Agenda - 02-18-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12z DRAFT PB MINUTESI2-4-86 Page 7 Pilkey inquired about separation requirements . Smith responded there were none specified, but that the Land Use Plan set the "density". She cited the adopted Land Use Plan as the policy statement providing for four activity nodes along US 70 between the Durham County line and Hillsborough, adding that the node west of this site is a Hillsborough activity node, not County. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Shanklin agreed to the consideration of a)-d) only. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 20 .3.2c) . Walters seconded the motion. VOTE: 3 in favor - Walters , Shanklin, Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion failed. Jacobs stated that the vote is on the purpose/intent of the Land Use Plan, not the strict interpretation that the activity node exists . Collins asked Board members to state their position for information to the Board of Commissioners . Smith added this is a critical decision and would provide direction in the future. She noted that the lack of discussion did not provide a clear statement of the dissenting positions. Best cited Jacobs ' statement on page 57 of the agenda and the purpose of planned developments . Which reads as follows: "Section 7. 15.1 refers to all Planned Development Commercial Districts , including the PD-GC4 requested by Scotswood. It states that "It is the intention of these regulations to provide for developments , in scale with surrounding market areas , at locations appropriate in terms of the Land Use Plan and Orange County Thoroughfare Plan and in accord with standards set forth herein, L, LYa &L&RA fQl a1Lgath aanmanianjlg and 1/1Qida1alX atgaided with aamiraial and laLxial f aailiiia.a al .ha kind amagaad," (Emphasis added) " Kramer felt it was oor use of P the node. Smith asked the Board members to clarify which aspect of the project they diagreed with. Best and Kramer stated it was the commercial area.