Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-06-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 01-06-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 9:33:56 AM
Creation date
9/19/2016 3:27:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/6/1986
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.
/
249
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
053 <br /> 7=.ArT PSM MINUTES 12--15--r5 <br /> PACE 23 <br /> MOTll;tl . '', Kizer <br /> moved netative findings on 20 <br /> Second!: .. ey �:;• � � •*� <br /> Yuhesz expressed concern that the decision was <br /> • <br /> being pads due: to what the Board <br /> happen " . Kizer respor . eepressin "thinks <br /> i <br /> coicer with <br /> the limit cf commercial acreage at the <br /> node . `, He <br /> felt this defeated the puri_oso• of the commercial <br /> node . <br /> Gordon noted the burden of proof is on the <br /> applicant in a general rezoning .application . <br /> Yuhasz stated that the decision had already been <br /> made designating this as a commercial node. <br /> Walters expressed concern with traffic impact . <br /> M 'OT'/ON.: Adjournment time was reached . <br /> extension of meeting 'to complete AgendlkeItemo#Se <br /> (Hill Rezoning ) . Seconded by Kizer . <br /> VOTE : . Unanimous . <br /> Jacobs ir:quired if denial of the rezoning re H uest <br /> would make it impossible for the pre—existing use <br /> to expand . Kizer responded that to. allow to <br /> continue is not the same thing as allowing <br /> expansion . Collins commented that under the <br /> designation EC-5 the business could expand . Kizer <br /> noted this wouLd be only on the zoning lot if it is <br /> Large enough to accommodate expansion . <br /> VOTE : (Motion -- negative finding on 20 .3 . 2e) <br /> 5 in favor . (Gordon , Best , Kizer, Mergison , Pilkey) <br /> 5 opposed . (Jacobs , Pearson , Shanklin , Walters , <br /> Yuhasz) <br /> Motion for negative finding failed . <br /> MOTI. OMe Shanklin moved positive findings on Articl 4. 2• <br /> Seconded by Pearson . <br /> Pearson noted that the use was not stated in the <br /> rezoning request . Kizer responded that it was <br /> stated at the public hearing and not denied by the <br /> applicants that expansion was the intent . Shanklin <br /> noted it was "elleged" not "stated" . Yuhasz stated <br /> that once the property was rezoned, it did not <br /> matter what the applicant says he is going to do <br /> but what he is allowed to do under an LC-1 <br /> designation . Kizer read from the application <br /> the i �� .:r�. ; e:: -. - �,. _ FP Li cation that <br /> expand office facility within <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.