Minutes - 19840123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.~ ! ~. 17 Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this proposal amounted to taking 1Gnd with no corpensation. He felt it svgs e~:cessive and that ~-roperty owners were being forced into accepting T-40. He conmlented that the concern was k in the land Green, but with ro compensation for owners and that 1Fnd wa eff t ely removed from the tax base. xt Smith e~:pressed concern with 6.24.4, the 25ro natural vegetation provis n. He questioned the provision where there is no existing vegetation. Hen V7hitfield, property owner ir_ the I-40 corridor, noted that the Gorr or would cost the owners he represented about i0 acres of property. A co "ng to I:r. t•dhitfield the bu er would take an additional 23 acres crith no nt to owners. He wa p tic arty concerned with land split by the ridor. Iir. 47hitfield asked f r of hands for property ocvners in the corriGOr von and against the bu This showed approximately 25 against and 5 in avo o; the buffer. I•ie felt that site pla could take care of the fear of contamination of the landscape with unsightly ildzngs. Kizer, Planning Board member, noted that it is important to untie c:Ilr. T~icAdams point that this proposal constitutes an uncompensated "talci He continued that it should be a point of order to - prevent a "taking" of inadvertent]_y or intentionally. Since he felt this might result an rtpensated "taking", he recuested that the County Attorney comr,:ent n t aossibility of an ille,al taking of land. Co;nmissioner ll t noted the attorney will be reviewing the entire ordnance for lega 't - Ron I~territt ~ rthwoocs Homeowners Association inquired about property owners being n ti d of particular applications and permit approvals far development. t 'tt noted that changing the underlying Honing would reGUirE notice. I•_errit ed he would like to see the inclusion. of a prcvision regarding notic adjoining property ovrners vrithin ].000 feet far building permit app als or es with correct zoning. Joe Mist , prope owners adjacent to I-40 but outside of 100' buffer, urge he oa - o cons er individuals beyond the corridors. IZE indicated vegetats ery important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers could pars creative uses of land within the statutes. Jack FIo ely, owner o~ the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns arding si s such as his directional sign for customers off T.C. 86. ith re onded the proposal, would not allow off-premise signs ir. the distric Sh clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal and that t re single and t~•ro family houses were not subject to the proposed development tandards. She clarified that both single family houses and _- cuplexes ca be deV210ped orith normal setbacks and without being subject to vegetation provisions. _. --.- IicAdams cruestioned the application of the 100' setback to approval of six (6) subdivisions and their designs. If so, he continued, this must be qualified in the communication to the public regarding single anG two-family dwellings. The public hearing was adjourned until the February 21, 1584 Nublic hearing. Proposec Te]:t Amendrzents to Article 9 Signs Presentation as follows by Smith: The proposec= text araendments to Article 5 ~ic?ns address two rain issues: ].) the types of signs perrnitted in the b`_:C c.istrict and 2) the placement of outdoor advertising outsie:e she iITC district.