Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
,v"-o-rg r /carp/nO /Vale- h` fzt#46 /4MI <br /> real problem cited. he described the property and noted i <br /> • was on a transition area. <br /> 052 <br /> Reid Roberts indicated that neither he nor C.D. Smith no <br /> Jery Van Webster were notified of the public Hearing. Snit <br /> responded that all property owners within S00 feet of tb <br /> property are notified an&.that in the case o <br /> Scotttswood, labels for certified, return-receipt notice <br /> were prepared by Data Processing. <br /> McAdams expressed adverse to negotiate with staff az <br /> receive father input. <br /> ACTION; Commissioner Carey moved to continue • the public . hearir <br /> until July 1, 1955. Marshall seconded the motion. <br /> Attorney Coleman advised the Board to readvertise the publi <br /> hearing and renotify adjacent property owners. <br /> TOTE: The motion carried unanimously. <br /> Ngenda Item # °.. . JAMES L. FRRELAND REZONING <br /> NTT <br /> • . Presentation by Collins. <br /> Barbara Paige representive of the Hillsborough Plannia <br /> Board noted that the public water and sewer lines for th. <br /> area were uanpproved and subject to a connectioe <br /> moratorium. <br /> There were no further comments on this item. <br /> Agenda Item # WEST 10 oB3LE' ARK • • - <br /> Presentation by Smith. - Smith introduced the May 24, 19 <br /> letter from Philip Post and Associates into the record a <br /> introduced five photos submitted by the applicant <br /> • <br /> existing parks identifying the proposed park. <br /> people were sworn in. <br /> Vickie Bletso, property owner along Squires Road, express <br /> opposition to the project, specifically addressing each <br /> three general findings. She cited concerns with traffi <br /> outdated trip data and compatibility with existing use <br /> She submitted an appraisal comment prepared by John <br /> Sharpe. She also entered -into the record five photograr <br /> • of the site area and one photograph alleged to be of t <br /> mobile home park owned by one of the applicants. <br /> continued addressing general finding #3 indicating that <br /> th project is in compliance with the Land Use Plan then <br /> i not supportive of the plan citing aesthet: <br /> inconsistencies with a stable neighborhood; lack of s: <br /> vegetation and screening/landscaping details; desire : <br /> reduction of the number of units to one per five acres; <br /> a desire to redesign the- park to locate the units fort] <br /> back on the site. <br /> Darrell Garrett, applicant made a presentation on - <br /> rrn-ies..i+ <br />