Orange County NC Website
CITIZEN'& COMMENTS STATE' COMMENTS <br /> Article 1 <br /> 17. Allen Biermann <br /> Favors strong Zoning Ord. Ordinance 17. Staff disagrees with these cormei <br /> presently being considered strongly The concept of planned developee; <br /> undermines the concepts of a zone. allows both the developer and coy <br /> Opposed to concept of planned develop- greater flexibility while the <br /> meat. Refers to Sec.. 7-15 & 14 and standards imposed protect adjacei <br /> states wording is vague. land from adverse impacts. <br /> 16. Betz Lloyd <br /> Legal counsel should check validity 18. The County Attorney has found no <br /> of Article 1 3-10. wrong with the intent or purpose <br /> sections, <br /> 19. Stanley Bennett <br /> Supports intents of zoning ordinance, 19. Staff has no`,cannment_ <br /> especially Article 1. <br /> 20. Risky Allen <br /> Opposes strong zoning on behalf of 20: Staff has no convent. <br /> future landowners. Not a present Landowner. <br /> 21. Bill Nelson <br /> Opposes strong zoning 21. Staff has no comment. <br /> 22. Josephine Barbour <br /> Opposes zoning ordinance. Stated it 22. Staff agrees that a zoning ordia <br /> imposes on personal freedom: does limit some forms of private <br /> undertakings.. <br /> 23. Norma Shultz <br /> Agrees with Mrs. Barbour (opposes) 23. See comment #22. <br /> regulations as written "we have no <br /> rights" <br /> Article 2 <br /> 24. Tony Sevier <br /> Refers to Article 2, 2.12 Promotes 24. The wording of this section has <br /> private industry mbcUfi:ed. <br /> 25. Ben Lloyd <br /> Pg 2--2-10 (2-5c) Suggests this be 25. The Planning Board has deleted t <br /> deleted as it does not agree with 2-2-10. Subsection. <br /> Pg. 2-6 Bad attitude of Board. to See Comment #24. <br /> protect public interest over private <br /> interest. <br /> Pg. 2-14 Questions Tech. Adv. Comm. t.. This sectiau has been xe-writtem <br /> Is it in place and functioning? expanded to more Clearly define <br /> purpose* <br /> URAFT <br />