Agenda - 11-23-2009 - C2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this proposal amoun e3 to taking land with no compensation. He felt it was excessive and that property owners were being forced into accepting I -40. He commented that the concern was k in the land green, but with no compensation for owners and that land wa e f t ely removed from the tax base. xt Smith expressed concern with 6.24.4, the 25% natural vegetation provis n. He questioned the provision where there is no existing vegetation. Hen 4xhitfield, property owner in the 1 -40 corridor, noted that the irr or would cost the owners he represented about 10 acres of property. co ng to Mr. Whitfield the bu er would take an additional 23 acres with no nt to owners. He waq& p #tict#arly concerned with land split by the iridor. \or . Whitfield asked f of hands for property owners in the corridor and against the bu This showed approximately 25 against and 5 in of the buffer. He felt that site pla ould take care of the fear of contamination of the landscape with unsightly ildings. Kizer, Planning Board member, noted that it is important to unde d I•Ir. McAdams point that this proposal constitutes an uncompensated "taki He .continued that it should be a point of order to prevent a "taking" of inadvertently or intentionally. Since he felt this might result an mpensated "taking", he requested that the County Attorney comment n possibility of an illegal taking of land. .;.: Commissioner 11 t noted the attorney will be reviewing the entire ordinance for legs t Ron Merritt thwoods Homeowners Association inquired about property owners being n i d of particular applications and permit approvals for k development. I tt noted that changing the underlying zoning would require notice. F_erri.t ed he would like to see the inclusion of 'a provision regarding notic adjoining property owners within 1000 feet for building permit app aIs or es with correct zoning. Joe gist , props owners adjacent to I -40 but outside of -100' buffer, urge a oa o cons r individuals beyond the corridors. He indicated vegetat ery important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers could purs c eative uses of land within the statutes. Jack No ely, owner o! the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns arding si s such as his directional sign for customers off N.C. 86. th re nded the proposal would not allow off- - premise signs in the distric . Sh clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal and that t re single and two family houses were not subject to the proposed development tandards. She clarified that both single family houses and duplexes ca be developed with normal setbacks and without being subject to vegetation provisions. McAdams questioned the application of the 100' setback to approval of six (6) subdivisions and their designs. If so, he continued, this must be qualified in the communication to the public regarding single and two - family dwellings. The public hearing was adjourned until the February 21, 1984 public hearing. Proposed Text Amendments to Article 9 Signs Presentation as follows by Smith: The proposed text amendments to Article 9 Sgt, address two main issues: 1) the types of signs permitted in the VTC district and 2) the placement of outdoor advertising outside the MTC district.