Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
126 <br /> 808 <br /> Mrs. James Rippy, an adjacent property owner, asked the difference between <br /> R-1 and R-3 zones. Mr. Cannity responded to her satisfaction. <br /> C. 3. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS <br /> Mr. Cannity made the presentation on the proposed zoning text amendments to <br /> the Boards. (Mr. Cannity's verbatim remarkes are on pages M/4500f this book.) <br /> Following his presentation on the proposed changes, Mr. Cannity responded to <br /> questions from the Boards and members of the audience, clarifying the changes as <br /> and if necessary. <br /> C. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN--PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY <br /> Ms. Susan Smith, of the Planning Staff, made the presentation to the Boards <br /> on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan for Piedmont Power Company. She <br /> cited the location on NC 86 and said the request is reasonable given the proposed <br /> use and it is not incompatible with existing development. <br /> Mr. Delmas Adams, representing Piedmont Power's architectural firm, said <br /> the site had been purchased in 1974 and it had been Piedmont's intention to locate <br /> its facility on that site. <br /> Ms. Hazel Lunsford, speaking as a private citizen, spoke in opposition to <br /> the proposed changes; she cited the changing character of the area from its prese <br /> rural character. She said her opposition was not directed at the company. <br /> Mr. J. T. Squires from Fayetteville spoke for Mr. and Mrs. Millis who own <br /> property along NC 86. He wanted to know what the effect of the proposed use <br /> would be on Mr. and Mrs. Millis' property. He asked if the buffer zone is <br /> entirely on Piedmont's property. Mr. Cannity replied yes. <br /> Mr. Cannity, responding to Commissioner Willhoit, said Piedmont had acquired <br /> the property in 1974 and even if Piedmont's plans had been known that knowledge <br /> would not have affected the designation given the site during the zoning process. <br /> Commissioner Willhoit asked if money had been expended for planning on the <br /> 4 <br /> site at the time zoning was adopted. <br /> Mr. Adams replied that he did not know when zoning was implemented in Orange, <br /> County, however, following the purchase his firm had been commissioned to do the <br /> site study. He added that the "final map" indicated that the site was to be used <br /> for office purposes, "storage yard and related power company facilities." <br /> Ms. Smith, responding to Ms. Crawford said that the plat recorded showed <br /> wording to the effect the property was to be used for office purposes. <br />