Browse
Search
Minutes - 19820823
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Minutes - 19820823
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2017 4:18:32 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 12:35:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/23/1982
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 08-23-1982
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1980's\1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i <br /> 4.1G <br /> Mr. Cline said the company was in agreement with all requirements except <br /> the 40,000 sq. ft, required and mentioned previously. <br /> There were no other comments fro-in the audience on the proposed text changes <br /> s to the Zoning Ordinance, either pro or con. <br /> . . Pro osed Changes to the Subdivision Regulations. <br /> Mr°. Cannity made the presentation for the Planning Staff, saying there <br /> were four m_,. .:° changes proposed: <br /> y <br /> j 1. addition of definitions of road types that coincide with the <br /> NC DOT definitions; <br /> f 2. definition of a lot of recoi°d in reference to subdivision requirem pits; <br /> 3. revisions to road rights of way to coincide with revised NCDOT <br /> j standards (this also allows us to propose a reduction of private road <br /> rights of way requirements); <br /> 4. deletion of Section VII Variances. <br /> i <br /> There were no comments from the audience on the proposed text changes to <br /> ' the Subdivision: Regulations, either pro or- con. <br /> i <br /> Ms. Crawford turned the meeting over to Chairman Whitted for the recommendation <br /> 1 from the Planning Board on the Class A Special Use Permit Request from Buck Mountain <br /> i Development Company for the Midway Airport. <br /> Chairman Whitted declared the Quarterly Joint Public Hearing with the Orange <br /> County Planning Board adjourned and declared the public hearing on the Buck Mountain <br /> Development Company for a Class A Special Use Permit for a General .P.viation Airport <br /> i <br /> (Midway) opened. The purpose is to receive the recoinnendation from the Planning <br /> I� Board on the aforementioned request; Ms. Crawford was sworn (see pages of <br /> ! these minutes). <br /> /Clerk's note: The following, until otherwise noted, is a verbatim transcript <br /> j of Ms. Crawford's testimony.% <br /> Ms. Crawford: Chairman Whitted, members of the Board, I want to bring the <br /> following concerns to your attention, prior to making the Planning Board's <br /> recommendation on the Special Use Permit Request by the Buck Mountain. <br /> Y <br /> r At our August 16, 1982, the following motion was made: "The Planning Board <br /> has serious questions about the legality of the reconsideration of the Specia'i <br /> i Use Permit request by Buck Mountain Development at this time. The Board feels <br /> f that a one year period should elapse before a reconsideration. The motion <br /> was made by Dr. Irvin, seconded by Dr. Kizer; the vote was four in favor, <br /> two opposed, and two abstentions. <br /> As indicated in the memo to you, dated August 29th, this is impossible, <br /> dated August 23rd, The Planning Board previous to this meeting and pre- <br /> vious to the second public hearing on this request, in addition, it was <br /> raised by a citizen at the second public hearing. Futhermore, we have <br /> just seen a rec.;s.-st by the Staff to amend our Ordinance, in agreement with <br /> thrr Planning Board's motion. <br /> i <br /> Th meno to you indicates th:: , sp?cial uses require changes in our Zoning <br /> i Ordinance and requires a public hearing. They are similar- in that respect <br /> to zoning amendments and therefore should be in accordance with the section <br /> on amendments as it currently reads, which requires a one year period before <br /> P <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.