Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
PVISMININVINIMIP <br /> ERDMArs , BOGGS AND HARKINS <br /> , <br /> ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> BOLIN CREEK CENTER,SUITE 104—A <br /> 730 AIRPORT ROAD <br /> POST OFFICE Box 427 <br /> CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 <br /> DAVID W.ERDMAN 9I9-929-0375 CHARLOTTE OFFICE <br /> DAVID C.BOGGS <br /> 704-372-7664 <br /> HARRY H.HARAINS,JR. <br /> KEVIN L.BARNETT <br /> July 31, 1985 <br /> Honorable Donald Willhoit <br /> Chair, Orange County Commission <br /> 203 Lexington Road <br /> Chapel Hill, NC 27514 , <br /> Dear Don: <br /> As you may recall, we represent Betsy Rhine, Bob Rhine <br /> and Dr. Sally Feather who own property across from the <br /> Chandler Concrete Company plant on Old N.C. 10 near <br /> Hillsborough. Our clients are opposing Chandler's request <br /> to change the Land Use Plan to permit expansion of its <br /> commercial activity (LUP-2-85) . We spoke against the <br /> proposed change at the May 28 public hearing, and the <br /> Planning Board has recommended against the change. It is <br /> on your agenda for next Monday night. <br /> We wanted to express our concern over a couple of <br /> post-hearing developments. It is our feeling that the <br /> quarterly public hearing is the appropriate forum for all <br /> interested parties to state their contentions. Then, the <br /> Planning Board and Board of Commissioners should make their <br /> decision based on the record developed at the hearing. <br /> In this case, after the public hearing, Chandler has <br /> apparently scaled down its request that 4.34 acres be changed - <br /> to 1.14 acres. The staff recommended to the Planning Board . <br /> that 0.86 acres be changed. We have had no opportunity to <br /> • make a formal presentation to the joint Boards on either new <br /> proposal. Although my clients were allowed to speak at the <br /> Planning Board meeting, this seems an unnecessarily chaotic ' <br /> way of proceeding. If Chandler wishes to amend or change its <br /> proposal after the public hearing, their new proposal should <br /> be open to public debate and comment at another hearing. <br /> We do not believe it is good policy for an applicant to be <br /> allowed to sneak in a new proposal without an opportunity <br /> for comment from all interested parties. <br /> . In any event, we wanted you to know that our clients <br /> oppose any change in the Land Use Plan for any of the Chandler <br /> property. I will not burden you with repeaTifig any of our <br /> contentions made at the public hearing. However, in light <br /> of Chandler's "new" proposal, a couple of points need to <br /> be stressed. <br />