Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-18-2012 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 09-18-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 09-18-2012 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2016 9:01:58 AM
Creation date
9/14/2012 4:44:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/18/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes 09-18-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
ORD-2012-039 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas - Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Modification – Spence Dickinson
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2012
ORD-2012-040 (Not Approved) An Ordinance Denying an Amendment Request to the Zoning Atlas Dpence Dickinson
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2012
RES-2012-082 Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency of a Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment With the Adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2010-2019\2012
RES-2012-083 NO ACTION - Resolution Concerning Statement of Inconsistency of a Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment With the Adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2010-2019\2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
29 <br /> 1 development. There will be limitations imposed by the Board of Adjustment through that <br /> 2 process relating to the developability and use of the property consistent with existing standards <br /> 3 within the Ordinance. I think the concerns expressed this evening are more appropriately <br /> 4 addressed through the Class B Special Use Permitting review process, as Mr. Dickenson will <br /> 5 have to prove compliance with the various applicable standards including the required <br /> 6 landscaping separation buffers at that time. I will also state for the record here this evening, <br /> 7 Planning staff would not allow for a connector onto Pathway Court from the campy property. <br /> 8 The reason being is that this is a private road governed by a special use permit for the <br /> 9 Heartwood planned development. There is no guarantee of access from the farm because it is <br /> 10 not governed by the Heartwood special use permit and such an action would invalidate a <br /> 11 required buffer. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Commissioner Jacobs: I just want to ask Mr. Harvey if he could please make sure that Mr. <br /> 14 Lamb gets a notification of the Board of Adjustment meeting. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Michael Harvey: He will certainly, because he is within the 500 feet of the property boundary, <br /> 17 and as you know, we are required and obligated to send letters to everyone within 500 feet, so <br /> 18 he will be notified. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz <br /> 21 to receive the application, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a <br /> 22 recommendation be returned to the Board of Commissioners for the September 18th regular <br /> 23 meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 18th in order to receive and accept the <br /> 24 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> 25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br /> 28 **************************************************** <br /> 29 <br /> 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.