Minutes - 19760309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~L~ MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COr?NIISSIONER5 Tuesday, D•iarch 9, 1976 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in called session on Tuesday, March 9, 1976, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the Commissioners' Room of the Courthouse to complete the Agenda of the first Monday's meeting. N:embers present were Chairman Flora R. Garrett, Commissioners Norman Gustavesan, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker and Richard Whitted. Members absent: None Other present were 5. b4. Gatos, County Administrator; Neal Evans, Fiscal Officer, A. B. Coleman, Jr. and Steve $ernholz, County Attorneys; and Betty June Hayes, Clerk to the Board. The Chairman call the meeting to order and referred to Item I.V on the Agenda: Development of Land Use Plan for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Environs: The Chairman proposes the Flapping staff immediately begin the process of developing a land use plan for the environs of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Planning staff should focus sufficient resources on this endeavor to complete the charge by the first N:onday in April. Tt is suggested that the department conduct meetings within the area to receive community input and that special attention he gi~zen tv areas that could be classified as fragile or of special environmental concern. Chairman Garrett recognized Ervin Dobson, Planning Director; and Chris Edwards, Hall NZinnis, of the Planning Department and Edafe Oddo the Sedimentation Control Officer. The Planning Director filed a j•7ark Schedule for the Preliminary LDP Sketch Plan. He proceeded to review the plan. This review included the proposed breakdown for the individual staff members. r.r. Dobson proceeded to discuss Item V on the Agenda: The Develop- ment of a System to Insure Compliance with the County Land Use Ordinance. The Chairman suggested the Planning Department develop and implemer_t a system to insure complete compliance with the County's Land Use Ordinance. Special attention should be given to such areas as unauthorized signs, highway billboards, junked vehicles, etc. The Planning Department should on its own take steps necessary to correct Ordinance violations. A system receiving, recording, filing, investigating and responding to citizens' complaints should be developed. The Planning Director informed the Board that the Planning Department does have a complaint log for use by the citizens of the County to register complaints. These complaints are received by mail or by telephone, how- ever, it was preferred that a formal complaints be received. He stated that he was working with the Zoning Officer and the Building Inspector to enfozce the Zoning Ordinance involving signs and billboard control. They are now working to devise plans to correct violations of this Ordinance. Item VI. Should the Board of Commissioners consider a proposal to control lot size on Active A-2 Watersheds? The attachment to the Agenda stated that quite some tir.-e ago Ray Lester and nark Burnham worked or_ a proposal to mare effectively regulate development within the watershed of University Lake. The principal feature of this proposal was the relation of lot size to distance from the lake. This proposal was considered and approved by the Orange County Planning Board. Since that time the proposal had pat moved on to the Board of Commissioners. `The Chairman would like for this matter to be brought before the Board of Commissioners as soon as practical. (This is for information onJ.y,) Chris Edwards brought the matter of the Robinswood Plat to the Board. He stated that the plat had been approved by the Planning Board and the Commissioners on two different occasions, however, it had been learned that further corrections had to be made in lot lines. The Developers were planning to sell lots that fror_ted on the paved road prior to the paving of any streets in the proposed subdivision. The developers could not at this time post proper bond for street paving. Mr. Edwards stated further that documents ~aould be executed that would prohibit the developers from sealing any lots until the subdivision roads :net state specifications. Discussion ensued. The matter was deferred until the Diarch 16th meeting. The County Attorney. was requested to provide a legal opinion as to