Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~~~ <br />4 <br />vaithin either a 10-year or 20-year Transition Area that is appropriate for <br />retail and other commercial uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial <br />uses." <br />t•Yarshall questioned the extension of the "node" into the Fural <br />Residential area. Smith responded the nods concept. is being refined through <br />these area plans and that the uses permitted would be appropriate to. this <br />plan category. <br />-. t~9r. C.J. .Cavallito suggested that the Board in the future reverse <br />the order of consideration of these public hearing items. <br />-- IIe continued inquiring if the praposal limited the type of <br />development. Smith responded it merely established the range of appropriate <br />uses and was a general development guide for the future and that specific lot <br />proposals would.be subject to development review. <br />Cavallito emphasized a desire to limit industrial uses in the <br />area. <br />i•Yr. Phelps cuestioned v~hy the non-residential uses were not <br />limited to commercial uses only. Smith responded the intent was to provide <br />loctions for limited rural industrial uses. <br />t•iel Rashl:is felt that the proposal took advantage of the public <br />water and sewer services extended to Cornwallis Hills development and that to <br />propose industrial development represented an imposition on those investing <br />in the area for residential purposes. <br />Vernon Davis expressed concerns about the capacity of Old ~7C 86 <br />to carry industrial traffic and the actual future use of tracts in the area. <br />He also felt the transition area envisioned for iillsborough was already <br />__ sufficient. <br />t?rs. James Rippy e~:pressed concern about the long term impact o~ <br />the proposed uses in the neighborhood. She added that the presence of 7-~0 <br />was enough of a problem. She cited citizen comments in the community surveys <br />conducted by staff during the course of the study. She noted that two <br />families had left during the course of the public hearing due to the late <br />hour. <br />Cavallito inquired how the plan was determined and who vaas <br />notified of the public meetings. <br />Smith responded that the plan was developed over time with <br />considerable citizen input and many revisions. She noted it represented a <br />compromise between two distinct camps of property ovm ers in the area: those <br />intereted in residential development and those interested in non-residential <br />development associated with the construction of I-40 and the presence of the <br />interchange in the area. <br />Rashkis ehpressed concern that this item is always last on the <br />Board's agenda. Smith noted that there had been confusion at a past Planning <br />Board meeting where the item v:as listed for information prior to the public <br />hearing and no discussion or public comment was permitted. <br />Phelps asked what action the Board was going to tale on this <br />item. Gordon responded that there would be no action at this time and the <br />item would be submitted to the Planning Board for their review and <br />recommendation after which time it would be submitted to the Board of <br />- Commissioners for review and approval. <br />Pill:ey inquired if the Tovrn of Hillsborough had been informed of <br />this item. Smith responded the Town had received the information. <br />Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary Beverly Blythe, Clerk Don Willhoit, Chair <br />