Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 03-01-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2015 11:56:54 AM
Creation date
2/9/2015 10:53:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/1/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VII-A
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940301
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
existing sower system has a collection and pumpinq capacity of 500, 0oo gallons <br /> per day, and the County has an agreement with the Town of Hillsborough for <br /> them to treat up to 380r000 gallons of the County system's wastewater per day. <br /> Chair Carey noted that although transportation is a concern, the <br /> reality is that many citizens are leaving the county to work elsewhere. He <br /> fools confident that transportation will be forthcoming from the Trianql• <br /> Transit Authority. <br /> Commissioner Gordon made reference to the cost benefit analysis and <br /> asked that the Board direct staff to identify information they should be <br /> collecting in the next two or three years to report back to the Board. she <br /> asked the Planning Board and Staff to come up with some suggestions for the <br /> Board's consideration. She suggested that the County Commissioners may want <br /> to monitor such things as (1) do the jobs go to County residents, (2) are they <br /> good paying jobs, (3) how much residential activity can be traced directly to <br /> this nodes, etc. <br /> Commissioner Insko made reference to page 3 . 3 . 10 in the Design <br /> Manual and asked for clarification on the widening of old 86 and changing it <br /> from five lanes. Marvin Collins indicated that this can be accomplished by <br /> working with the Town of Hillsborough to change the proposed cross-sectio;, <br /> design of old 86. He confirmed that two Hillsborough Town Commissioners have <br /> indicated support for such a change. <br /> Narvin Collins confirmed that right-of-way will be reserved and <br /> used for bus transportation or light rail depending on the density. <br /> Commissioner Insko said that it would help her to know when there <br /> will be a change in the Land Use Plan as a result of the Design Manual. She <br /> tools that if a district is good for Orange County it should be approved <br /> because they now know what the changes in the Lased Use Plan are. One of her <br /> concerns about the I-40/01d 86 node is how the Board will coordinate with <br /> Hillsborough to sake sure there is not strip development all the way out <br /> Churton Street to Old is to 1-40. Hillsborough recommended that there be a <br /> joint process to look at this area and she is supportive of that process. <br /> This node will impact on both the southern and northern part of Orange County. <br /> Chair Carey suggested that all questions and comments be referred <br /> to the Planning Board along with the entire proposal. It feels it will be <br /> necessary for the Board to identify the elements they want to track over the <br /> next few years. He expressed a concern about the need for additional staff <br /> to do the tracking and everything else that will need to be done. <br /> A action was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by <br /> Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this matter to the Planninq Board, along with <br /> Commissioner Gordon's memo, the consents as stated above, and the following <br /> suggestions: <br /> I. Consider removing permitted manufacturing uses from the ?- <br /> 40/Old 86 node, or at least making then special uses; <br /> 2. Consider adequacy of proposed ordinance modifications in <br /> addressing access/driveway cuts onto Old 86, i.e. , property <br /> fronting on Old 861 <br /> 3. Consider phasing of implementation of prezoned areas to <br /> coincide with the extension of sewer service. The character <br /> of development without sewer may preempt the type of <br /> development that is desired; <br /> 4. Residential uses in secondary area 1-40/86: <br /> Consider making residential uses special uses <br /> OCrC•uCm Comm 9116 c.. �� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.