Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-03-1995 - VIII-K
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 08-03-95
>
Agenda - 08-03-1995 - VIII-K
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2014 11:11:29 AM
Creation date
12/11/2014 11:11:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/3/1995
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VIII-K
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19950803
(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.
/
11
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
10 <br /> even though the property may not be contiguous <br /> and asked what mechanism is in place to address <br /> this concern. <br /> Waddell asked for clarification on notification <br /> procedures. Cameron responded that for a <br /> variance, notification is to contiguous owners; <br /> Special Use Permits require notification of <br /> property owners within 500 feet. <br /> Katz continued expressing concern that towers <br /> with strobe lights have impacts far greater than <br /> 500 feet. He felt "if you could see it, you <br /> should be notified" . Waddell asked Staff about <br /> the feasibility of such notifications. The time <br /> involved in determining properties that might be <br /> visually impacted could be excessive and some <br /> other answer to the concern should be found. <br /> Hoecke noted that there are pitfalls in such a <br /> suggestion. <br /> Cameron expressed agreement with the concept. <br /> However, the whole legality of the case is based <br /> on procedure. If one person who may be impacted <br /> is not notified, the whole process could become <br /> null and void. Depending on the type of impact, <br /> visual, traffic, etc. , determining the limit <br /> of affected property would be difficult. She <br /> continued that the County Attorney drafted the <br /> amendment and she would ask for clarification and <br /> guidance from him. Waddell suggested that Staff <br /> discuss this concern with the County Attorney. <br /> Hoecke continued that he was concerned with the <br /> possibility of claims due to the fact that it <br /> could be interpreted very loosely. It would <br /> have to be very carefully thought out. <br /> Barrows stated that there was discussion in that <br /> TAC meetings that development could occur with <br /> citizens knowing about it. She noted that Gene <br /> Bell, Planner, has been sending copies of the <br /> agenda face sheet for the Planning Board and <br /> Commissioners meetings to the Little River TAC <br /> members in order to keep them informed. She <br /> continued that some similar notification might <br /> work for the Special Use process. <br /> Reid expressed concern regarding the consequences <br /> that could occur. Waddell agreed, stating that <br /> was another reason to ask for the County <br /> Attorney's opinion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.