Minutes - 19840604 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 ~~ i 5 duplex dwellings unless expanded by 50$ in square footage or extended onto an adjacent lot. Smith summarized the changes recommended by the Planning Board. Gledhill noted .that the recommendations made by the Planning Board were included in the copy he distributed. The only other changes were in form and cJ,.arification and not in intent. tlotion was made by Commissioner Marshal]., seconded by Commissioner Whitted that the proposed amendments to Articles a and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented by the attorney be approved. Chair Willhoit announced that this was not a public hearing. The following people voiced opposition: (1) James Freeland, John Dear, Fred Dear, Curtis Bain, Setty PTann, Jim Poris and Henry Whitfield, David Smudski. Mary Ellen Priestly who owns 32 acares on NC86 along both sides of the corridor spoke in favor of the proposal. Chair Willhoit explained that the ordinance does not apply to the area that is in Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and does not apply to single or two family dwellings. Only single or two family dwellings could be built within the 100 foot buffer. Commissioner P~?arshall pointed out that the same restrictions contained in Orange County's T•lajor Transportation Corridor have been approved in Durham County, Durham City and Wake County. The restrictions are necessary to dq the most for the future development of our County. Commissioner Lloyd noted that Orange County has not had any industrial growth and feels industry wants to locate on a major highway so they are in view of the traveling public. He expressed disagreement with the proposal stating it unnecessary and over regulatory. Commissioner Willhoit noted the aesthetics along a major thoroughfare to be a plus in attractinc high quality industry. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 ([)alker and Lloyd) 4. Proj~osed Text A=meg~m~p~g _~~ Articlg 9 and 22 Assor_iatPr3 wi _r h MTC Proposal (see file ir. the permanent file) t•Zotion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the proposed amendments to Article 9 Signs and Article 22 definitions of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the additional signage requirements applicable within the Major Transportation Corridor overlay district. Those speaking in opposition of these proposed text amendments were ,Tames Ray FreelanG, Chuck Pfiller, Dick Knight, John Hogan, and Betty Mann. Commissioner Lloyd requested Gledhill to speak to the legal ramifications of this ordinance. Gledhill noted that outdoor advertising signs along T-S5 which are properly permitted by the North Carolina Department oz Transportation will need to be purchased by the County if the County reciuires their removal. The Board can zone on aesthetics alone provided the regulations are reasonably necessary to promote the purpose sought and that they do not interfere with a property owner's right to use his or her property to a "reasonable degree." The court is going to uphold the ordinance if it finds the public benefits exceed the private property rights lost as a result of the zoning regulation. The proposed regulations, in the case of outdoor advertising signs, contain an amortization provision whereby the signs may remain for a period of five years. With the exception of having to buy the signs in artier to have them removed at the end of a five va:tr nF„- ~ n~7, [;l ar',h; l l ~ S oni.n%on is there i s no constitutional or statutory