Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
o~~ <br />4 <br />should be clear to include mobile home units; (3) requested and <br />received clarification on the kitchen and indoor bathroom; and (4) <br />agreed that landlords be given a reasonable time to correct <br />deficiencies after the code has been adopted with July 1, 1984 as the <br />effective date. <br />After extended discussion, Attorney Gledhill clarified that the <br />code does not talk about guest homes or owner-occupied dwellings and <br />these dwellings would therefore not come under this code. <br />' By .consensus of the hoard, the Minimum Housing Code will be <br />- presented, with the recommended changes, at the February 6, 1964 Board <br />meeting. <br />E. ~~~a^ FOR DEC~$jON <br />E-1. - .,~Rmes P. Goforth <br />Cmmissioner Marshall on January 3, 1984 requested an area map be <br />prepared to show all of Weaver Dairy Road including the T-40 Corridor. <br />In response to the presentation of the map and the comments received at <br />the public hearing, Commissioner Marshall stated "I have been involved <br />in development legislation in this area for over a dozen years; action <br />I participated in as a Chapel Hill official have resulted in court <br />actions that shape important parts of our current ordinances and I am <br />deeply. concerned at the way in which we go about making vital <br />development decisions. Development associated with VTeaver Dairy Road <br />is in the last stages of a ten year transition period and growth, for <br />this .area, will be continued finally, by the I-40 corridor. Thus we <br />are able to guantify maximum allowable development in the ~w1~ of <br />the area as we make critical land use decisions. We are told that our <br />Comprehensive band Use Plan and our related Zoning Ordinance put in <br />place a sophisticated protective approach; I dearly hope so. These <br />rules, however, can only function as sophisticated, protective <br />regulations if we challenge them to do so~-if we use them with <br />sophistication. I believe that markedly adverse tensions have built up <br />among citizens, developers, planners and officials because we always <br />have been playing "catch-up" in developing our regulatory tools. If <br />our Plan and Ordinance are truly in place as growth confronts us, our <br />decisions should lead to decreasing fears and the building of trust. <br />with this end in mind, I shall ask myself six questions as I look <br />at developmental renuests -- they should not be incompatible. <br />1. Is it allowable under our adapted ordinance? <br />2. Within the land use district in which it lies (a) if that <br />district were to be built to its maximum allowable density, what would <br />be the impact on the community? i.e. traffic, schools, etc. and, (b) <br />how much of that potential impact would be attributable to the proposal <br />before us? <br />3. What are the responsibilities of the county to assure that <br />future needs of all will be met? i.e. working with D.O.T; continuing <br />to revise our regulations to work out inconsistencies and any other <br />"bugs" we discover with use. <br />4. What are the safeguards to property owners? i.e. for safety, <br />for property values, for quality of life. <br />5. What are the safeguards to the developer? i.e. the project can <br />be developed as permitted and can make a profit recognizing that land, <br />or partly completed projects that have to be sold for a tax loss are <br />