Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
inc <br /> 15 <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> VOTE FOR MOTION FOR APPROVAL: <br /> IN FAVOR: (5) Gordon, Walters, Kramer, Pearson, Pilkey <br /> OPPOSED: (2) Shanklin, Yuhasz <br /> Shanklin and Yuhasz opposed the restrictive requirement on <br /> road frontage versus an easement. <br /> MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of Article 4.3 <br /> Pearson secondedf the motion. <br /> • <br /> VOTE: Unanimous <br /> MOTION: Pearson moved approval of Artile 22 <br /> Kramer seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: IN FAVOR: (6) Gordon, Kramer, Pilkey, Walters, Shanklin, <br /> Pearson <br /> OPPOSED: Yuhasz <br /> Staff requested that the Board considered 7e) 1 due to <br /> administrative delays on submitted building permit <br /> applications, in anticipation of this amendments <br /> consideration. <br /> ARTICLEJI NON-CONFORMING MOBILE HOMES <br /> Yuhasz noted this item refers to replacement of mobile <br /> homes. Smith clarified it allowed other types of "dwelling <br /> units" also. Gordon expressed concern with the lack of <br /> discussion on "dwelling units" as this makes a difference in <br /> implementation. <br /> Yuhasz asked why the homes are non-conforming. Collins <br /> responded generally because of the restriction of one unit <br /> per lot. <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the amendment. Pearson seconded <br /> the motion. <br /> Shanklin questioned who would replace a mobile home with a <br /> house. Gordon stated the issue was not "would" but "could" <br /> VOTE: IN FAVOR: (3) Pearson, Shanklin, Yuhasz <br /> OPPOSED: Kramer, Gordon, Pilkey, Walters. <br /> All were opposed to the wording "or dwelling units" <br />