Browse
Search
Minutes - 19860106
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Minutes - 19860106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2008 12:28:22 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 12:46:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/6/1986
Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
.I <br /> <br />Planning Board chair ;41ice Gordon presented the Planning Board Recommendation: <br />Recommendation: Approval at R-2 density by a 6-3-1 (one abstention) vote. <br />Issues Raised: <br />(1) Amount of traffic through the development between YVildwood Section IV ~. <br />and NC 86 (earlier phases of Wildwood). <br />(2) Unknown impact of commercial areas already zoned between Wildwood and I-85 <br />on what is still a two lane road (Occoneechee Point I and II). <br />(3) Amount of water available. <br />(4) Hillsborough's recommeddation for R-2 density. <br />Explanation of Dissenting Votes: A preliminary vote to rezone at R-2 density, rather <br />than at R-4 density, passed with a vote of 5-4-1 (one abstention). Therefore in the final vote the <br />three dissenters voted in the negative because they favored the higher density. <br />Other information and/or Citations from County REgulations: Chair's note: See the <br />provisions for amending the zoning ordinance given in Section 20.1 (Applicant does not allege <br />error but cites changing conditions) . <br />Susan Smith noted that the Town of Hillsborough and their Planning Board both indicated <br />that R-2 or R--3 would be more appropriate for this area. <br />tilotion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to apprve <br />the Planning Staff recommendation. <br />VOTE: AYES, 2; NOES, 3 (Chair 1rVillhoit and Commissioners Marshall and Carey) <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve <br />the Planning Board recommendation. <br />Commissioner Lloyd noted that R-4 housing would be rnore affordable than the R-2 housing. ~~ <br />Commissioner Walker questioned the rationale of Hillsborough in making a recommendation <br />for R-2 or R-3. <br />Chair Willhoit and Commissioner Marshall agreed that the Board should try to approve, as <br />close as possible, what the Town has recommended since Hill~orough will be serving the area. <br />Also the topography must be considered and the fact that the development will feed into the <br />road system of the existing YVildwood development. <br />VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Walker). <br />14. Z 14-85 JAME$ 1=. HILL - REZON,I.NG REQUEST <br />Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval a proposed rezoning request <br />for 0.57 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and NC 751 in Eno <br />Township. The property is located in an area designated Twenty Year Transition Area and <br />Commercial Transition Activity Node on the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present <br />zoning of the property is Rural Residential. The applicant is requesting that the lot be rezoned <br />to Community Commercial III. Approval of the request would allow a community commercial <br />use at this intersection. <br />The Planning Staff recommended denial of the CC--3 rezoning request given that the <br />potential impacts of the uses permitted by right in the district and the constraints imposed <br />an the site by its relationship to the road network suggest a planned development rezoning <br />is more appropriate. <br />Recommendation: The Board was evenly divided between approval and denial with a <br />5-5 vote. <br />Issues Raised: <br />(1) It was asserted that the applicant should have alleged an error to be corrected <br />by the proposed amendment. <br />(2) It appeared that there were traffic and environmental impacts (Duke Forest) that <br />needed to be addressed. It was asserted that these issued could be more effectively <br />handled in a Planned Development process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.