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
114 4 <br /> 5-17-85 Chandler barricaded new driveway connecting site to Old NC 10 <br /> and ceased non-conformtng use of property. <br /> 5-20-85 Planning Department met with DEM to discuss project hiStorY, <br /> options, enforcement action, etc., and to conduct site visit. <br /> 5-20-85 Chandler was formally notified by the Orange County Planning <br /> Department that all non-conforming uses of the 4.34 acre tract <br /> must cease immediately until such time as properly zoned. <br /> * This reflects main events and does not include all correspondence or tele- <br /> phone calls regarding rhpriAler Concrete, State Agencies and opponents to the <br /> rezoning request. <br /> - <br /> Bell stated that as of May 20, 1985 DER still had not received necessary <br /> application materials from Chandler. DEN also noted that they had not advised <br /> Chandler to go off site with the retention facilities; in fact, they had <br /> suggested they use the western portion of their tract which was being used to <br /> store concrete barricades at the tire. <br /> The procedures for amending the LJP states three reasons for which the LUP <br /> may be arended. These are: (1) because of changed or changing conditions in a . <br /> particular area or areas of the County; (2) to correct an error or omission in <br /> the Plan; (3) in response to a change in land use policy. <br /> In response to the first test, Staff contends that this area has been <br /> undergoing changes and that the Central Orange Area Study adopted in vember <br /> 1983 adequately addressed these changes. <br /> In response to the second, staff maintains that no errors or omissions <br /> regarding the Chandler property were made in the Central Orange Area Study. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.