Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
' PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br /> ' ` DECEMBER 17, 1984 <br /> PAGE 15 DRAFT ' <br /> 063 <br /> AGENDA ITEM #5 MATTERS HEARD AT NOVEMBER 26, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING <br /> ITEM #5a SECONDARY LAND-USE PLAN AMENDMENTS <br /> 1 . KHYE WENG NG AND WIFE <br /> The ,staff presentation was made by Smith. <br /> Wilson and Kizer asked where the Ten Year Transition existed <br /> at this time. Smith. revieweda map showing the plan category <br /> areas and existing development in the area. <br /> Kizer asked:-staff to review the reason for. the. request. Smith <br /> reviewed the-application narrative and noted that the area was <br /> significantly developed already and that remaining undeveloped <br /> lots were not developed because of the inability of the soil <br /> to accept septic systems. Smith noted that the applicants. <br /> wished to provide reasonably priced 'units for middle-income <br /> families. Wilson- questioned the cost. of the lots. Pearson <br /> responded that the lots would be priced less than- Cornwallis <br /> H-ills although both would be. served by public water and sewer. <br /> He noted that the cost of the lots would reflect the cost of <br /> extending water and sewer to the property. <br /> MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment request. <br /> Yuhasz seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: 10 in favor. Pearson abstained. <br /> 2. ,BOB AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR <br /> The staff presentation was made by Smith. <br /> Smith reviewed the location of this property relative to the <br /> Weng tract and the existing Transit ion Area. She also reviewed <br /> existing development patterns in the area. <br /> MOTION: Greenberg moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment request. <br /> Laszlo seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: 10 in favor. Yuhasz abstained. <br /> 3.LANNIE FREELAND <br /> The staff presentation was made by Smith. <br /> Pearson expressed concern that it was unfair of staff to have <br /> not addressed the size of the property being submitted to <br /> amendment and to not have included a larger area to justify <br /> approval of the request. <br /> Shanklin also that the area to be amended should be expanded. <br /> • <br /> Kizer suggested that the options were to approve or deny the <br /> request or to approve the request with a recommendation to <br /> include an expanded area. He expressed concern about penalizing <br /> the applicant. <br />