Agenda - 05-05-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• • • a� 4 Page 6 • Smith noted that condition 140, 'presented at the January 6 meeting -should be included as part of the • staff conditions. • MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 20,3.2 a-e) . Walters seconded the motion., Best questioned how 23.3 e) was satisfied by the project. He suggested the proposal was a "clone" of the area to the north. • Yuhasz noted the comprehensive plan has designated this area as an activity node where such uses are expected and allowed. Best felt the PD section allows . us to look at these uses and that the project did not carry out ' the purpose of the Land Use Plan. Walters • suggested that availability• y of urban utilities, roads, schools an d services does suggest the project complies wi.th, the Land Use Plan and. was an alternative to the destruction of rural natural resources. Best expressed concern with . redundant uses. Walters noted that an importance difference 1s that homes would be within walking distance of the commercial area. Best suggested it would serve as a magnet and that there was already a Pantry store immediately across St. Mary 's Road from Scotswood. Shanklin responded this would mean less traffic off-site rte on US 70. 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 Walters seconded the notion, on 203.2c) . 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.