Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-26-1995 - IX-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 06-26-95
>
Agenda - 06-26-1995 - IX-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2014 9:23:06 AM
Creation date
12/9/2014 9:22:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/26/1995
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-A
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19950626
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
71 <br /> recommendation is an attempt to address the concerns <br /> and views of both sets of residents. If the Planning <br /> Board wants to make a different set of <br /> recommendations that is its prerogative. <br /> Waddell stated that the question is not whether to <br /> go primary or secondary, but, rather a compromise <br /> between the two. <br /> Katz asked the difference between profit and non- <br /> profit recreation and why n.on-profit was excluded <br /> from the list of permitted uses. Collins responded <br /> that non-profit recreation was on a list that was <br /> developed by the Old NC 86 residents and Ted <br /> Abernathy. When that list was reviewed, the non- <br /> profit was deleted. The only way that a for-profit <br /> recreational facility could. be approved would be a <br /> planned development approach which would require a <br /> public hearing before the Board of Commissioners. <br /> Collins noted that he did not know the rationale for <br /> removing non-profit recreation. <br /> Price expressed concern with the view from the road <br /> and possibly more strip development like that from <br /> I-85 to Hillsborough. Collins responded that the <br /> design manual addressed the issue of landscaping and <br /> the case study included in it may provide more <br /> insight. <br /> Jobsis noted that the whole idea behind EDD was to <br /> provide standards that would not allow for strip <br /> development but allow for beautiful development such <br /> as the lay of the land will allow. Waddell reminded <br /> members that the size and number of lots under <br /> discussion would not allow for extremely large <br /> development. He also noted. that the standards in <br /> the design manual address those concerns. <br /> It was the consensus of the Board to hear public <br /> comment. Waddell reminded those wishing to speak <br /> that public comment had already been heard and asked <br /> that the comments be limited to new information not <br /> that which had already been, heard except for <br /> emphasis or clarification. He asked that they focus <br /> on the proposed recommendation and how a compromise <br /> might be achieved. <br /> Mark Johnson, Cornwallis Hills resident, expressed <br /> concern with the risks involved with retail and the <br /> increased traffic. He noted the significant change <br /> was the deletion of manufacturing and hotel/motels. <br /> He expressed concern that even when businesses are <br /> closed that does not keep people from "hanging <br /> around" in parking lots and. perhaps causing trouble. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.