Orange County NC Website
~iuC <br />has requested that the public hearing be continued until November 5, 198' <br />so that she revised site plan can be received, reviewed .and presented to <br />the Town Planring Board and Council for comment. <br />Commissioner I~hitted asked who had submitted the request for <br />extension. Collins answered the Town of Chapel Hill: Commissioner TPhitted <br />asked what the developer's response was. Collins responded he was <br />open-ended on the request. <br />The Board discussed continuing the public hearing to the <br />regularly scheduled public hearing date in November. Lloyd expressed <br />concern about burcening the developer with delays. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner tarshall, seconded by <br />Commissioner t^Ihitted that, the public hearing on 5edgewood Apartments be <br />continued until tovember 26, 198x. <br />MOTE: UIdANIP~OUS <br />• Smith asked that the Board clarify their motion by indicating <br />whether the continuation of the public hearing eras to be on the original or <br />the revised plan. :aillhoit responded.that the plan was only being revised <br />in consultation with the Town of Chapel Hill. County Attorney Gledhill <br />clarified the approaches the Board could take in considering this matter, <br />but recommended that the Board ccntinue the public hearing to review the <br />plan submitted to public hearing in August and to consider the revised plan <br />only as proposed to meet the conditions recommended during the course of <br />the public hearing. Gledhill emphasized that the revised plan would be <br />considered only as a means to meet the conditions stipulated by the Board <br />of Commissioners in its approval of the special use permit. <br />Pearson inquired if the developer would be required to submit <br />the revisions to the Planning Board for its review prior to the public <br />hearing continuation on October 1, 1984. Chair T9i].lhoit responded that the <br />planning staff can pass on the additional information as it becomes <br />available. :~arshall noted that the developer cannot formally take the <br />revised plan to the Planning Board prior to the public hearing. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING T•7A5 CLOSED. <br />~'. ~,TEMS FOR DF.C25ION <br />1. ' <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall. seconded by <br />Commissioner G7hitted to approve a revised preliminary assessment resolution <br />and reschedule the public hearing on the Preliminary Assessement Resolution <br />for the Joppa Oaks Subdivision Participatory Paving Project to October 1, <br />1984. <br />VOTE: UP7ANIP•10U5. <br />2. RSVALUAT~ON CYCr,E <br />I:ermit Lloyd. Tax Supervisor, made the following statements of <br />clarification to previous questions from the Board of Commissioners: <br />1. On residential property not influenced by Chapel Hill <br />values, it woulc require a 10$ increase to bring that property to marlcet <br />value today. The same increase applies for farmland not influenced by <br />Chapel Hill values. The Residential property that is in Chapel Hill or <br />within four to five miles of Chapel Hill would require about a 20~ increase <br />to reach a market value, while commercial property in the Chapel Hi11 area <br />would require about 40~ increase to reach marlcet value; commercial property <br />away from Chapel Hill would require more than 20~. Condominium conversions <br />