Browse
Search
Minutes - 19830502
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1980's
>
1983
>
Minutes - 19830502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2017 9:51:26 AM
Creation date
8/13/2008 12:37:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/2/1983
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-02-1983
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1980's\1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
1. 4 <br /> 2, 37.7 <br /> 3• <br /> 4• was in the process of beginning to plan for the industrial develop- <br /> 5. ment of Cheeks Township, particularly the corridor along U.S. 70- <br /> 6. I-85. Planning Board feels that the County can protect the McGowan <br /> 7. and Seven Mile Creek watersheds by being selective with regard to the <br /> 8. industries allowed to locate there. But industrial development brings <br /> 9. other types of development, private homes to house the people who <br /> 10. run the industries. Dr. Irvin said that contamination from sewage, <br /> 11. given the poor soil in the County, was more likely to occur than con- <br /> 12. tamidation from chemicals. Additionally, both industry and individ- <br /> 13- uals would need adequate supplies of potable water. <br /> 14. There was a consensus among the Board members to consider the <br /> 15, watersheds individually rather than as a complete package. The Board <br /> 16, is on record as opposing the extension of sewers into University Lake <br /> 17. watershed. <br /> 18. Commissioner Whitted said that -if indu•strial .development was <br /> 1g. allowed in the watersheds he felt that- the water quality would already <br /> 20, be compromised and that there would then be no need to impose minimum <br /> 21. 1ot sizes on private housing. On the other hand, Commissioner Whitted <br /> 22. added, if industrial development is not permitted in the watersheds <br /> �3- then place limits on the minimum lot sizes for housing to protect an <br /> 24. uncompromised water supply. Commissioner Whitted said different <br /> 25. criteria may need to be applied to each watershed. <br /> 26. Commissioner Lloyd said that he felt "progress" had been made <br /> 27. arrd that "harmony" had been established "whereupon zoning might be <br /> 28. extended County-wide" but that the imposition of the five acre minimum <br /> 299 lot size would create "one helluva fight." He added that this require <br /> - <br /> 30- ment would be "ridiculous" and that "storm water management requirements" <br /> 31. are "impractical for an individual homeowner" to meet. Commissioner <br /> 32, Lloyd said he couldn 't support the minimum five acre lot size unless <br /> 33. the Health Department determined the soil wouldn't perk. <br /> . .. -- -Commissioner Willhoit ..- -. .. . . -. .. .. .. <br /> � suggested that the Board proceed to re- <br /> schedule this question. Commissioner Whitted asked that it be rescheduled <br /> 35. <br /> 36, for May 23rd, the regular fourth Monday meeting. <br /> 37. Commissioner Marshall suggested that the Chair communicate with <br /> 38. the Mayors of the municipalities of the County and inform them that <br /> 39- this question was scheduled on the 23rd. <br /> 400 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.