Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-E
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 10-02-95
>
Agenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2015 2:56:10 PM
Creation date
1/7/2015 2:55:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/2/1995
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-E
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19951002
(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.
/
27
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
26 <br /> Reid stated that his view of development in the <br /> area would be office - and he felt a step-down <br /> should be put in place now. <br /> Howie suggested that a primary overlay would be <br /> appropriate because of the Special Use Permit <br /> process. <br /> Jobsis stated that if this area is designated <br /> secondary, it is unlikely that adjacent <br /> properties could apply for primary designation. <br /> Rosemond suggested that an increase in the buffer <br /> be added to the motion. It was determined that <br /> the motion should be voted on as it was made for <br /> secondary and other motions made as necessary. <br /> Allison asked if a primary with overlay would <br /> close down the potential for further Primary <br /> designations. Willis responded that the Primary <br /> overlay being referred to is Primary Development <br /> Area with additional restrictions. She continued <br /> that it was not the intent of Staff to look at a <br /> major expansion of the district. Staff felt it <br /> was more a "clean-up" item to deal with two <br /> specific pieces of property. <br /> Walters stated that the EDD had decreased in size <br /> from what had originally been proposed. Willis <br /> agreed. <br /> Katz stated he had heard no compelling argument <br /> for EDD expansion in terms of what is trying to <br /> be achieved by having a development district. <br /> The arguments have all been for the advantage <br /> of the land owner and/or developer. <br /> Walters noted that there had been a question from <br /> Commissioners at the public hearing about why the <br /> property was split rather than following property <br /> lines. Willis responded that the initial boundary <br /> was based on natural features with little <br /> emphasis on property lines. <br /> Barrows asked for clarification of the motion. <br /> The response was secondary EDD with a 100-foot <br /> buffer for the Addison property. <br /> Jobsis responded to Katz 's comment regarding <br /> expansion of the EDD. She noted that the <br /> original Economic Development group was trying to <br /> get a sizable area for development in the County <br /> at a logical place and this area was one of those <br /> places. She felt that the creek was probably the <br /> reason the district was stopped rather than going <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.