Minutes - 19841105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

34~ • 13 ',otion was made bµr Commissioner Tlarshall, seconded by Cormissioner "5hittec: to appreve a positive finding on Article 8.2. aa, and b. VOTE: Ur'Ar?1'Tl0iJ5 Gledhill notes the Planning Board's recomr.:enc:ations to the iaoarc, ?,sere made during the Public Hearing and the minutes of the Planning ?;oard's deliberation is Hart of the evidence for consideration. Smith commented that the Planning Board made their recommendations and findings or. the original plat submitted at Public Hearinc. •._ -. 'lotion ryas made by Commissioner ?•7hitted, seconded by Coricissioner Flarshall to approve a r.enative finding on Article 8.2.nc. VOT$ : Ur?ArlIT4OUS T!~otion i?as made by Commissioner t^7hitted, seconded by Commissioner I9arshall to approve a positive fincAing on Article 7.4a,b,c,d and e. VOT?~ : UNANI_iOUS T4otion was made by Commissioner T2rshal]., seconded by Com,::issioner t°'hittec to approve a positive finding on both parts of Articles 7. a.l anc: 7.4.2. VOTE : UrIA'~ T i•10US T-lotion was made by Commissioner T•larshall, seconciod by Commissioner '.Written to approve a negative finc:ing on P_rticle 7.4.3. VOTE : UPTArTI'IOLTS r?otion was mace by Commissioner T•larshall, seconded by Commissioner ?°?hitt2c~ to approve a negative finding an 7.J.4.3a1, 2 and 5, a, d a positive finding on 7.14.3x3 and n. VOTE: UNAT_7ZT~IOUS I:otior. was made by Commissioner l7hitted, seconded by Commissioner I~~arahall to approve a positive fincinv in 7.14.3x6, 7.14.3b1,2 and 2b and a negative finding on Article 7.14.3x7 and 7.14.3b3. voT>;: urrANil•TOUs • Tlotion was mace by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner ?~lhitted to approve a positive finc;ing on Article 5a, b, c, d, and e. vo~iyt~: ur~ArrzTlous T7otion vies made by Car:;missioner ?^~hitted, seconded by Cammmissioner Lloyd to approve a positive finding on Article 6.12x, b, c, d, e, f, c, and Article 6.13.1. VOTE: UI?Ar'IT•?OUS Commissioner T?hilted asked the Board if in their opinion tl?e 1S recommendations incluc:ec the site plan as presented at Public Bearing as revised by the cenditions set forth by the Chapel Hill Planning Board, and _ suggested addir_c contrition r20 ststing that a site plan incorporate the firs;; lg recommendations. __ f?otion was made by Commissioner r~Thitted, seconded by Commissioner T3arshall to approve 8.2.2 with the 19 conditions as recommended by the Planning Boars and the additional condition as stated above. Chair '?illhait as!:ed what conditions that Chapel Fill recommended v~ere not included in the recommendations anc was referred to the minutes of the Plannina 5oa.rd meeting anc': further ruestioned the ?Tanning Board's raison for not ircluding the conditions ;^resented b_y Chapel I3i.11. Commissioner '"_arshall indicated there seems to be .a strong feeling on the Planning °oard for rot wanting a public s~reet going ti~rough the midcle of the development because n€ the volume of traffic because of the