Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
P <br /> 7� <br /> DRAFT PB MINUTES 2-4-86 <br /> Page 12 <br /> Yuhasz maintained that the project will impact <br /> roads but that this project could not be held <br /> responsible for all traffic problems on US 70 . He <br /> felt the proposed improvements would address the <br /> impact of this project and that the applicant had <br /> expressed a willingness to make improvements to <br /> solve traffic problems the project will generate. <br /> Best questioned if the Board was asking them to do <br /> their fair share. <br /> VOTE: 3 in favor - Walters , Yuhasz , Shanklin <br /> 5 opposed <br /> Motion failed. <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved a <br /> satisfaction of the standard vthat fthe �project will <br /> maintain or enhance the value of contiguous <br /> property. Walters seconded the motion. <br /> Shanklin felt there was no testimony disputing the <br /> finding. Kramer indicated there was some desire <br /> for less density. Shanklin noted that those <br /> closest to the project had objected to the size of <br /> the lots . He suggested one acre lots around the <br /> perimeter. <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor <br /> 1 opposed - Best <br /> Best was opposed due to concerns with density. <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive that the project complies withd1theoLand eUse aPlan. <br /> Walters seconded the motion. <br /> Shanklin noted the project was located within an <br /> area designated Ten Year Transition and Commercial <br /> Transition activity node. <br /> VOTE: 6 in favor <br /> 2 opposed - Jacobs , Best <br /> MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval with conditions to be <br /> attached. Walters seconded the motion. <br /> Kramer inquired how specific the conditions needed <br /> to be. Smith noted they should be as specific as <br /> possible. <br /> Kramer expressed concern with the lack of policy by <br /> the Board of Commissioners . <br />