Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
04E <br /> 9 <br /> MOTION: Pearson moved a positive finding on 4.2b. <br /> Walters seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: In favor (5) - Pearson, Yuhasz, Kramer, Shanklin, Walters <br /> Opposed (2) - Pilkey, Gordon <br /> Motion carried. <br /> MOTION: sPearson moved a positive finding on 4.2c. <br /> Walters seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous <br /> The Board indicated item 4.2d was "not applicable" by <br /> consensus. <br /> The Board discussed finding 4.2e. <br /> Walters inquired about building sites under this item. <br /> Collins responded the acreage restriction applied to all <br /> land in the area, not individual building sites. <br /> Gordon responded why this restriction ws included in the <br /> Zoning Ordinance. Smith indicated that it likely reflected <br /> the lack of experience with non-residential development in <br /> the County. <br /> Pearson noted the provision included the word "normally". <br /> Smith responded the wording allowed for some flexibility. <br /> Gordon questioned how one interprets the term "normally". <br /> MOTION: Pearson moved a positive finding on the amount of acerage <br /> proposed because this is not a normal situation. <br /> Kramer seconded the motion. <br /> Walters noted that the zoning lot size restriction was not <br /> normal for an industrial park. <br /> Yuhasz felt the proposed meets the exception implied in the <br /> term "normally". <br /> Gordon noted this is not a normal request as defined by the <br /> Ordinance. <br /> Pilkey indicated that until the Ordinance is revised, the <br /> proposal does not meet the ordinance requirements. <br /> VOTE: In Favor (5) Pearson, Yuhasz, Shanklin, Kramer, Walters <br /> Opposed (2) - Gordon, Pilkey. <br /> Motion carried. <br />