Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
61 <br />duplex dwellings unless expanded by 50% in square footage or extended onto an <br />adjacent lot. <br />Smith summarized the changes recommended by the Planning Board. <br />Gledhill noted that the recommendations made by the Planning <br />Board were included in the copy he distributed. The only other changes were <br />In form and clarification and not in intent. <br />notion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by <br />Commissioner Whitted that the proposed amendments to Articles 4 and 6 of the <br />Zoning Ordinance as presented by the attorney be approved. <br />Chair Willhoit announced that this was not a public hearing. The <br />following people voiced oppositions (1) James Freeland, John Dear, Fred <br />Dear, Curtis Bain, Betty Mann, Jim Poris and Henry Whitfield, David Smudski. <br />Mary Ellen Priestly who owns 32 acares on NC86 along both sides of the <br />corridor spoke in favor of the proposal. <br />Chair Willhoit explained that the ordinance does not apply-to the <br />area that is in Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and does not <br />apply to single or two family dwellings. Only single or two family dwellings <br />could be built within the 100 foot buffer. <br />Commissioner Marshall pointed out thgt the same restrictions <br />contained in Orange County's Major Transportation Corridor have been approved <br />in Durham County, Durham City and Wake County. The 'restrictions are <br />necessary to do the most for the future development of our County. <br />Commissioner Lloyd noted that Orange County has not had any <br />industrial growth and feels industry wants to locate on a major highway so <br />they are in view of the traveling public. He expressed disagreement with the <br />proposal stating it unnecessary and over regulatory. <br />Commissioner Willhoit noted the aesthetics along a major <br />thoroughfare to be a plus in attracting high quality industry. <br />VOTE; Ayes, 31 Noes, 2 (Walker and Lloyd) <br />60 proposed Text Amendmeo a tg Artinl^ 9 sknA-22 Assoni a a with a►. <br />MTV Empasal (see fileAN-.4 in the permanent file) <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner <br />Marshall to adopt the proposed amendments to Article 9 Signs and Article 22 <br />definitions of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the <br />additional signage requirements applicable within the Major Transportation <br />Corridor overlay district. <br />Those speaking in opposition of these proposed text amendments <br />were James Ray Freeland, Chuck Miller, Dick Knight, John Hogan, and Betty <br />Mann. <br />Commissioner Lloyd requested Gledhill to speak to the legal <br />ramifications of this ordinance. Gledhill noted that outdoor advertising <br />signs along I-85 which are properly permitted by' the North Carolina <br />Department of Transportation will need to be purchased by the County if the <br />County requires their removal. The Board can zone on aesthetics alone <br />provided the regulations are reasonably necessary to promote the purpose <br />sought and that they do not interfere with a property owner's right to use <br />his or her property to a "reasonable degree." The court is going to uphold <br />the ordinance if it finds the public benefits exceed the private property <br />rights lost as a result of the zoning regulation. The proposed regulations, <br />in the case of outdoor advertising signs, contain an amortization provision <br />whereby the signs may remain for a period of five years. With the exception <br />of having to buy the signs in order to have them removed at the end of a five <br />upar no -inA. r;lRahillvs opinion is there is no constitutional or statutory <br />