Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
041 <br /> r PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br /> DECEMBER 17, 1984 DRAFT <br /> PAGE 20 <br /> Laszlo expressed that she was more concerned about the <br /> inconsistency of the Town's comments with their endorsement <br /> of the Land Use Plan amendment.and area study. <br /> Wilson expressed concern about housing adjacent to the railroad <br /> tracks. Pearson questioned how this area was different from <br /> the homes existing in Wildwood subdivision. He asked if setbacks <br /> from the railroad track could be imposed through the subdivision' <br /> process. Collins responded yes. <br /> Kizer noted that there was already a setback from the railroad <br /> with the railroad right-of-way. He indicated that the railroad <br /> right-of-way made a logical: division between housing and commercial <br /> or industrial development. <br /> Gordon clarified that at issue was density. <br /> Yuhasz noted that the advantages of a Residential-4 district was <br /> that it allowed flexibility in lot width and design and that <br /> the resulting density would not necessarily reach four units to <br /> the acre. <br /> Shanklin felt that in the area there was no basis for requiring <br /> less density than that requested. Wilson felt that there was <br /> basis: in approving a less dense zoning district. <br /> Kizer called the question. <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor. Gordon, Pilkey and Wilson opposed. Yuhasz abstained. <br /> Burnette left at 10:05. <br /> 5f. I-40/OLD NC 86 AREA STUDY <br /> Smith made the staff presentation. <br /> Gordon reviewed the history of this item. <br /> Smith reviewed the changes made from the original submittal <br /> to the revised submittal to public hearing. She also reviewed <br /> the minutes of the public hearing. <br /> Walters noted that Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, <br /> and the EDC feel that the County is overlooking opportunities for <br /> commercial and industrial development. He noted that there was <br /> not enough support expressed by the business community to support <br /> the plan. <br /> Pilkey noted that Price was not at the public hearing to speak to <br /> the plan. Smith indicated that the EDC had reviewed the original <br /> submittal and had given there recommendation uf the proposal at <br /> one of their meetings. She added that the EDC recommendation_had <br /> been entered into the record of the original public hearing. <br /> Gordon asked if there were any other industrial sites proposed. <br /> Smith resonded none south of. 1-85 under. the current plan. <br /> Yuhasz asked if any were likely to be designated. Smith responded <br /> it would be considered under the New Hope Road interchange area <br />