Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 6b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 6b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2016 12:26:46 PM
Creation date
6/1/2012 2:50:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/5/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6b
Document Relationships
Minutes 06-05-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
ORD-2012-021 Ordinance Amending the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning District
(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.
/
40
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
38 <br />Larry Wright: On pages 35 -38, these are options available for things to come into that <br />area. <br />Tony Blake: What is the occupancy? <br />Glenn Bowles: There may be 1,500 to 2,000 seats. <br />Tony Blake: There is nothing in the ordinance that says you can only have a certain <br />amount of people. <br />Michael Harvey: You have to remember that you have to comply with all the provisions <br />and codes. <br />Glenn Bowles: Continued abstract review. <br />Larry Wright: Let's go back to the speedway, where do you have the 200 foot buffer <br />there? And where do you have a residence? <br />Glenn Bowles: In this area, we asked them to come forward with a new plan... <br />Larry Wright: I understand that. What was the issue that is on the minutes on page 44. <br />Commissioner Foushee and I both had comments and you said you would address that. <br />What is staff's opinion on our recommendations on let me quote "no vegetation with this <br />area shall be disturbed." We had issues with that. <br />Glenn Bowles: Except for this area where it has already been removed a long time ago, <br />all this buffer area is ..... <br />Larry Wright: What was our argument? <br />Glenn Bowles: That area was to remain vegetated and undisturbed. <br />Larry Wright: Our argument is that trees age and the lower limbs drop off so your buffer <br />is reduced as your canopy goes up; it prohibits light from lower level understory plants. <br />Ok, so you have a 200 foot buffer; DOT recommends a 200 foot buffer. This is what <br />said at the quarterly public hearing if you remember correctly. Now, you have a <br />maturing buffer, over time, you have a resident by 57, Commissioner Foushee <br />understood what I said, and she followed up on it. If you have a maturing canopy, you <br />lose understory protection from the resident of 57 from noise. I said, what my issue <br />was, no vegetation with this area shall be disturbed. If I was that resident and I went <br />online and I saw this, this would be an ordinance, and there was nothing I could do. <br />You said 'we would work with them'. Well, how would they know this? You completely <br />missed this. Commissioner Foushee followed up on it and she said that she would like <br />to see this changed. I would too because I think we need to protect these people on the <br />other side. Yes there should be a maintenance of this 200 ft buffer. Again, I am going <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.