Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-17-2012 - 6b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 04-17-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 04-17-2012 - 6b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2015 8:35:29 AM
Creation date
4/13/2012 4:24:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/17/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6b
Document Relationships
Minutes 04-17-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
ORD-2012-011 Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO/Zoning 2012-08) – Stormwater
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 29 <br /> 1 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on <br /> 2 the proposed amendments. <br /> 3 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be <br /> 4 returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 regular meeting. <br /> 5 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the <br /> 6 Planning Board's.recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Commissioner Yuhasz asked what happens if the County does not do this. Terry <br /> 9 Hackett said that he does not know. <br /> 10 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 14, 1-C and that the new development is <br /> 11 part of a larger common plan. He asked if this referred to a new subdivision or an existing <br /> 12 subdivision. He asked if new development would apply to those existing lots in an old <br /> 13 subdivision. <br /> 14 Terry Hackett said that it applies to new subdivisions. <br /> 15 Terry Hackett answered clarifying questions of Commissioner Yuhasz and <br /> 16 Commissioner Jacobs. <br /> 17 Commissioner McKee made reference to page 18 regarding the restrictions. He said <br /> 18 that this is in place to ensure that a future owner would not keep the best management practices <br /> 19 in place. He asked about enforceable restrictions and what kind of penalties there would be. <br /> 20 Terry Hackett said that it would be on a case-by-case basis. <br /> 21 Commissioner McKee said that the requirement for Falls Lake is not attainable. This is <br /> 22 his opinion. <br /> 23 Craig Benedict said that it will be problematic for higher intensity development. There is <br /> 24 some discussion of transfer of nutrient rights where developers that want to develop intensely in <br /> 25 some of the economic development zones may have to trade the nutrient percentages into an <br /> 26 area. <br /> 27 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz <br /> 28 to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to <br /> 29 the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing <br /> 30 until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and <br /> 31 any submitted written comments. <br /> 32 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 <br /> 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.