Bennett's application. This property is currently owned by my sister, Savannah Snyder. It is my understanding that for dad to be permitted, he had to submit his request to the board several times for his garage to be approved for special use. I am proud of my dad’s upscale business model, and I am grateful that his business has set a reasonable, desirable standard of building use, style and buffers, with commercial use, in our immediate community. Many of the Kingdom North homes are predominately located in this immediate area, as well as future plans for the development of more beautiful, quality homes within the neighborhood. Currently, four single family rental properties, as well as my personal home, farm, and three vacant lots, totaling approximately 42 acres, are all within a mile of Gregory Bennett's application request. Andrew Hunter is a primary through way to these rental properties. (One is located on Ernest Rd, two on Andrew Hunter.) I am very concerned the rezoning request will be inconsistent with the corridor and neighborhood. I do support the development request but believe the request should absolutely require a business specification site plan, considering it is along this primary growth corridor and most businesses and homes are site-built brick buildings. I reviewed the list of Highway Commercial business options listed in the agenda. Some fit well. Some may negatively affect my real estate business and the lifestyles and safety of my tenants. This application has the potential risk to tremendously impact the desirability of the neighborhood and threaten the future development of my vacant tracts. Kingdom North Homes strives to provide single family homes with a safe, quiet quality of life. Like my Dad, I take great pride in the upkeep of the properties and am able to keep and maintain long term tenants because of the characterization of the corridor's standard of buildings and businesses, in conjunction with this corridor's proximity to the Deep River trail, zoo, and the new Ag center, in a rural residential Page 77 of 155 setting with easy access to local jobs and shopping. These features and the proper planning surrounding them are an asset to the properties owned by Kingdom North Homes. This rezoning request has the potential to negatively impact my ability to retain quality tenants and future development. I am concerned about the resale values of the properties, should there be insufficient buffers and noise pollution, or if commercial uses are inconsistent with the immediate properties. I am respectfully requesting the Board deny the request to rezone from RR/RA to Highway Commercial without a site plan. Other developing commercial properties and conditional use properties in the area have submitted site plans to the board and community historically, and I see no reason this should be an exception. It is a reasonable request and a respectful courtesy to the local residents, adjacent farms, residential homes and other businesses, considering the transition from primary to secondary growth. Beautiful, desirable living conditions don’t just land in a community’s laps. We are depending on you, our board members, to represent our well-being and to ensure we continue to further maintain and elevate our community. We are excited and believe you will make the best decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me at my email, KingdomNorthHomes@gmail.com or cell number (336)302-4210, with any questions. Regards, Crystal Davis Kingdom North Home Rentals LLC (336)302-4210 Page 78 of 155 May 30, 2024 To the Randolph County Planning Board Re: Gregory Bennet application #2024-00000928 Dear Randolph County Planning Board and staff. Thank you for taking the time to meet and prepare for the upcoming meeting June 4, 2024. My name is Susan Richards. I reside at 207 Andrew Hunter Road, Asheboro, North Carolina 27203. I am respectfully requesting the Randolph County Planning Board review and consider the information in this email and it's attachments as part of my personal statement to be heard on June 4, 2024 in the matter of Mr. Bennett's rezoning request. I'm sending the email to you to provide valuable background information, concerns, and thoughts as to how I've come to conclusions regarding the current and future use of my property. I am genuinely seeking input , clarification, and welcome questions or other information to help me move in whatever direction benefits Mr. Bennett, my other neighbors, myself and Randolph County. As noted in the rezoning application on page 2 for the June meeting, under Zoning Information, this request came before the board requesting the entire parcel to HC - Highway Commercial District last year in January of 2023. The Randolph County Planning Board voted unanimously to deny the rezoning request according to Article 600, section 613. (Ex Fencing, buffers, etc.) Last year when Greg Bennett requested the rezoning to HC I did not fully understand or comprehend how the growth management plan was underway of being evlaluated and adapted or what radical changes are heading to Randolph County through the Unified Development Ordinance. The growth is greater than many of us imagined possible with the addition of the megasite, Toyota, and the FarmE3 Ag center. I did not understand agriculture and workforce housing would be in as much demand as commercial real estate or the complexities involved in creating cohesive transitions of land use. Mostly I did not understand the technical review process and how the planning department helps citizens find solutions and options to what we would like to accomplish with our land. Moving on to the current HC rezoning request. To be very frank, I was terrified to see the zoning notice pop up on the corner again this year. Not because of Greg Bennett. He has been kind and generous with me. It was simply a trauma response. Page 79 of 155 On Tuesday, May 28, I took a few moments to face my fear and spoke with Mr. Bennett regarding the new rezoning request. Mr. Bennet was fair, reasonable, and kind in hearing my concerns. I asked Greg if he would continue to rent me the pasture portion located behind his sister Angela's home and his rental residence. 171 and 177 Andrew Hunter Road. HE SAID YES. Greg had begun allowing me to rent since May of 2022. According to the current HC rezoning request prepared by the technical staff, I see agriculture listed as an acceptable use. I am elated! I feel an incredible sense of (short term) relief. Thank you to County Planning Department for recognizing how important Agriculture is to our county. A huge thank you to Mr. Bennett for allowing and helping install the farm fencing we put onto his property last year to keep the horses and goats safe. The labor was intensive and expensive. My horses and goats are benefiting from Greg's generosity to let me rent the additional 2.5 acre pasture for my animals to graze. Why I am writing this email to the Planning Board is to present problems I'm facing with regards to clarification of property setbacks for buildings and other items as well as buffers in relationship to this particular HC request. I am confused re setbacks by the shape of the parcel in relation to Andrew Hunter, adjoining properties and frontage and need help to understand and prepare for when Greg may develop the portion I currently rent. The HC rezoning request is directly side adjoining over 1/3 of 207 Andrew Hunter on the south side length. If I'm understanding current ordinances and quidelines, that could be as little as a 5' or 10' setback. Truthfully, I AM PANICKING at the thought of even a 10 foot setback as it hits mid property. Directly center back yard where the general public will have full view and access to me, my animals and anyone here on this property. That is terrifying to me. The parcels were divided in a different configuration when I purchased in 2019. At that time I recall there were 4 or 5 long indivdual sections of 100ft wide by approximately 600 ft long parcels lined up along Andrew Hunter . All zoned RR RA. Hwy64 was roughly 700 feet to my side property line. I anticipated I might have a bit of highway noise or new neighbors, but never once anticipated the redrawing of the pasture to be one big section becoming the new property line and the residential home be another. I'm sure that at the time Greg and his sister divided their inheritance they were not focusing on how it might effect my property, rather how they might make it equitable and useful for their purposes. The thought has crossed my mind where there may come a time where Greg is no longer a controlling owner of this HC zoning request property or he might sell it. Another less likely path I have considered is he and I might not be able to agree to work out a solution to greenery, fencing, trees on the property lines and security lighting or that if we do come to an agreement, it woukd not be part of the conditions of the parcels and might result in a disagreement on either side. All of these options directly impact both of our properties as neighbors and are completely avoidable if we can agree to set some comditions. I am concerned havg a HC zone with no significant buffer would reduce my property value and change my quality of life to one that is not sustainable to live or sell. These all seem to be very real possibilities. Page 80 of 155 My current lifestyle is 100% farm life working towards adding an agriculture based source of revenue. This property is also my primary residence. I am here full time. 24/7 except when I volunteer locally. PHASE 2. Curiosity and learning Last year I began exploring options for my property to see if rezoning to HC might be an option for 207 Andrew Hunter or what business or additional residential housing might be a possibility considering this property is designated both Primary and Secondary Growth. RR as well as RA. The property is roughly 200 ft wide by 1000 ft long with residences and farmland or wooded forest all the way around. I reached out to several professionals in our area. People that may have ideas, solutions or options. H. R. Gallimore, (Commercial real estate) Debbie Dennis and Angela Street (residential and commercial real estate) Jose with Piedmont Regional Triad, Kevin Franklin with Randolph Economic Development, Mack Summey with Summey Engineering and Eric Martin in the Planning Department. At the end of the quest, all of them told me because of the layout of my property with approximately 180 ft of frontage, an unnamed tributary in the front portion of my property and because I am on well water and septic, this property is ultimately secondary development until the infrastructure on Andrew Hunter changes to add water and sewer and even then, more than likely it would only be feasible to add housing between the middle 200- 700 feet of the property due to watershed and NCDOT roadway frontage. (Unless I am a serious developer.with extremely large resources) So now what? That can't be the end of the options list. I reached out USDA and the NC Ag extension. They suggested I focus on bees, farming, horticulture, permaculture and organic farming. Options also included small livestock or designate this property towards conservation. Primarily because of the NCDOT culvert at the front bringing in all the storm water from both sides of Andrew Hunter, the pasture I rent from Greg has rain flowing towards the center of this property and the pond at the back adjoining property. In a good way, receiving rain runoff from front and side. Naturally emptying to differentt side and back is a fantastic opportunity for our watershed. Adam with NC Soil suggested regenerative farming. Ross Lackey with Holly Hill farms in Seagrove has been helping shore up my driveway from the watershed erosion and Millborro farms is investing time showing me how to farm on minimal acreage. Somehow some way utillize this property for agriculture seems to be the best current sustainable use. Now that all those puzzle pieces are on the table, I am respectfully requesting you as the Planning Board to consider options and thoughts for the future development of Greg Bennett's request and how the setbacks and buffer will impact 207 Andrew Hunter Rd. I'm at a sincere loss for how to move forward specifically with discussions and solutions to how I view the need for buffers, lighting and fencing. Greg and I have comletely different thoughts and view points. Page 81 of 155 I do believe there is a solution and somehow over the next few years Randolph County will be able to make remarkable sustainable changes and adjustments for transitional properties such as 207 Andrew Hunter Rd. Until that time land use in this current growth plan compared to actual growth events effecting properties and families like mine and Greg's are very difficult to navigate without high emotion and some need for assistance from others. Both Greg and I have high financial stakes and safety considerations. I would greatly appreciate your insight, input and assistance to relieve the terror I'm feeling over the potential HC rezoning request where where I view less than 10' side set backs with the current property layouts as highly risky for my animals and a potential safety risk for the public. I FEEL very stuck and unsafe. I feel like I'm held paralyzed in a holding pattern. I do know its temporary. There are options and solutions. Final thought about 3 possibilities I wrote off for a few.reasons. 1. Being able to exit this property is not currently an option. I'm at a 2% mortgage loan with no other place to call home for the beloved horses that traveld 3,000 miles here from CA. They don't think about anything other than how amazing their life is here. I desire and strive to be like them. For perspective, my selling would still not resolve the problem of 207 Andrew Hunter losing residential residence value as being a transition propery in a unique 5.24 acres of transitional adjustment space between rural. Residential. Primary. Secondary. 2. Renting the property to someone else. Again, it is about not having an affordable.option to relocate to where I could take the beloved ones. 3rd. Some fast growing evergreens are toxic to livestock, especially horses so they cannot be within 20 feet of the tree or plant. I'm pleading with you as the Planning and Zoning Board to please help navigate some type of reasonable return to safety from a once 200" property line buffer to an unimaginable 5' or 10' setback with noise and light pollution and loss if visual greenery. I do realize Greg is not wrong or bad for wanting to improve his property with business opportunities. What is also true is he and I are in the exact same position trying to find a way to increase our ROI and live our best lives. For that matter, the County and neighbors are all in the boat with us on this one. No answer or compromise is really good or bad. It's really going to come down to reasonable, rational, discussions with all of us at our very best intentions brought to the party. This is why I wrote to you rather than presented. What I truly desire is to stay open to options and solutions. To share my why's. To see If i'm missing options or opportunities others may be able to see and share. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Thank you for letting me share information and how I'm coming to my conclusions pertaining to my property and this zoning request. It is my goal to be a responsible neighbor. To be a good tenant to Greg. To look at this situation as the multifaceted prism it is. My request to the County is to help us create a sustainable environment where we both thrive. One where the community attracts more workforce housing families, tourists, and businesses. Page 82 of 155 I look forward to hearing your input and feedback at the coming meeting as well as at other future meetings. Thank you for helping me learn and better understand the ordinances. Sincerely, Susan Richards Attachments: Uncertified Minutes Jan 2023 pages 1, 9-12 exhibit 1 Page 83 of 155 RR RR 9600476 PZ 3 RA ERNEST RD (S2227) 3527 0.5 A R: 63398 2548 2.43 A R: 637845693 0.7 A R: 63727 9897 5.51 A R: 93269 0947 2.66 A R: 63781 8691 0.72 A R: 63730 7050 0.35 A R: 63743 3292 2.96 A R: 63791 5605 2.1 A R: 63401 0757 15.34 A R: 91484 1976 0.91 A R: 93270 1045 0.92 A R: 63782 0421 9.8 A R: 63852 3856 0.62 A R: 63785 5041 0.5 A R: 63737 7346 5.24 A R: 63728 0610 0.92 A R: 63780 9163 8.4 A R: 63786 8857 33.61 A R: 63183 4643 1.2 A R: 63726 7642 1.4 A R: 63729 2105 0.58 A R: 63783 4031 1.21 A R: 63733 6944 5.6 A R: 63403 198 177 187 311 171 229 144 229 311 207 198 177 160 144 201 187 252 201 207 171 160 2840 2861 2818 2815 2840 2808 2815 2831 2861 2818 2831 2808 2883 Randolph County Planning and Development4 This map was prepared by Randolph County, NC for the County's internal use. Randolph County, its agents and employees make no warranty as to the correctness or accuracy of the information set forth on this map, whether expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Map is based on NC Coordinate System of 1983. Date: 1/9/2024 - pztvm1 inch equals 150 feet Page 84 of 155 Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2023 Page 1 of 12 RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 10, 2023 There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on Tuesday, January 10, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. in the 1909 Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145-C Worth St, Asheboro, NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance and asked for a roll call of the members. Hal Johnson, County Manager, called the roll of the Board members. • Reid Pell, Chair, present; • Kemp Davis, Vice-Chair, present; • John Cable, present; • Melinda Vaughan, present; • Reggie Beeson, present; • Ken Austin, present; • Barry Bunting, present; and • Brandon Hedrick, Alternate, present. County Attorney, Ben Morgan, was also present. Johnson informed the Chairman there was a quorum of the members present for the meeting. He announced that the Crumley case, originally postponed until tonight’s meeting has been postponed until the next Planning Board meeting, being held on February 7, 2023. Pell called for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Consent Agenda: • Approval of agenda for the January 10, 2023, Planning Board meeting. • Approval of the minutes from the December 6, 2022, Planning Board meeting. Davis made the motion to approve the consent agenda as presented, with Austin making the second to the motion. The motion was adopted unanimously. Pell asked the Board members if there were any conflicts in the following cases. Hearing none, Johnson presented the first case along with site plans, and pictures of the site and surrounding properties. Page 85 of 155 Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2023 Page 9 of 12 REZONING REQUEST #2022-00003236 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by GREGORY R BENNETT, Liberty, NC, and his request to rezone 5.51 acres on Andrew Hunter Rd, Franklinville Township, Tax ID #7781799897, Gregory R Bennett and Angela Leak Subdivision lot number 1, Primary Growth Area, from RR - Residential Restricted and RA – Residential Agricultural District to HC - Highway Commercial District. The proposed rezoning would allow any uses permitted by right in the HC – Highway Commercial District. Pell opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the request to come forward and address the Planning Board. Gregory Bennett, 7590 Old 421 Rd, Liberty, told the Board that he would like to develop this property for commercial use without specific conditions like the property across the street because he is uncertain what the future needs will be at this time. Morgan asked which property across the street is zoned commercial. Bennett explained that it is the building on the corner of US Hwy 64 and Andrew Hunter Rd. He said it is a rental property that has been used for multiple uses such as a lawnmower repairs shop, and sweepstakes as well as other uses in the past and is not actually on US Hwy 64, there is another property owner for the lot that fronts on that road. Johnson described the surrounding properties that have been rezoned in the past and the uses for those properties. Pell said the property Bennett is referring does not touch US Hwy 64 and the adjacent rental building has been used for multiple things over the years. Johnson asked Bennett how long he has owned the property. He said it has been in his family since the 1940s and passed down. He said his mother gave this and the adjoining property to his sister and himself. He said he gave the homesite to his sister and kept the pasture for himself. Davis asked if he is asking to rezone the entire 5.51 acres. Bennett answered yes. He said he is currently allowing a neighbor to rent a portion of the pasture for her horses. Pell asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. Clayton Sommer, 4251 US Hwy 64 E, Asheboro, said he owns the western and southern property borders of the request and is a fifth-generation cattle farmer which has been in his family for approximately a century. He said the water from Bennett’s property drains directly into the main watering hole for his cattle. He said the development with asphalt and roofing as opposed to pasture as it is now, has the potential to damage his creek and property from the excessive water drainage in addition to the pollutants from commercial Page 86 of 155 Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2023 Page 10 of 12 businesses. He said the water run-off from parking areas is higher in lead and cadmium than your average rainwater. He submitted topographical maps for the Board to see (Exhibit 1), demonstrating the possibilities of water drainage from the intense storms we have in this area. He said the amount of noise and pollutants is also uncertain because there is no “plan” for development at this time. He said there could be a small commercial business on the property that will cause no issues but without a known plan, there could also be a large industrial business with many pollutants. Austin asked Sommer the size of his property adjacent. Sommer said he owns 33 acres directly adjacent to the requested property, as well as the tract adjacent to that. Johnson asked how long he has owned the property. Sommer said he purchased the property from his great-uncle in August 2022, with the understanding that he would continue the agricultural use because of the family history of the property of almost 100 years. Johnson asked if his main concern was that there is no specific plan for the intended use of the property and there is no site plan to show the potential run-off of the property and how it will affect his farm. Sommer answered yes. Susan Richards, 207 Andrew Hunter Rd, Asheboro stated that she is a northern neighbor to the request and currently rents a portion of the pasture from Bennett for her horses. She said she does not necessarily have objections to the development of Bennett’s property but agrees that there needs to be a specified plan. Richards said she moved here for the rural tranquility of the area, intentionally placing herself in and around residential zoning, and even though she is not against growth, she feels there should be a more specific plan to protect the residents of the area, potentially causing harm to the value of the surrounding properties. Richards said if this property is rezoned HC, especially without conditions, there are many concerns including safety, the lighting used for the business, the hours of operation, what pollutants will be present, and will there be required buffers. She asked the Board to consider their concerns and deny the request without a plan. Having no additional opposition, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Johnson commended the applicants that have come before the Board with requests to comply with County policy. He said in this case, the neighbors have not said they are opposed to the development but need a planned use of the property. He asked the Board to consider if the request is an appropriate location for straight re-zoning to allow any permitted use under the HC zoning or a location to consider a conditional district that would require a particular land use with a site plan. Austin said the HC zoning allows a very broad spectrum of uses and some of the uses are simple, while other allowable uses are complex, and he understands the neighbors’ need to have a plan for the rezoning request. Page 87 of 155 Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2023 Page 11 of 12 Hedrick stated that the property is in the Primary Growth Area and one of the responsibilities per the Growth Management Plan is to minimize incompatibilities by requiring buffers and screens, and the other is to use transitional development to buffer between incompatible uses and there is no plan to show the transitional buffering for the property and how it will affect the area. Davis said he agrees with the other Board members that the request needs a plan for development because of the impact it will have on the adjoining agricultural properties. Cable agreed. He said this situation goes a little deeper than just having a property located on US Hwy 64 because it is also surrounded by agricultural uses. Davis made the motion to DENY the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with all agreed-upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Austin made a second to the motion to DENY the rezoning request. Pell, having a proper motion and second, called the question on the motion to deny the rezoning request, and the motion was adopted unanimously. There was recognition of a group of citizens that attended the meeting for observation purposes only. Johnson announced that he had presented a proposal to the County Commissioners to approve funding for a Growth Management Plan update in the northeast Randolph County area, working with the Piedmont Triad Regional Council and the municipalities being affected. He said he envisions several joint meetings within the next six to seven months between the Planning Board and County Commissioners. Johnson said the Commissioners have authorized him to nominate a Steering Committee which will consist of several managers of municipalities and staff. He asked Reggie Beeson, Ken Austin, and Brandon Hedrick to become a part of the committee. All three members agreed to join the committee. Having no further business, Pell called for a motion to ADJOURN the meeting. Cable made the motion to adjourn, with Austin making the second to the motion. Pell, having a proper motion, and second, called the question on the motion to ADJOURN. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m., with 24 citizens present. Page 88 of 155 Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2023 Page 12 of 12 RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ________________________ Chairman _________________________ _______________________________ Clerk to the Board Date Approved by Randolph County Planning Board February 7, 2023 Page 89 of 155 Page 90 of 155 Page 91 of 155 May 30, 2024 Re: Gregory Bennett application #2024-00000928 Randolph County Planning Board, I am a nurse, my shift schedule does not allow me to attend the meeting on June 4th. Please accept this email as communication to the Randolph County Planning Board, in lieu of my presence at the meeting June 4, 2024. Thank you for your time and consideration of this email. My name is Savannah Robbins Snyder. My address is 258 Willow Lake Rd. My family and I have lived here in Randolph County all my life. I am respectfully requesting that the Randolph County Planning Board deny Mr. Bennett's rezoning request scheduled to be heard Tuesday, June 4, 2024, based on the information and statements in this email. My husband, Matt Snyder and I live on the 15-acre parcel to the west of the project. Our property is directly connected to Mr. Bennett's rezoning request, by the pond at the northwest end of the designated watershed. Our pond sits entirely on my property and is fed by the connecting stream and smaller pond closer to Hwy 64. I also own the undeveloped 9.76-acre parcel, adjoining my primary, to the north, on Orlendo Dr. The parcel is also zoned RR. Additionally, I own the 2.96-acre parcel at 321 Andrew Hunter Rd and the adjoining parcel, 311, occupied by my mother. The 321 property on Andrew Hunter is the special use garage property Mr. Bennett referenced in his application. When Dad passed in January of 2020, the business closed, as my sister and I were devastated by the loss. I do plan on utilizing the garage as originally designed business in the future. Page 92 of 155 I have several concerns regarding Mr. Bennett's request. Foremost, I believe rezoning without a plan could negatively impact my health with contaminants to my pond and well water. Mr. Bennett’s property is directly in line with the watershed that feeds my pond. My pond is stocked with fish. These fish feed my family. The pond also provides a natural habitat for wildlife and my pet ducks. It also allows for personal recreational enjoyment for me, my family and friends. Protecting the water supply for my family, neighbors and community is paramount! Noise and light pollution are another significant consideration for requesting a site plan. Most of the trees on the adjoining properties, towards Mr. Bennett's proposed rezoning request, are primarily deciduous. For a good part of the year there are no leaves on the trees. Subsequently, there is very little buffer. Currently I enjoy watching my neighbor's cattle and my other neighbor's horses during that time. I am worried that the proposed zoning request to straight HC, will affect the noise and light levels, by any added security lighting. Noise and light pollution have the potential to reduce the value of my 30 acres of RR zoned property. I believe there is a significant risk of reduction in value, and quality of life, if the board approves this request, as is. Next, I'd like to address the special use garage, located on Andrew Hunter. Prior to my father, Gary Robbins, passing away in 2020, he built, owned and operated the special use garage located at 321 Andrew Hunter, which is listed on Mr. Bennett's application. My Dad worked here in Randolph County his whole life, acquiring and passing down the land and businesses he owned in this area, to my sister and I. (Crystal Davis owns and Page 93 of 155 operates Kingdom North Home Rentals in the area, and lives directly west of me, on the adjoining property that passes all the way through to Pleasant Cross Road.) The garage on Andrew Hunter was specifically designed by my dad. For at least four generations, my dad being no different, believed in working and living in the same community. He believed in meticulous planning to make sure he was elevating the area we live and work in, by setting a positive example of quality workmanship and being a good steward of land. His standard of excellence and forethought can be seen in every building he purchased and built: His maintenance schedules were consistent and sustainable to prolong the life of the buildings and properties. He made sure he designed specific flow for culverts, to protect from erosion and for filtering of the watershed, to avoid any contamination. The garage parking area has a portion that is solid concrete for both appearance and function. There are properly planned basins for runoff. My father even piped hot water to the exterior hose bibbs, in order to help clean properly. Peace and privacy were considered, as the garage is double brick insulated to reduce noise from the maintenance on vehicles. The upmost care was given to every detail, so that it would positively impact this area and community. Dad liked to make money, yet he saw value in quality as well. His business model set a wonderful and reasonable standard for building use, style and was always intentional in providing appropriate buffers for commercial use, that supported the people living immediately adjacent, as well as those out further in the community. He provided jobs, services and products to our neighborhood, from a classy and desirable venue. Page 94 of 155 Andrew Hunter is a primary through-way to my home. I am extremely concerned the straight HC rezoning request will be inconsistent with the corridor and neighborhood. I do support the development request but believe the request should require a business specific site plan. Businesses and homes on Andrew Hunter, towards Franklinville, are primarily site-built brick buildings. While Mr. Bennett's property is closer to Hwy64, his is one of the first parcels seen. That parcel is a pivotal and intricate entrance to our neighborhood. The neighborhood deserves the continuity and sustainability my dad started with his life-work mentality. Like my dad, I take great pride in the upkeep of my properties and the characterization of the corridor's standard of buildings and businesses. I believe this area has the potential to be home to many of the necessary workforce for Toyota, Wolfspeed, the Agricultural center, and maybe even the new Ross Distribution Center. We are close to Deep River Trail, Faith Rock and the Zoo. Andrew Hunter road is a rural residential setting with easy access to local jobs and shopping. My Dad had the vision to strategically and tactfully develop over 70 acres in this area, with his rentals and businesses to elevate the community. He provided jobs and housing for people along Andrew Hunter towards Franklinville. I plan on continuing the level of excellence and growth mindset my dad had for this community. I have every reasonable expectation that my quality of life, as well as others, will be positively impacted by that growth. I am respectfully requesting the Board deny the request to rezone from RR/RA to Highway Commercial without a site plan. It is a reasonable request considering the transition from Page 95 of 155 primary to secondary growth, the adjacent farms, residential homes, businesses and future development. Thank you for your time. Please contact me by phone with any questions. Sincerely, Savannah Robbins Snyder 258 Willow Lake Rd (336) 267-7874 Page 96 of 155 COUNTY OF RANDOLPH CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND FINDING OF REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY GREGORY R BENNETT REZONING REQUEST #2024-00001019 NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD According to North Carolina General Statutes § 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to HC - Highway Commercial District as described in the application of Gregory R Bennett are consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Primary Growth Area which generally lie along major transportation corridors and have access to urban services. This parcel is along US Hwy 64 E which is a major transportation corridor. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 3.1.c: Commercial uses should be encouraged or incentivized to develop by consolidation and/or further development or existing commercially zoned property when developed in a manner that lessens the effect of incompatibility with adjoining residential and rural land uses. The County recommends that developers submit plans that address the management of increased traffic, parking, and lighting plans to ensure compatibility with the surrounding community. Consistency Analysis: There currently exists at the intersection of US Hwy 64 E and Andrew Hunter Rd a parcel that is zoned HC – Highway Commercial and has been zoned that way for many years. By approving this request, the Planning Board be allowing the “consolidation” of commercially zoned property. It should be noted that since this is a “straight” rezoning request, no site plans are required nor can be considered by the Board, and only those uses allowed by right in the HC – Highway Commercial district would be allowed. Page 97 of 155 Policy 3.3.a: Provide for sites in Randolph County jurisdiction where rural commercial activity can be located with the goal of increasing economic activity, job creation, and providing services to the rural community. Consistency Analysis: By approving this request, the Planning Board could be meeting the goals of “increasing economic activity, job creation, and providing services to the rural community.” 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 98 of 155 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA UPON REQUEST BY GREGORY R BENNETT WHEREAS, a 5.51-acre parcel, having the Randolph County Parcel Identification Number of 7781799897 is currently zoned RA - Residential Agricultural District and RR – Residential Restricted District by Randolph County, North Carolina; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2024, to consider the proposed rezoning on application number 2024- 00000928, and all procedural requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance have been satisfied; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest, and the Randolph County Planning Board has adopted a separate statement to this effect; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD THAT, the property is hereby rezoned to HC - Highway Commercial District. The official Randolph County Zoning Map and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan Map are hereby amended, if necessary, to reflect the same and this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 99 of 155 MOTION TO APPROVE A REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application and the Map Amendment Ordinance, to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 100 of 155 MOTION TO DENY A REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes and that the request is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 101 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 1 of 4 RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND MAP AMENDMENT EVALUATION APPLICATION #2024-00000001 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by RESCUE RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Trinity, NC, and their request to rezone 0.68-acres at 5868 US Hwy 311, New Market Township, Randleman Lake Protected Area Watershed, Tax ID #7745379293, Primary Growth Area, from O-I-CD - Office and Institutional - Conditional District to RR - Residential Restricted District. It is the desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by right in the RR - Residential Restricted District. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner: Rescue Residential LLC Hearing Type: Legislative Small Area Plan: None Flood Plain Overlay: None Airport Overlay: None Existing Use: Single-family residence SITE INFORMATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Direction Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North RR - Residential Restricted District Single-family residence South RR-CD - Residential Restricted - Conditional District Single-family residence East HC-CD - Highway Commercial - Conditional District Used car sales with automotive mechanic work West RR - Residential Restricted Single-family residence Page 102 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 2 of 4 District TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Information from North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): No comments have been received from NC Department of Transportation. ZONING INFORMATION Zoning History: On October 2, 2000, the Randolph County Commissioners approved the property for a rezoning request from RR- Residential Restricted District to OI-CD – Office and Institutional District – Conditional District for a lumber yard office/sales. Proposed Zoning District Standards from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, Article 600, Section 613 (ex. Fencing, buffers, etc.): RR: RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED DISTRICT PURPOSE The purpose of the Residential Restricted (RR) District is to provide a place for single-family residential uses including site-built homes, conventional and on-frame modular homes, and Class A manufactured housing. Requests for higher-intensity residential use are considered through standards established in this Ordinance and found to be consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE Lot size with a minimum of 100 ft. of State road frontage 40,000 sq. ft. Water Quality Critical Area: 80,000 sq. ft. Lot size with less than 100 ft. of State road frontage 5 acres Lot width 100 ft. at the building line Front setback 35 ft. from any road right-of-way Corner side setback 35 ft. from any road right-of-way Side setback 10 ft. from any side property line Rear setback 30 ft. from the rear property line DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Road setback 20 ft. from any road right-of-way Property line setback 5 ft. from any property line DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NOTES Page 103 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 3 of 4 1. Lot areas and setbacks shall be increased if required by Randolph County Public Health. 2. Lot areas in designated Watersheds and Protected Areas are controlled by the Randolph County Watershed Protection Regulations. 3. Front yard setback shall be maintained on all road rights-of-way. 4. Minimum lot size requirements within Primary Growth Areas may be reduced to a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. or 20,000 sq. ft. with public utilities. 5. The minimum lot size requirements within Rural Growth Areas are 3 acres. 6. Lots in major subdivisions within Rural Growth Areas must maintain a 1:4 ratio. 7. The minimum lot size requirements within the Natural Heritage Overlay are 6 acres. 8. Conditional Districts are identical to the general use districts except for site plans and individualized development conditions are imposed only upon the signed petition of all owners of the land to be included in the Conditional District. Possible allowed uses in the RR - Residential Restricted District include the following from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance: 1. Accessory uses; 2. Agricultural uses; 3. Athletic fields, recreation buildings, playgrounds, swim, and racquet clubs (no commercial gain); 4. Auction sales, temporary, one-time use; 5. Cemetery; 6. Churches and their customary uses including childcare on-premises; 7. Clubs and loges, private, non-profit; 8. Community centers, public or private non-profit, for assembly and recreation; 9. Daycare facility (freestanding); 10. Family care home; 11. Fire, sheriff, and emergency services; 12. Golf courses; 13. Home occupations; 14. Mobile home on individual lot Class A; 15. Mobile home in major subdivision Class A; 16. Mobile home in minor subdivision Class A; 17. Modular home, conventional; 18. Modular home, on-frame 19. Pottery manufacturing and sales; 20. Residence, single-family detached; 21. Residential solar collector; 22. Rooming house; 23. Sign, on-premise; 24. Solar energy residential use; 25. Subdivisions, Minor (Residential); 26. Temporary buildings, incidental to the development; and 27. Temporary health care structure. Page 104 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 4 of 4 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The Technical Review Committee has reviewed this request finds that this request: • Meets all technical requirements of both the Ordinance and the Plan; • Is consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest; and • Should be APPROVED by the Randolph County Planning Board. The following policies from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan were identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting the above conclusion. Policy 2.5: The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by compatible residential development to ensure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County. Consistency Analysis: The request location is surrounded by residential zoning. The applicant wants to remove the existing Conditional District permit and return the property to its original zoning. If approved by the Planning Board, the request will “ensure the continued existence as a major housing source.” Randolph County Board of Commissioners Resolution, Item #3: Ensure the opportunity for landowners to achieve the highest and best uses of their land that are consistent with growth management policies in order to protect the economic viability of the County’s citizens and tax base. Consistency Analysis: By approving this request, the Planning Board will be “ensuring the opportunity for landowners to achieve the highest and best uses of the land . . . and protect the economic viability of the County’s citizens and tax base.” Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these recommendations. Page 105 of 155 PARCEL INFORMATION: ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: IO-CD-INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY CONDITIONAL DISTRICT Zoning District 2: Zoning District 3: Specialty District: Watershed Name: RANDLEMAN LAKE WATERSHED Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: NO Flood Plain Map #: 3710774400J Growth Management Areas:PRIMARY GROWTH AREA Flood Plane Map #: Total Permit Fee: $100.00 COMMENTS: REQUESTED CHANGE: The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. Area To Be Rezoned: 0.6800 Lot Size Indicator: ACRE(S) Proposed Zoning District: RR-RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED DISTRICT Proposed Use(S): Condition(S): Applicant: RESCUE RESIDENTIAL LLC City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370 Address: 4464 JERRY ST Owner: RESCUE RESIDENTIAL LLC Address: 4464 JERRY ST City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370 Permit #: 2024-00000001 Parcel #: 7745379293 Date: 04/11/2024 Location Address: 5868 US HWY 311 SOPHIA, NC 27350 Permit Type Code: PZ 2 CONTACT NAME:MOONEY, JOHN Contact Phone:336 653-3900 Acreage: Township:0.6900 13 - NEW MARKET Subdivsion: Lot number: Melissa Burkhart Authorized County Official Signature of Applicant: APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1 - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER - Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771 APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page 106 of 155 Rescue Residential, LLC, Rezoning Request Location Map BRANSON DAVISRD B E E S O N F A R M R D JA C K S O N W A Y B ECKERDITE RD I N T E R S T A T E H W Y 7 4 U S H W Y 311 O LD PLANKRD 1 inch equals 500 feet KÃ KÃ Directions to site: US Hwy 311 - Site on (R) approx. 2/3 mile past Beckerdite Rd at 5865 US Hwy 311. Page 107 of 155 Rescue Residential LLC Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( BEE S O N F A R M R D O L D P L A N K R D U S H W Y 3 1 1 The request is located in Randleman Lake Watershed Area. 1 inch equals 250 feet Rezoned for convenience store (1990) Rezoned for self storage facility (2018) Request location Thomas Farlow S/D Wilson Way S/D J Ray Steed Farm S/D KÃ KÃ Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer County zoning Districts CVOE HC LI OI RA RR Page 108 of 155 Rescue Residential LLC Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( BEE S O N F A R M R D O L D P L A N K R D U S H W Y 3 1 1 The request is located in Randleman Lake Watershed Area. 1 inch equals 250 feet Rezoned for convenience store (1990) Rezoned for self storage facility (2018) Thomas Farlow S/D Wilson Way S/D J Ray Steed Farm S/D KÃ KÃ Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer County zoning Districts CVOE HC LI OI RA RR Page 109 of 155 Rescue Residential LLC Rezoning Request O L D P L A N K R D U S H W Y 3 1 1 The request is located in Randleman Lake Watershed Area. 1 inch equals 125 feet KÃ KÃ Legend Parcels Roads Page 110 of 155 Rescue Residential LLC Rezoning Request J A C K S O N W A Y BRA N S O N D A V I S R D BEE S O N F A R M R D I N T E R S T A T E H W Y 7 4 U S H W Y 3 1 1 O LD PLA NK R D The request is located in Randleman Lake Watershed Area. 1 inch equals 500 feet Legend Roads Growth Management Primary Growth Area Secondary Growth Area Page 111 of 155 Rescue Residential, LLC, Rezoning Request Picture 1: Request location. Picture 2: Adjacent residence. Picture 3: Adjacent residence. Picture 4: Adjacent residence. Picture 5: Request location on right as seen looking toward Branson Davis Rd. Picture 6: Request location on left as seen looking toward Millikan Rd. Page 112 of 155 4/15/2024 Randolph County GIS Current Owner Information Randolph County, Its Agents and Employees make not warranty to the correctness of the information set forth on this document. PIN TAX_ACRES DESCRIPTION DEED_BOOK/PAGE OWNER ADDRESS ADDRESS2 CITY_STATE_ZIP 7745366958 0.39 THOMAS FARLOW PROP;L51-53 001640/01101 SHEFFIELD, SHANNON ALLRED 5869 US HWY 311 SOPHIA, NC 27350 7745367870 0.78 THOMAS FARLOW;L42-46 SC2 001113/00009 WILKINS, DENNIS RAY (WILKINS, CATHY C)5847 US HWY 311 SOPHIA, NC 27350 7745367911 0.58 THOMAS FARLOW PROP;L47-50 002834/00634 SLUSHER, KORY REID (SHEFIELD, DANA PAIGE)4187 RAMSEUR JULIAN RD LIBERTY, NC 27298 7745378328 0.89 LENNIE & LENA FARRIS TR PT 1 002843/00450 FERREIRA, OLEGARIO VAZQUEZ (LIZARRAGA, GUADALUPE LIZBETH SALAZAR)5896 US HWY 311 SOPHIA, NC 27350 7745379072 0.32 R311;N 00001E/00432 YATES, LEOLA W (WYRICK, AVERY)2012 OLD PLANK RD SOPHIA, NC 27350 7745379087 0.5 R311;E 001164/01127 H & M GROCERY & HARDWARE INC 5847 US HWY 311 SOPHIA, NC 27350 7745379293 0.68 LENNIE & LENA FARRIS;PT TR2 +TR 002900/00114 RESCUE RESIDENTIAL LLC 4464 JERRY ST TRINITY, NC 27370 7745471034 3.24 R1949;S 00001E/00432 YATES, LEOLA W (WYRICK, AVERY)2012 OLD PLANK RD SOPHIA, NC 27350 7745471415 2.11 R1949;W 002031/02486 GLADDEN, WILLIE JAMES (GLADDEN, STEPHANIA Y)2073 OLD PLANK RD SOPHIA, NC 27350 Page: 1 of 1 Page 113 of 155 EX I S T I N G CO N D I T I O N A L DIS T R I C T PE R M I T Page 114 of 155 COUNTY OF RANDOLPH CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND FINDING OF REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY RESCUE RESIDENTIAL, LLC REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000001 NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD According to North Carolina General Statutes § 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to RR - Residential Restricted District as described in the application of Rescue Residential, LLC are consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Primary Growth Area which generally lie along major transportation corridors and have access to urban services. This parcel is along US Hwy 311 which is a major transportation corridor. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 2.5: The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by compatible residential development to ensure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County. Consistency Analysis: The request location is surrounded by residential zoning. The applicant wants to remove the existing Conditional District permit and return the property to its original zoning. If approved by the Planning Board, the request will “ensure the continued existence as a major housing source.” Randolph County Board of Commissioners Resolution, Item #3: Ensure the opportunity for landowners to achieve the highest and best uses of their land that are consistent with growth management policies in order to protect the economic viability of the County’s citizens and tax base. Page 115 of 155 Consistency Analysis: By approving this request, the Planning Board will be “ensuring the opportunity for landowners to achieve the highest and best uses of the land . . . and protect the economic viability of the County’s citizens and tax base.” 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 116 of 155 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA UPON REQUEST BY RESCUE RESIDENTIAL, LLC WHEREAS, a .68-acre parcel, having the Randolph County Parcel Identification Number of 7745379293 is currently zoned O-I-CD - Office and Institutional - Conditional District by Randolph County, North Carolina; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2024, to consider the proposed rezoning on application number 2024- 00000001, and all procedural requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance have been satisfied; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest, and the Randolph County Planning Board has adopted a separate statement to this effect; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD THAT, the property is hereby rezoned to RR - Residential Restricted District. The official Randolph County Zoning Map and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan Map are hereby amended, if necessary, to reflect the same and this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 117 of 155 MOTION TO APPROVE A REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application and the Map Amendment Ordinance, to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 118 of 155 MOTION TO DENY A REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes and that the request is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 119 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 1 of 5 RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND MAP AMENDMENT EVALUATION APPLICATION #2024-00022002 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by MICHAEL & TERESA BRIGGS, Julian, NC, and their request to rezone 31.79-acres on Old 421 Rd, Liberty Township, Tax ID #8727786650, Primary Growth Area, from RA - Residential Agricultural District to LI - Light Industrial District. It is the desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by right in the LI - Light Industrial District. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner: Michael Leonard & Teresa Blake Briggs Trustee Hearing Type: Legislative Small Area Plan: None Flood Plain Overlay: None Airport Overlay: None Existing Use: Vacant SITE INFORMATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Direction Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North RA - Residential Agricultural District Vacant South LI - Light Industrial District Industrial Asphalt Plant East RA - Residential Agricultural District Vacant West HI - Heavy Industrial District Commercial Business Page 120 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 2 of 5 TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Information from North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): NCDOT stated that a driveway permit would need to be obtained. ZONING INFORMATION Zoning History: There is no history of a rezoning, Variance or Special Use Permit at the request location. Proposed Zoning District Standards from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, Article 600, Section 613 (ex. Fencing, buffers, etc.): LI: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT PURPOSE The purpose of the Light Industrial (LI) District is to provide a place for light industrial, warehousing and distribution, and sales of large-item products. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY STRUCTURE Lot size with a minimum of 100 ft. of State road frontage 40,000 sq. ft. Water Quality Critical Area: 80,000 sq. ft. Lot size with less than 100 ft. of State road frontage 5 acres Lot width 100 ft. at building line Front setback 35 ft. from any road right-of-way Corner side setback 35 ft. from any road right-of-way Side setback 10 ft. from any side property line Rear setback 30 ft. from the rear property line DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Road setback 20 ft. from any road right-of-way Property line setback 5 ft. from any property line DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NOTES 1. Lot areas and setbacks shall be increased if required by Randolph County Public Health. 2. Lot areas in designated Watersheds and Protected Areas are controlled by the Randolph County Watershed Protection Regulations. 3. Front yard setback shall be maintained on all road rights-of-way. 4. Minimum lot size requirements within Primary Growth Areas may be reduced to a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. or 20,000 sq. ft. with public utilities. 5. The minimum lot size requirements within Rural Growth Areas are 3 acres. 6. Lots in major subdivisions within Rural Growth Areas must maintain a 1:4 ratio. 7. The minimum lot size requirements within the Natural Heritage Overlay are 6 acres. 8. Conditional Districts are identical to the general use districts except for site plans and individualized development conditions are imposed only upon the signed petition of all owners of the land to be included in the Conditional District. Page 121 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 3 of 5 Possible allowed uses in the LI - Light Industrial District include the following from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance: 1. Accessory uses; 2. Agricultural uses; 3. Amusements, indoor commercial (ex. Bowling alleys, skating rinks); 4. Amusements, out-of-doors commercial (ex. Roller coasters, fairgrounds); 5. Apparel and accessory sales; 6. Auction sales, yards, permanent; 7. Auction sales, temporary, one-time use; 8. Automobile and truck rental; 9. Automobile body shops (excluding open storage of wrecked vehicles); 10. Automobile carwash, drive-through, requiring vehicle stacking; 11. Automobile part sales; 12. Automobile sales; 13. Automobile service stations; 14. Automobile storage (excluding open storage of wrecked vehicles); 15. Bakery; 16. Boats, recreational vehicle sales, and service; 17. Bottling plants; 18. Builders supply sales; 19. Cabinet making; 20. Churches and their customary uses including childcare on-premises; 21. Compartmentalized storage for individual storage of residential and commercial goods; 22. Contractor’s yard and outdoor storage area; 23. Corporate offices or headquarters; 24. Dairy products, wholesale, and processing; 25. Daycare facility (corporate); 26. Farm machinery sales; 27. Fire, sheriff, and emergency services; 28. Food freezer operations; 29. Home occupations; 30. Industrial equipment sales and service; 31. Kennels; 32. Laboratory, research; 33. Machine shop, welding shop; 34. Mini-warehouse; 35. Mixed commercial and residential use where commercial use is primary and both occupy the same structure or lot; 36. Mobile home, travel trailer, camper, marine, recreational vehicle sales; 37. Monument and cut stone manufacture and sales; 38. Nursery and plant cultivation and sales; 39. Outdoor storage yard; 40. Pottery manufacturing and sales; Page 122 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 4 of 5 41. Printing and reproduction shop; 42. Radio or television studio; 43. Service stations; 44. Sheet metal fabrication; 45. Sign, directional gateway; 46. Sign, on-premise; 47. Sign, outdoor advertising (off-premises); 48. Temporary buildings, incidental to the development; 49. Temporary carnivals, rides, Ferris wheels; 50. Theater, drive-in; 51. Tobacco sales and warehousing; 52. Trailer rentals; 53. Truck terminal; 54. Upholstering and furniture refinishing; 55. Veterinary clinics; 56. Warehouses, sales, or service; and 57. Wholesale sales, not otherwise listed. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The Technical Review Committee has reviewed this request finds that this request: • Meets all technical requirements of both the Ordinance and the Plan; • Is consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest; and • Should be APPROVED by the Randolph County Planning Board. The following policies from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan were identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting the above conclusion. Policy 4.1: Industrial development should be on land that is physically suitable and within areas that are supported by public infrastructure, including water, sewer, and transportation. Industrial development should be encouraged to locate in existing and planned industrial parks and/or Primary and Municipal Growth Areas suited for development, such as underutilized, former industrial sites. Consistency Analysis: This property is in an area of the County that has multiple industrial developments over the years and many were opened before zoning. Also, the property is near the Liberty Industrial Park and other industrial-zoned properties. By approving this request, the Planning Board will be encouraging businesses to “locate in . . . areas suited by development, such as underutilized, former industrial sites.” Page 123 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 5 of 5 Policy 4.7: Leverage and capitalize on recent industrial developments by promoting Randolph County as a competitive and strategic location for businesses and industries. Consistency Analysis: As the Planning Board is aware, this area of the County is seeing growth pressures with the Toyota Battery Manufacturing Plant, and approving this request will help to “promote Randolph County as a competitive and strategic location for businesses and industries.” Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these recommendations. Page 124 of 155 PARCEL INFORMATION: ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Zoning District 2: Zoning District 3: Specialty District: N/A Watershed Name: NONE Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: NO Flood Plain Map #: 3710872600K Growth Management Areas:PRIMARY GROWTH AREA Growth Management Areas:SECONDARY GROWTH AREA Flood Plane Map #: Total Permit Fee: $100.00 COMMENTS: REQUESTED CHANGE: The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. Area To Be Rezoned: 31.7900 Lot Size Indicator: ACRE(S) Proposed Zoning District: LI-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Proposed Use(S): Condition(S): Applicant: BRIGGS, MICHAEL & TERESA LIVING TRUST City, St. Zip: JULIAN, NC 27283 Address: 3161 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD Owner: BRIGGS, MICHAEL LEONARD TRUSTEE Address: 3161 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD City, St. Zip: JULIAN, NC 27283 Permit #: 2024-00022002 Parcel #: 8727786650 Date: 04/22/2024 Location Address: Permit Type Code: PZ 2 CONTACT NAME:BRIGGS, MICHAEL & TERESA Contact Phone:336 362-1871 Acreage: Township:31.7900 11 - LIBERTY Subdivsion: Lot number: Melissa Burkhart Authorized County Official Signature of Applicant: APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1 - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER - Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771 APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page 125 of 155 Briggs Rezoning Request Location Map O L D 4 2 1 R D Y O R K M AR T I N R D PA R K S P A L M E R R D RICHLAND CHURCH RD 1 inch equals 750 feet Liberty Directions to site: Old 421 Rd out of Liberty - Site on (R) just before York Martin Rd. Page 126 of 155 Briggs Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( O L D 4 2 1 R D Y O R K MA R T I N R D PA R K S P A L M E R R D 1 inch equals 500 feet Rezoned HI (1996) Special Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (1997) Request location Existing Pallett Express Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Multi-address Structure !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Miscellaneous Structures Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Town of Liberty Zoning County zoning Districts HI LI RA RM RR Page 127 of 155 Briggs Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( O L D 4 2 1 R D Y O R K MA R T I N R D PA R K S P A L M E R R D 1 inch equals 500 feet Rezoned HI (1996) Special Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (1997) Existing Pallett Express Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Multi-address Structure !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Miscellaneous Structures Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Town of Liberty Zoning County zoning Districts HI LI RA RM RR Page 128 of 155 Briggs Rezoning Request PA R K S P A L M E R R D O L D 4 2 1 R D 1 inch equals 400 feet Legend Parcels Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Page 129 of 155 Briggs Rezoning Request O L D 4 2 1 R D CUR T I S I N D U S T R I A L D R I S L A N D O A K DR PA R K S P A L M E R R D LIBERTYGR O VE R D Y O R K M A R T I N R D RICHLAND CHURCH RD 1 inch equals 1,000 feet Legend Roads Growth Management Municipal Growth Area Primary Growth Area Secondary Growth Area Page 130 of 155 Briggs Rezoning Request Picture 1: Request Location. Picture 2: Existing industrial operation. Picture 3: Existing industrial operation. Picture 4: Property across road from request location. Picture 5: Request location on right as seen looking toward York Martin Rd. Picture 6: Request location on left as seen looking toward Curtis Industrial Dr. Page 131 of 155 4/22/2024 Randolph County GIS Current Owner Information Randolph County, Its Agents and Employees make not warranty to the correctness of the information set forth on this document. PIN TAX_ACRES DESCRIPTION DEED_BOOK/PAGE OWNER ADDRESS ADDRESS2 CITY_STATE_ZIP 8727589958 1.45 R2410;N 001566/00008 MCMASTERS, JODY A (MCMASTERS, JESSICA P)6993 BOWMAN DAIRY RD LIBERTY, NC 27298 8727684104 22.99 R2410;S 002409/01055 LIBERTY TRAILERS LLC 1628 WEST STATE RD 114 RENSSALAER, IN 47978 8727786650 31.79 R1006;E 002612/00257 BRIGGS, MICHAEL LEONARD TRUSTEE (BRIGGS, TERESA BLAKE TRUSTEE)3161 ALAMANCE CHURCH RD JULIAN, NC 27283 8727794406 43.5 R2415;E 00098E/00058 TETER, HELEN MOORE 3650 HINSHAW COUNTRY RD LIBERTY, NC 27298 8727870761 26.3 R1006;E 002350/01974 PALLET EXPRESS INC P O BOX 1998 LIBERTY, NC 27298 8727980318 35.9 R1006;E DEEDED ACCESS 002856/01333 MOORE, JOSEPH DEY 5007 LIBERTY GROVE RD LIBERTY, NC 27298 RAILROAD 0 /, Page: 1 of 1 Page 132 of 155 COUNTY OF RANDOLPH CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND FINDING OF REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY MICHAEL & TERESA BRIGGS REZONING REQUEST #2024-00022002 NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD According to North Carolina General Statutes § 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to LI - Light Industrial District as described in the application of Michael & Teresa Briggs are consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Primary Growth Area and Secondary Growth Area. Primary Growth areas generally lie along major transportation corridors and have access to urban services. This parcel is along Old 421 Rd which is a major transportation corridor. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 4.1: Industrial development should be on land that is physically suitable and within areas that are supported by public infrastructure, including water, sewer, and transportation. Industrial development should be encouraged to locate in existing and planned industrial parks and/or Primary and Municipal Growth Areas suited for development, such as underutilized, former industrial sites. Consistency Analysis: This property is in an area of the County that has multiple industrial developments over the years and many were opened before zoning. Also, the property is near the Liberty Industrial Park and other industrial-zoned properties. By approving this request, the Planning Board will be encouraging businesses to “locate in . . . areas suited by development, such as underutilized, former industrial sites.” Page 133 of 155 Policy 4.7: Leverage and capitalize on recent industrial developments by promoting Randolph County as a competitive and strategic location for businesses and industries. Consistency Analysis: As the Planning Board is aware, this area of the County is seeing growth pressures with the Toyota Battery Manufacturing Plant, and approving this request will help to “promote Randolph County as a competitive and strategic location for businesses and industries.” 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 134 of 155 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA UPON REQUEST BY MICHAEL & TERESA BRIGGS WHEREAS, a 31.79-acre parcel, having the Randolph County Parcel Identification Number of 8727786650 is currently zoned RA - Residential Agricultural District by Randolph County, North Carolina; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2024, to consider the proposed rezoning on application number 2024- 00022002, and all procedural requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance have been satisfied; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest, and the Randolph County Planning Board has adopted a separate statement to this effect; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD THAT, the property is hereby rezoned to LI - Light Industrial District. The official Randolph County Zoning Map and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan Map are hereby amended, if necessary, to reflect the same and this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 135 of 155 MOTION TO APPROVE A REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application and the Map Amendment Ordinance, to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 136 of 155 MOTION TO DENY A REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes and that the request is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 137 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 1 of 4 RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND MAP AMENDMENT EVALUATION APPLICATION #2024-00001244 The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC, Kannapolis, NC, and their request to rezone 2.11-acres on Zoo Parkway, Union Township, Tax ID #7657963715, Primary Growth Area, from RR - Residential Restricted District and RA - Residential Agricultural District to CVOE-CD - Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive - Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the division of lot number three to create a fourth lot. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner: Premier Real Estate Team Inc Hearing Type: Legislative Small Area Plan: None Flood Plain Overlay: None Airport Overlay: None Existing Use: Vacant SITE INFORMATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES Direction Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North RR - Residential Restricted District Vacant South RA - Residential Agricultural District Vacant East RR - Residential Restricted District & RA - Residential Agricultural District Single-family residence West RR - Residential Restricted District & RA - Residential Single-family residence Page 138 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 2 of 4 Agricultural District TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Information from North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): NCDOT stated that a driveway permit would need to be obtained. ZONING INFORMATION Zoning History: There is no history of a rezoning, Variance or Special Use Permit at the request location. Proposed Zoning District Standards from the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, Article 600, Section 614 (ex. Fencing, buffers, etc.): A. CVO: CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OVERLAY DISTRICT The Conventional Subdivision Overlay District has been established to accommodate single-family residential subdivisions with four or more owner-occupied lots created for sale or building development. This district is predominantly residential and suburban where current water and sewer needs are met primarily by individual wells and septic systems. Some public infrastructure may be available in the future. Housing characteristics within the CVO district will be designated Exclusive (CVOE), Restricted (CVOR), or Mixed (CVOM), in conformance with other major subdivision zoning districts. The Conventional Subdivision Overlay District is designed for those areas of Randolph County where the requirement of such an Overlay District can help achieve the policies and objectives of the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. This district is specifically designed for Primary Growth Areas and Secondary Growth Areas as reflected in the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. (1) PURPOSE AND USES PERMITTED The Conventional Subdivision Overlay District shall be considered as an overlay district to the existing zoning districts. Uses permitted within the underlying district shall be permitted provided they meet the requirements within the overlay zone subject to the restrictions provided by this section. (2) CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS (a) All standards as required by the land development regulations contained within this Ordinance. Page 139 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 3 of 4 (b) Minimum lot sizes as specified by this Ordinance. Lot sizes may be increased as required by soils and other factors particular to the location. (c) Designed under the policies and guidelines outlined in the comprehensive land-use plan. (d) Subdivision layout and use of land will assure safe and convenient circulation patterns while minimizing the impacts on the established residential areas. (e) Site plans shall be submitted to reduce stormwater impact by designing new development in a manner that minimizes concentrated stormwater flows using as a minimum vegetated buffer area. (3) SITING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS Conventional subdivisions shall be designed to minimize the number of private driveway connections to existing public roads. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The Technical Review Committee has reviewed this request finds that this request: • Meets all technical requirements of both the Ordinance and the Plan; • Is consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest; and • Should be APPROVED by the Randolph County Planning Board. The following policies from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan were identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting the above conclusion. Policy 2.1.a: Conventional Subdivision Overlay District has been established to accommodated single-family residential subdivisions with four or more owner-occupied lots. This district is predominantly residential and suburban where current water and sewer needs are met primarily by individual wells and septic systems. Conventional residential subdivisions are anticipated of similar housing characteristics to the surrounding community. Consistency Analysis: This area of the County is mostly single-family residential subdivisions and by approving this request, the Planning Board is helping to continue this trend of “similar housing characteristics to the surrounding community.” Page 140 of 155 Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 4 of 4 Policy 2.4.a: Major subdivision development which does not have access to either central water or sewage facilities should located in areas where soil and geological characteristics are conducive to the long-term support of on-site systems such as wells and septic systems. Consistency Analysis: This property is in an area of the County that is currently served by public water and septic systems. Based on the number of single-family residences in the area, the “soil and geological characteristics are conducive to the long-term support of on-site systems such as wells and septic systems.” Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. The parcel in this rezoning request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type of development on the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County. It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these recommendations. Page 141 of 155 PARCEL INFORMATION: ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: RR-RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED DISTRICT Zoning District 2: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT Zoning District 3: Specialty District: N/A Watershed Name: NONE Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: NO Flood Plain Map #: 3710764600J Growth Management Areas:PRIMARY GROWTH AREA Flood Plane Map #: Total Permit Fee: $100.00 COMMENTS: REQUESTED CHANGE: The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. Area To Be Rezoned: 2.1100 Lot Size Indicator: ACRE(S) Proposed Zoning District: CVOE-CD-CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OVERLAY EXCLUSIVE CONDITIONAL DISTRICT Proposed Use(S): TO ALLOW A DIVISION OF EXISTING LOT #3 INTO TWO LOTS CREATING A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Condition(S): Applicant: PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC City, St. Zip: KANNAPOLIS, NC 28081 Address: 210 OAK AVE Owner: PERMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC Address: 210 OAK AVE City, St. Zip: KANNAPOLIS, NC 28081 Permit #: 2024-00001244 Parcel #: 7657963715 Date: 05/02/2024 Location Address: Permit Type Code: PZ 2 CONTACT NAME:TANNER, DAN Contact Phone:336 625-8000 PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INCNEW 3 Acreage: Township:2.1100 20 - UNION Subdivsion: Lot number: Timothy Mangum Authorized County Official Signature of Applicant: APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1 - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER - Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771 APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page 142 of 155 Premier Real Estate Team Inc Rezoning Request Location Map ZOOPKWY H A P P Y H O L L O W R D 1 inch equals 250 feet ?ç ?ç Directions to site: NC Hwy 159 S - Site on (L) just past Happy Hollow Rd. Page 143 of 155 Premier Real Estate Team Inc Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( F OUST D R ZOO PKWY H A P P Y H O L L O W R D 1 inch equals 400 feet Rezoned for a beauty shop (1989) Kenneth & Viola Spencer S/D Rainbow Park S/D ?ç ?ç Request location Legend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Miscellaneous Structures Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer County zoning Districts HC RA RR Page 144 of 155 1 Story Framed Dwelling 6033 Zoo ParkwayAsheboro, NC Metal Building Metal Building 5.5' 60d Set @ Base5/8" EIR Up 6" 5/8" NIR Flush 5/8" NIR Flush Ex. ConcreteMonument Up 8" 1" EIP Flush 1" EIP Flush 5/8" EIR Up 10"39.69' Along Line2.57' E of Line 5/8" EIR Up 10"189.88' Along Line.51' E of Line 5/8" EIR Up 10"339.63' Along Line1.57' W of Line 1" EIP Flush 5/8" EIR Up 10"N 81°56'45" W 4.61'From EIP Ex. Stone Up 6"1" EIP Up 8"W/ Stone 5/8" NIR Up 4" 5/8" NIR Up 4" 1" EIP Up 8" 5/8" EIR Flush 5/8" NIR Flush S 75°35'02" E 91.27' C3 L1 L2 L3 S 0 5 ° 4 5 ' 1 5 " E 41 0 . 2 2 ' S 0 6 ° 5 8 ' 4 3 " E 56 9 . 3 8 ' S 87°38'51" W 199.87'S 87°32'09" W204.57' N 0 4 ° 1 8 ' 2 4 " W 54 9 . 6 8 ' N 0 4 ° 1 8 ' 2 4 " W 10 1 . 5 1 ' N 0 4 ° 2 0 ' 2 6 " W 44 9 . 1 4 ' S 89°55'06" W122.62' S 84°49'48" W 149.80' C6 Tract 1of PB: 184 Pg: 331.822 Acres NewTract 3 1.063 Acres Tract 2of PB: 184 Pg: 335.371 Acres Zoo ParkwayNC Highway 159 60' Public R / W H a p p y H a l l o w R o a d SR : 2 8 4 3 6 0 ' P u b l i c R / W Lis e K . Y o r k F o r b e s DB : 2 5 4 0 P g : 4 5 8 Lis a K i n g Y o r k DB : 1 2 3 9 P g : 1 0 0 7 D. Richard DurhamPaulette L. Durham DB:1405 Pg: 701 D. R i c h a r d D u r h a m Pa u l e t t e L . D u r h a m DB : 1 4 0 5 P g : 7 0 1 Ji l l M c C u t c h e o n F o r d DB : 1 5 7 8 P g ; 9 9 3 4' Woven Wire Fence C1 C2 5/ 8 " N I R F l u s h N 0 0 ° 0 4 ' 2 3 " W 27 6 . 2 3 ' N 1 8 ° 1 7 ' 0 6 " W 23 4 . 0 5 ' S 1 8 ° 1 7 ' 0 6 " E 2 4 5 . 3 2 ' S 0 0 ° 0 4 ' 2 3 " E 27 4 . 1 0 ' 18" Hickory Tree Creek Gravel Drive NewTract 41.050 Acres 5/8" NIR Flush C4 C5 98.90' S 1 2 ° 5 9 ' 5 3 " E 21 4 . 7 9 ' S 0 2 ° 5 5 ' 0 1 " E 27 6 . 2 2 ' Zoo Pkw y Hic k o r y D r Ha p p y H o l l o w R d US H w y 2 2 0 S Ra i n b o w L o o p In t e r s t a t e H w y 7 3 / 7 4 Midway Acres Rd Site Location Map (Not to Scale) Gri d N o r t h NA D 8 3 ( 2 0 1 1 ) Survey For:Premier Real Estate Team, Inc Union Township Randolph County North Carolina January 19, 2024 Deed Book:2875 Pg:490 Plat Book:184 Pg:33 Scale: 1" = 80 US Survey Feet Bar Scale: SURVEY CAROLINA, PLLC Firm #: P-1110Dan W Tanner II L-4787© 2024 Survey Carolina, Pllc 154 S. Fayetteville St, Suite B, Asheboro, NC 27203 Phone Number: 336 625-8000Email: mail@surveycarolina.com Owners:Premier Real Estate Team, Inc21 Oak AvenueKannapolis, NC 28081 Job #: 15973Drawn By: HRM Checked By: DWT I, Dan W Tanner II, certify that this plat was drawn under my supervision from anactual survey made under my supervision (deed description recorded in: Book 2875 , page 490 ; that the boundaries not surveyed are clearly indicated as drawn from informationfound in Book See , page Notes ; that the ratio of precision or positionalaccuracy as calculated is 1:10000+, that this plat was prepared in accordance with G.S. 47-30 as amended. Witness my original signature, license number and seal thisthe 19th day of January, A.D., 2024. __________ _______________________________________________ Professional Land Surveyor L-4787 I, Dan W Tanner II, certify that this map was drawn under my supervision from an actual GPS/ GNSSsurvey made under my supervision and the following information was used to perform the survey:(1) Class of survey: Class A(2) Positional accuracy: <0.10'(3) Type of GNSS field procedure: Real-Time Kinematic Networks(4) Dates of survey: January 15, 2024(5) Datum/Epoch: NAD83(2011) / 2010.00 (6) Published/Fixed-control use: North Carolina Real Time Network(7) Geoid model: Geoid 12A(8) Combined grid factor(s): 0.99986349(9) GPS/GNSS Scale Point:N:676,985.30 E:1,759,062.25 Z:791.29(10) Units: US Survey Feet I hereby certify that the subdivision plat shown hereon has been found to complywith the Subdivision Regulations for Randolph County, North Carolina, and that suchplat has been approved according to the procedures for approval of minorsubdivisions __________________________________________________________Date Randolph County Subdivision Administrator I, Dan W Tanner II, Professional Land Surveyor, certify: In accordance with NC General Statute 47-30(f)11aThat the survey creates a subdivision of land within the area of a county or municipality that has an ordinance that regulates parcels of land. PRELIMINARY PLAT - NOT FOR RECORDATION, CONVEYANCES, OR SALES OHU Drop Inlet Junction Box Storm Sewer ManholeYard Inlet Catch Basin Computed Point / Point Not Set Bench MarkExisting Concrete Monument EIP - Existing Iron Pipe EIR - Existing Iron RodEN - Existing Nail NCGS Monument NIP - New Iron Pipe NIR - New Iron Rod RRS - Railroad Spike R/W - Right of Way Monument Stone Evergreen Tree Hardwood Tree Electric Manhole Electric Meter Fire Hydrant Gas Meter Gas Manhole Guy Wire Gas Valve Guy PoleLight Pole Power Pole U/G Power Box SS Cleanout SS - Sanitary Sewer SS Manhole Communications Manhole Transformer Telephone Pole Telephone Pedestal Utility Pole Water Meter Water Manhole Water Valve Back Flow Preventer Irrigation Control Valve Overhead Utility Line Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Sewer LineWater Line Fence Property Line Computed Property Line Right of Way Line Easement Line Setback Lines Tie Lines G Gas Line Well Overhead Power Line E E Underground Electric Line T T 100 FW Underground Comm. Line 0 80 160 240 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I, ________________________ Review Officer of Randolph County, certify that themap or plat to which this certification is affixed meets all statutory requirementsfor recording. __________ ________________________________________Date Review Officer Notes:1. This project is not located within a special flood hazard area per NCFRIS.Map #: 3710764600J Effective Date: 1/2/2008 2. Area calculated by coordinate geometry.3. All lines surveyed by Survey Carolina, PLLC are indicated by bold lines. All lines not surveyed bySurvey Carolina, PLLC are indicated by dashed lines.4. No attempt was made by this survey to locate all underground utilities nor any other easements thatwould be revealed by a title search.5. Tax PIN: 7657961487 IIRENNATWNA D ROYEVRUSDN A L PR O F ESSION A L N O R TH CAROLIN A 100-Year Flood Hazard LineFloodway Fire Dept. Connection C/L Railroad Z:0.00 Spot Elevation W W U T E C MH CO PP LP W U G G E E DI W CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA ANGLEC1 543.18' 25.77' 25.76' S 76°56'34" E 2°43'04"C2 543.18' 34.04' 34.04' S 80°05'50" E 3°35'27"C3 543.18' 31.42' 31.42' S 83°33'00" E 3°18'52"C4 543.18' 78.77' 78.70' S 89°21'41" E 8°18'31"C5 543.18' 22.04' 22.04' N 85°19'19" E 2°19'29"C6 543.18' 62.58' 62.54' N 80°51'33" E 6°36'03" LINE BEARING DISTANCEL1 S 33°24'38" E 6.89'L2 S 33°24'38" E 32.12'L3 S 17°06'00" E 49.43' S 84°49'48" W Total Dist: 197.79' 98.90' Page 145 of 155 Premier Real Estate Team Inc Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( F OUST D R ZOO PKWY H A P P Y H O L L O W R D 1 inch equals 400 feet ?çLegend Parcels Structures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Miscellaneous Structures Roads USGS Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer County zoning Districts HC RA RR ?ç Page 146 of 155 Premier Real Estate Team Inc Rezoning Request ZOO PKWY H A P P Y H O L L O W R D ?ç Legend Parcels Roads ?ç Page 147 of 155 Premier Real Estate Team Inc Rezoning Request SPANISH LN GREE N VIE W DR LE W I S CTRY DR F O U ST DR BRANTLEY DR LISBON RD DRUM S T HI C K O R Y D R U S H W Y 2 2 0 S ZOOPKWY H A P P Y H O L L O W R D R AI N B O WLOOP IN T E R S T A T E H W Y 7 3 / 7 4 1 inch equals 750 feet K¹?çLegend Roads Growth Management Primary Growth Area Secondary Growth Area K¹ ?ç Page 148 of 155 Premier Real Estate Team, Inc, Rezoning Request Picture 1: Request location. Picture 2: Adjacent residence. Picture 3: Adjacent residence. Picture 4: Adjacent residence. Picture 5: Request location on left as seen looking toward US Hwy 220 S. Picture 6: Request location on right as seen looking toward Happy Hollow Rd. Page 149 of 155 5/2/2024 Randolph County GIS Current Owner Information Randolph County, Its Agents and Employees make not warranty to the correctness of the information set forth on this document. PIN TAX_ACRES DESCRIPTION DEED_BOOK/PAGE OWNER ADDRESS ADDRESS2 CITY_STATE_ZIP 7657859735 4.79 R159;S NO RD FRTG (EASEMENT) 001239/01007 FORBES, LISE KING 6061 ZOO PKY ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7657868733 5.21 R159;S 002540/00458 FORBES, LISE K YORK 6061 ZOO PARKWAY ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7657879702 11 R2803;W 001208/00036 MABE, KATHLEEN R 3431 MIDWAY ACRES RD ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7657957850 21.18 R2843;W 001405/00701 DURHAM, DONALD RICHARD (DURHAM, PAULETTE L) 3150 HAPPY HOLLOW RD ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7657961714 1.82 PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC TR NEW 1 002906/00120 HIATT, DANIEL MARTIN (HIATT, ANDREA MICHELLE) 6033 ZOO PKWY ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7657962266 5.37 PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC TR NEW 2 002875/00490 PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC 210 OAK AVE KANNAPOLIS, NC 28081 7657963715 2.11 PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC TR NEW 3 002875/00490 PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC 210 OAK AVE KANNAPOLIS, NC 28081 7657964548 1.97 R2843;W 001578/00993 FORD, JILL 3030 HAPPY HOLLOW RD ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7657971008 1.21 R159;N 002481/00957 RANDOLPH ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 879 MCDOWELL RD ASHEBORO, NC 27205 7667061985 21.85 SANDRA BAUCOM;PT NEW TR 1 +TR 002800/01862 BAUCOM, SANDRA SPENCER 3051 HAPPY HOLLOW RD ASHEBORO, NC 27205 Page: 1 of 1Page 150 of 155 COUNTY OF RANDOLPH CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND FINDING OF REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC. REZONING REQUEST #2024-00001244 NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD According to North Carolina General Statutes § 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to CVOE-CD - Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive - Conditional District as described in the application of Premier Real Estate Team Inc. are consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Primary Growth Area which generally lie along major transportation corridors and have access to urban services. This parcel is along NC Hwy 159 which is a major transportation corridor. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 2.1.a: Conventional Subdivision Overlay District has been established to accommodated single-family residential subdivisions with four or more owner- occupied lots. This district is predominantly residential and suburban where current water and sewer needs are met primarily by individual wells and septic systems. Conventional residential subdivisions are anticipated of similar housing characteristics to the surrounding community. Consistency Analysis: This area of the County is mostly single-family residential subdivisions and by approving this request, the Planning Board is helping to continue this trend of “similar housing characteristics to the surrounding community.” Page 151 of 155 Policy 2.4.a: Major subdivision development which does not have access to either central water or sewage facilities should located in areas where soil and geological characteristics are conducive to the long-term support of on-site systems such as wells and septic systems. Consistency Analysis: This property is in an area of the County that is currently served by public water and septic systems. Based on the number of single-family residences in the area, the “soil and geological characteristics are conducive to the long-term support of on-site systems such as wells and septic systems.” 2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the Ordinance, the Plan, and applicable General Statutes. The parcel in this rezoning request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type of development on the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 152 of 155 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA UPON REQUEST BY PREMIER REAL ESTATE TEAM INC. WHEREAS, a 2.11-acre parcel, having the Randolph County Parcel Identification Number of 7657963715 is currently zoned RR - Residential Restricted District by Randolph County, North Carolina; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2024, to consider the proposed rezoning on application number 2024- 00001244, and all procedural requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance have been satisfied; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest, and the Randolph County Planning Board has adopted a separate statement to this effect; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD THAT, the property is hereby rezoned to CVOE-CD - Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive - Conditional District. The official Randolph County Zoning Map and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan Map are hereby amended, if necessary, to reflect the same and this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. Adopted on June 4, 2024. _____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board ATTEST _______________________________ Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board Page 153 of 155 MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application and the Map Amendment Ordinance, to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed-upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 154 of 155 MOTION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed-upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. Page 155 of 155