Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
05 <br /> real problem cited, he described the property and noted it <br /> was on a transition area. <br /> Reid Roberts indicated that neither he nor C.D. Smith nor <br /> Jery Van Webster were notified of the public Bearing. Smith <br /> responded that all property owners within 500 feet of the <br /> subject property are notified and that in the case of <br /> Scotttswood, labels for certified, return-receipt notices <br /> were prepared by Data Processing. <br /> McAdams expressed adverse to negotiate with staff and <br /> receive futher imput. <br /> MOTION: Commissioner Carey moved to continue the public hearing <br /> until July 1, 1985. Marshall seconded the motion. <br /> • <br /> Attorney Coleman advised the Board to readvertise the public <br /> hearing and renotify adjacent property owners. <br /> VOTE: The motion carried unanimously. <br /> Agenda Item # JAMES L. FREELAND REXONING <br /> RAFT 4 f/17le:fric—aFilivir4c.. <br /> Presentation by Collins. ref/ <br /> Barbara Paige representive of the Hillsborough Planning <br /> Board noted that the public water and sewer lines for this <br /> area were uanpproved and subject to a connections <br /> moratorium. <br /> There were no further comments on this item. <br /> Agenda Item # WEST 10 MOBILE PARK <br /> Presentation by Smith. . Smith introduced the May 24, 1985 <br /> letter from Philip Post and Associates into the record and <br /> introduced five photos submitted by the applicant of <br /> • existing parks identifying the proposed park. <br /> people were sworn in. <br /> Vickie Bletso, property owner along Squires Road, expressed <br /> opposition to the project, specifically addressing each of <br /> three general findings. She cited concerns with traffic, <br /> outdated trip data and compatibility with existing uses. <br /> She submitted an appraisal comment prepared by John W. <br /> Sharpe. She also entered into the record five photographs <br /> of the site area and one photograph alleged to be of ' the <br /> • mobile home park owned by one of the applicants. She <br /> continued addressing general finding #3 indicating that if <br /> th project is in compliance with the Land Use Plan then she <br /> i not supportive of the plan citing aesthetics <br /> inconsistencies with a stable neighborhood; lack of site <br /> vegetation and screening/landscaping details; desire for <br /> reduction of the number of units to one per five acres; and <br /> a desire to redesign the park to locate the units further <br /> back on the site. <br /> Darrell Garrett, applicant made a presentation on the <br /> Proiect. He deserihAd 1-ha eil-a =nel <br />