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
27 <br /> to property lines. <br /> VOTE: 6 in favor. <br /> 5 opposed (Allison & Katz - reasons already <br /> stated, Brown - saw no need for expansion of EDD <br /> at this time, Hoecke - felt incentives should be <br /> provided for developers or it would become less <br /> of an Economic Development District, Walters - <br /> felt the undeveloped portion should be a buffer <br /> area. <br /> MOTION: Jobsis moved to accept the Planning Staff <br /> recommendation that the Moren property not be <br /> included in the EDD. Seconded by Katz. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Rosemond made a motion to extend the buffer to <br /> match the northern line of the property. Seconded <br /> by Katz. <br /> Rosemond stated that this motion was made in <br /> response to Howie's concern about buffers and to <br /> be consistent with what has already been done on <br /> the property. <br /> Waddell noted that he was concerned about the <br /> buffering for Cornwallis Hills properties because <br /> there were pre-existing residential properties. <br /> Allison felt this would set a bad precedent and <br /> buffers would have to be determined for each <br /> subdivision when reviewed by the Planning Board. <br /> Price expressed concern with the lack of <br /> protection all along NC 86. <br /> VOTE: 5 in favor (Rosemond, Katz, Brown, Hoecke, <br /> Price) . <br /> 7 opposed (Barrows, Howie, Allison, Reid, Jobsis, <br /> Walters, Waddell) . <br /> Motion failed. <br /> (3) Article 6.29.3 EDD Design Manual <br /> (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment) <br /> Presentation by Mary Willis. <br /> This item is to consider a proposed amendment to <br /> eliminate the requirement for a 100-foot buffer <br /> along the perimeter of an Economic Development <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.