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
52 <br /> responded that all of the objectionable uses that <br /> have been identified at various meetings have been <br /> deleted from the list of permitted uses. The most <br /> up-to-date version of the Permitted Use Table is a <br /> part of the abstract attachments in this agenda <br /> packet. Collins explained the breakdown of uses <br /> contained in the table noting that I-40/Old NC 86 is <br /> the most restrictive, I-85/Buckhorn is a step-down, <br /> and, the one with the widest range of permitted uses <br /> is I-85/US 70. The attempt was to include uses that <br /> would not be objectionable, but consistent with uses <br /> already in the County or within this region, <br /> particularly the Research Triangle Area/Park. For <br /> I-4/Old NC 86, the attempt was to model it somewhat <br /> after the research applications district that is <br /> contained in the Durham City/County Ordinance. <br /> Reid asked about the possibility of amendments. <br /> Collins responded referring to Commissioner Gordon's <br /> suggestion regarding monitoring for two or three <br /> years. He indicated continuous monitoring would <br /> take place to be sure the results are those desired <br /> by the County. If that is not the case, then <br /> changes could be proposed. <br /> Barrows referred to the letter from Roy Roth and his <br /> comment that "the rationale for accepting or <br /> rejecting a permitted use seems somewhat arbitrary" . <br /> She asked how Collins would respond to that comment. <br /> Collins responded that the manufacturing uses had <br /> been reviewed again and the thought was to be at <br /> least restrictive as the research applications <br /> district in the Durham City/County Ordinance but, <br /> recognize that there are other uses which could go <br /> into the node which have no adverse impact. <br /> Collins continued that the other types of uses, <br /> office, distribution, retail were reviewed. The <br /> only concern with office and distribution seemed to <br /> be a specific concern with things like truck <br /> traffic. For retail, the concern that was voiced was <br /> "we don't want another strip" . The way this was <br /> addressed was through allowing those uses on a <br /> Special Use Permit basis. <br /> Collins noted that in reviewing the I-85/Buckhorn <br /> district, Ted Abernathy, EDC, had indicated that one <br /> of the things that has to be considered is what is <br /> right next door, which, in that case is Mebane's <br /> manufacturing zone. In looking at the range of <br /> permitted uses in that zone, the decision was made <br /> to allow a wider range of manufacturing uses and <br /> distribution and put other uses in a Special Use <br /> Permit category. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.