Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 '7 ~4 <br />clients feel the 3 <br />present process is adequate and serves the needs of <br />Chapel Hi11 and Carrboro and the citizens of Orange County. He questioned <br />the rights of the citizens in the joint plarr,ing area and stated that <br />what you have are three Boards with three different philosophies and <br />approvals will be delayed. He felt it unfair and unconstitutional that <br />the Boars of Commissioners cannot approve a project if the town of Chapel <br />Hill denies approval. <br />_ Austin Bisbing, commerciGl real estate businessman, questioned <br />the ability of the Planning Departments in Chapel Hill and Orange County <br />to decide how their land use plan should be implemented that would require <br />the people in the joint planning area to go through a procedure as <br />proposed. <br />Chairman ti?illhoi~ emphasized the purpose of joint planning is to <br />come up with a coordinated plan for development. <br />Joe Nassif, hiayor of Chapel Hill, supported the proposal because'" <br />the }3oard of Commissioners can deny a request in an area that would <br />ordinarily be extra territorial jurisdiction and Chapel Hill can indicate <br />the type of development desired since eventually it will be annexed. <br />Nassif feels that the joint planning agreement would be beneficial to the <br />town and the county and insure good development practices whereby the <br />people in the area would be represented. <br />Chairman ti7allhoit indicated that a meeting will be held with <br />Carrboro prior to the public hearing on Nay 29, 1984. <br />Gary Seliebee, real estate broker in Chapel Hi11; e~:pressed <br />concern about the mechanics of joint approval and the stipulations put <br />upon the developer from both the town and the county. <br />Chairman willhoit indicated that every effort would be made to <br />make this work smoothly and rot increase the process time or duplication <br />of effort. <br />Griffin Graves e:cpressed two concerns: (1) denial by the town <br />which ends the process and (2) the elimination of the 1--4 acre tract <br />development. <br />Alotion was made by Commissioner ~•;hittec3, seconded by Commissioner <br />t.«rshall to approve the joint planning agreement placement on the t~iay Z9, <br />1984 agenda for public hearino with joint approval in the 20 year <br />transistion area and courtesy review process in the rural buffer. The <br />current land use p'_an will be used. VOTING; Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Lloyd anc7 <br />walker). <br />5 • ~~+Z+.c.]~~QI)~i) At:,x~'4A7•_~~~+ROL RESC)i•i7~~i <br />Ken Thompson, County t•.anager, presented .a request from Hills- <br />borough in which they requested that the County consider expardang their <br />- services in enforcing the Animal Control Ordinance to the municipal <br />-- jurisdiction of Hillsborough. <br />Chairman Y?illhoit indicated that the county collects a 54.00 per <br />animal fee for all dogs in Orange County and proposed that the County <br />enforce the Anir;.al Control Ordinance cvithin the town of Eillsborcugh until <br />July 1, 1984 at which tame a decision for continuing this service vrill be <br />made. A cartract will be entered into between Orange County and the Town <br />of Hillsborough for 51.00 to saver the period of April 17, 1984 to June <br />30, 1984. <br />btotion vas made by Commissicner [•iarshall, seconded by Commis-" <br />sinner 4~hitted to approve she Chairman's recort,~endation to enforce the <br />Animal Control Ordinance through June 30, 1984 and to include this rectuest <br />