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
18 <br /> 8 <br /> • <br /> was, therefore, hearsay evidence. It is admissible so long as there is no <br /> objection and that the weight attributed to the letter is the choice of the <br /> Board members. <br /> Commissioner Lloyd inquired if Mr. Harder exists. Craig responded that <br /> he is a licensed contractor. <br /> Robert E. Rhine questioned if approval should be given by the Board <br /> after the fact. He asked what Mr. Chandler would have done if the land had not <br /> been available for purchase. He reviewed the history of the ownership and sale ' <br /> of the property.- He noted that the family had listed - a 19 acre tract with <br /> James Rae Freeland of Apple Creek Realty and that he had inquired of him the <br /> Cooing of the property to which Freeland bad responded Residential. He had not <br /> Out a .proviso in his listing to the effect that it could only be used as such. <br /> • He noted that due to irregularities in their relationship he had sought the <br /> • assistance of the Real Estate Board. <br /> Mr. Rhine further addressed the engineering aspects of the project,- <br /> • citing his qualifications to address such a matter. With regards to "space" he <br /> • noted that the area to the west was utilized for the storage of concrete <br /> • barriers which he numbered to be 1000. These barriers are 12 feet long, 2.5 <br /> feet high and 2 feet wide at the base. He noted that if,this property were <br /> unavailable, Chandler would have to store the barriers elsewhere and reorient <br /> . the use of the property within the confines of the industrially zoned portion. <br /> He addressed "slope of the -land/flow of water" by noting that the land can be <br /> made lower or raised. He addressed "washing/cleaning" commenting that on July <br /> 15 Chandler bad indicated he needed 200 gallons to wash and clean 15 trucks and <br /> that they were cleaned every, two weeks. In regards to "flow of traffic" he <br /> cited the potential' removal of the stored barriers for use of driveway A as a <br /> • regular entrance and exit for the plant. He cited the truck circulation map <br /> noting that no comment had been made regarding the use of driveway A versus ; D. <br /> He addressed "parking" noting that 15 trucks had been parked at the facility <br /> • over the weekend. He addressed "noise" asking how much noise the conveyor <br /> system' will generate. When Rhine addressed "facility layout", he maintained <br /> that the directive to be given to the engineers is to show how and why more <br /> land is needed versus how to operate within the confines of the industrial land <br /> already owned. He addressed "business/return on capital" commenting that <br /> Chandler had said he had been led to believe that industrial uses were <br /> permitted, but that he had not commented on when he was notified that the land <br /> could.only be used for residential uses. He expressed concern that the County <br /> would change the zoning to accommodate Chandler's expenditures. Be continued <br /> that Chandler has found or will find a way to operate if the land was not <br /> available for purchase or is still zoned residential. <br /> 'Commissioner Lloyd commented inquired about the barricades. Chandler <br /> responded that W. C. English Construction Co. is constructing the interchange <br /> of I-40 and I-85. This company had requested storage space from local <br /> businesses for the concrete barriers and that Chandler Concrete Co. had <br /> complied with their request. He noted that the barriers are used to divert <br /> traffic at the interchange, <br /> Chandler commented that he had not initiated the purchase of the <br /> property and that he had dealt with the same individual as the Rhines and was <br /> guilty of the same lack of foresight. He indicated he had cooperated with the <br /> State investigation of the real estate firm. He continued that be did not do . <br /> anything with the property from the time of purchase of the land in September <br /> and recordation in October until he was contacted by DEM and told that he had <br /> to control the runoff and suggested where to locate the control facilities. He <br /> was contacted by the Planning Department in March regarding the improper use <br /> of the property and the requirement that all activity cease until he had <br /> applied for approval. He noted he had received a permit to grade the site and <br /> construct the pond prior to being informed of the violation of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance,during the last week in March. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.