Minutes - 19790402 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~a r- 3 Chairman Whitted deferred discussion on whether Phil Green would make a presentation at the joint meeting with the Chapel Hill Aldermem. on April 17th to Item •18 on the agenda. Agenda Item 4: Timberlyne Associates Petition to Rezone - Mr. Bob Page appeared on behalf of Timberlyne Associates to request Board approval of Timberlyne Associates appearing before the Town of Chapel Hi11 and moving forward with their request to rezone. . Commissioner Whitted gave a brief history of the events. that had transpired between the county and Chapel Hill regarding the extraterritorial area in which Timberlyne is located. Commissioner Willhoit told Pir. Page that he thought appearing before the Town of Chapel Hill at'this time would be an appropriate step. Agenda Item 5: Preliminary Plan,of Garland Acres Mr:. Pat Robinson, Realtor, was present to answer questions concerning Garland Acres. Commissioner Barnes moved ,. seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, -. .. to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation to approve Garland Acres , Preliminary Subdivision plat with the following changes: 1) The developer delete lot No. 1 and renumber the remaining lots. 2) The developer change lot No. 3 to transfer some area away from lot No. 3 to lot No. 2 in order to achieve septic tank suitability. 3) The surveyor show a 30 foot drainage easement across lots No. 10 and No. 7. 4) The driveway far lot No. 4 enter on state road 1130. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. Agenda Item 6: Request from Town of Carrboro The Town of Carrboro has requested the Board of Commissioners review two proposed projects it is developing, a) a new fire station and b) a recreation complex, to determine whether or not their facilities are consistent with any community development plans the county might have. Far copy of this request, see page 330 of this book. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Barnes, the Chairman write a letter in reply to the Town of Carrboro's request saying the above-mentioned facilities are not inconsistent with any community development plans the county might have. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, D.