Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-30-1985
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1985
>
Agenda - 09-30-1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 8:18:00 AM
Creation date
9/12/2016 3:02:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/30/1985
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
279
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
016 <br /> DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-18-85 10 <br /> plan review process has been added along with <br /> requiring a statement of finaal responsibility <br /> and ownership . <br /> The Erosion Control Officer has added a change <br /> to the appeal process that is not requested by <br /> the Sedimentation Control Commission . The <br /> change in Section 19 allows the first appeal of <br /> a denial by the Erosion Control Officer to be <br /> made to the Planning Director instead of first <br /> holding a public hearing on the matter. <br /> The proposed revisicins to the Ordinance along <br /> wth explanatory notes are included in the <br /> 'attachments . <br /> The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed <br /> revisions be sent to the special November 4• <br /> Public Hearing . <br /> Shanklin inquired about the "pollution of <br /> water" referenced in Section 2 Cl ) . Faircloth <br /> responded this covered pollution generated by • <br /> earth moving activities . Gordon noted that <br /> this tracks the State definition . <br /> . ShankLin also questioned Section 4 about the <br /> more restrictive provision . Smith responded <br /> that the enabling legislation is both enabling <br /> and prescriptive . Faircloth responded that <br /> some activities are regulated by the State and <br /> others by the County . <br /> Gordon questioned Section 17 a(2) as to why no <br /> permit is needed for stock piling of raw or <br /> processed sand , stone or gravel . Faircloth <br /> responded this prevents double erosion control <br /> permitting as these activities are already <br /> permitted by the State. He noted that this <br /> probably addresses a problem the State has with <br /> enforcement : Gordon asked Faircloth to check <br /> with State to see if we can require a permit . <br /> Faircloth responded that these permits come <br /> under the State's jurisdiction under a Mining <br /> Act . <br /> Gordon noted in Section 18 f, the reference to <br /> "his" attorney should be his/her attorney. <br /> Gordon questioned Section 22 Penalties , as to <br /> whether the $100 penalty is set by the <br /> Commissioners . Faircloth responded that this <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.