Browse
Search
ORD-2001-017 Amendments to Subdivision Regulations Concerning Minor Subdivisions
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2001
>
ORD-2001-017 Amendments to Subdivision Regulations Concerning Minor Subdivisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2012 9:48:09 AM
Creation date
6/14/2012 10:19:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/29/2001
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
5c
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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 2 3 17 <br />8/7/96 Planning Board Minutes <br />Price noted that in rural areas, there may be uses that would be associated with <br />agricultural uses and not necessarily be home occupations as they would be in an <br />urban residential area. <br />Strayhom commented again that a use such as welding would require at least a two - <br />ton truck to deliver supplies needed for welding. Strayhom asked about the types of <br />complaints. Willis responded that most complaints are related to uses which involve <br />vehicles, such as automobile repair and the visual impact as the business grows. It <br />has been determined that there are some existing home occupations which would <br />not qualify as such if proposed amendments are adopted. Additional home <br />occupation permits for those uses would not be approved. <br />MOTION: Brooks moved approval of the proposed amendments as recommended by the <br />Planning Staff and the recommendation that load capacity of vehicles shall be <br />determined by the needs of the home occupation and shall not exceed those needs. <br />Seconded by Strayhom. <br />Willis suggested that additional wording be included such as: provided that the <br />expected needs are compatible with the neighborhood. <br />Hoecke stated that going to such detail is micro management. If a use is compatible, <br />everything connected with the use would be compatible. Either it is compatible or it <br />isn't. <br />VOTE: <br />The amendment was restated by Hoecke: There shall be no use of a vehicle in <br />connection with the home occupation that would be in excess of what is appropriate <br />to that occupation providing that it is compatible with the neighborhood. <br />The motion and second accepted the amendment. <br />Unanimous. <br />(3) Article 8.8.24 Special Uses (Uses of Historic Structures) <br />Presentation by Mary Willis. <br />The non - residential use of historic structures is permitted in the AR, RI and RB <br />zones provided a Class A Special Use Permit is obtained from the Orange County <br />Board of Commissioners. Standards that must be complies with are specified in <br />Article 8.8.24 of the Zoning Ordinance. <br />The proposed amendment would clarify that the historic nature of the property as <br />well as the structure may be considered in the Special Use Permit approval process. <br />The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on June 26, 1996. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked if the amendment would allow use of a modem <br />structure on historic property. Use of a non - historic structure could be approved if <br />all applicable findings could be met from the standpoint of preserving or enhancing <br />the historic integrity of the site. <br />There were no citizen comments. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.