Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-06-1981
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1981
>
Agenda - 04-06-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2016 11:28:21 AM
Creation date
9/19/2016 11:24:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/6/1981
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
" " •. , • •' ' •- :4 • <br /> .a‘• !" •• • •...!irp,17..; •.• • <br /> REQUEST OF APPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION <br /> BY THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY <br /> ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING- DEPARTMENT <br /> HILLSBOROUGH <br /> NORTE CAROLINA <br /> 27278 <br /> A0,03 <br /> ctamm.n., <br /> 4, <br /> aftala0 <br /> PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br /> MARCH 24, 1981 <br /> MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Crawford, Chairperson, Steve Kizer, Dr. Alice Gordon, <br /> DavialShanklin, Dr. Logan Irvin, John Wilson, Nancy Laszlo, <br /> Art Cleary, Hazel Lunsford <br /> STAFF PRESENT: Jim Polatty, Fred Luce, Susan Smith, Sissy Ellis <br /> Agenda Item #1 There were no additions to the agenda. <br /> Agenda Item #2 Agenda additions: Gordon suggested the words "of the Planning <br /> Board" be added after the word.:1"by-laws" in the March 16th <br /> minutes page 4 number 2.2.5. <br /> • <br /> Irvin moved that the minutes be approved with Gordon's <br /> corrections. Laszlo seconded. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Agenda Item #3 Policy for subdivision on public non-state maintained roads. <br /> Staff explained the reason for a policy for new subdivisions <br /> on public non-state maintained roads and distributed a memo <br /> (attachment A) concerning this. <br /> Gordon was concerned with whether the entire road had to be <br /> paved or just the part of the road in front of the subdivi- <br /> sion. Staff explained the various policy options, adding if <br /> there were 10 or more lots the entire road would have to be <br /> paved: <br /> Kizer felt that paved,.roads should be required in new subdivi- <br /> sions. And all the residents would have to agree to this. <br /> Cleary feels it is inappropriate and potentially burdensome to <br /> require the subdivision residents to pave the road. <br /> "Gordon moved for minor subdivisions we require that the road <br /> be upgraded to the appropriate private road standards only <br /> across the frontage of the proposed subdivision. The applicable <br /> private road would be determined by the number of lots that AYP <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.