Browse
Search
Minutes - 19890828
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1980's
>
1989
>
Minutes - 19890828
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2013 12:19:28 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 1:01:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/28/1989
Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
P ti.1 <br />r <br />that the <br />area to <br />citizens property rights were being trampled on and .t~,at people who panted tPiis~~ ~"~~~' <br />;; <br />stay rural needed to purchase the property. - ' <br />LES BROWN stated that he sometimES travels to wort: past the _lmerican Stone Company <br />where a steady stream of 20 ton trucks enter the hi;hway and traffic drops to 5 miles an '. <br />hour. The same situation could. potentially happen on Aew Hope Church Road. at the end <br />of that road there will soon be a school. Futtin; a commercial enterprise there with <br />sloe: mos•ing trucks creates a great potential for disaster. <br />PHEARS stated that he understood tl,e citizens who wanted to keep thins the way <br />there were but it can't be done. He indicated that lie agreed that people who want to <br />keep this land as it is need to attempt to purchasF it. Howes-er, they need to l:,urchase <br />it at its fair market price not at a lower price caused by zoning making it unusable. <br />He also indicated that he believes these are constitutional rights and the decision on <br />this request needs to be made on that basis. It is not something that slaould be decided <br />by majority vote. He also stated that the Planning Director and his staff told the <br />Commissioners that the zoning was not appropriate. , <br />BETTY EIDENIER asked i•ir. Phears to explain what he meant by "life of the property." <br />PHEARS indicated that -.•hat he meant was tl~e life of a quarry a•as 3D to 50 years <br />depending on how quickly the stone ~.as sold. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Halltiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to <br />refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board <br />of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 1989. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />c. Z-9-89 HARTFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY <br />The presentation was made br Emir- Crudup. In summary this item was <br />presented to receive citizen comment on the proposed rezoning request submitted by <br />Hartford Construction Company. The property iri question is located on the north side of <br />NC Highway ~4 near h`hite Cross, approximatelti• 800 feet west of Oal: Hpllaw Raad +~:hich is <br />a new public road. It is known as part of lot 11,7 sho++n on Tax ?slap 30B in Bin;l:am <br />Township. It is also a portion of lot 10 in Oal: Hallow 5ubdi~-ision which was a major <br />subdivision appro~°ed in July of this z*ear. The zonin; designation requested is Local <br />Commercial-1, The maximum amount of land which may be zoned LC-1 in any actirity node <br />is five (5) acres. At present, there are 3.~5 acres of LC-1 in the k~hite Cross tiode. <br />If the proposed rezoning is approved, the total acreage of LC-1 will be 4.fi5. The <br />Comprehensive Plan states that the land use category of "Rural Community* Actiritt°2~ode - <br />identifies rural crossroad communities throu,hout the Cauntz* where small scale <br />commercial activities sert•ing the community and surrounding area are appropriate. The <br />applied zoning districts include: LC-1 and NC-?." Therefore, the proposed rezoning to <br />Local Commercial--1 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />QUESTIONS OR COiyLkIENTS FROM THE BOARD OF C01'iMISSIONERS <br />COMMISSIONER HALY.IOTIS asked if Lot 10 would be dirided into two lots. <br />bis. Crudup explained that only a portion would be rezpned; the remaining portion would <br />remain R-1. The result is that there would be two zoning lots altliou~h it.is one <br />subdivision lot. She also indicated that the remaining fronta5e on H+:i- :,~ is the <br />minimum 130 feet. In response to another Question, she indicated that the Plan <br />includes nine lots and it was a condition of subdivision approral that lots 1 through 9 <br />--. _, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.