Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-05-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 05-05-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2016 9:31:02 AM
Creation date
9/22/2016 9:19:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/5/1986
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.
/
376
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
• - <br /> •• <br /> Page 11 <br /> Walters felt this project could not address school <br /> capacity. He suggested that the school children <br /> would be there whether one project or many were <br /> approved. He noted the problem of overcrowding <br /> already exists and all projects impact the schools. <br /> Kramer expressed concern with the locational <br /> Impacts of water and traffic. <br /> Walters noted rural land cannot .be <br /> development is allowed to be dis ersed. He <br /> If <br /> if a town was desireable, it was bast have added <br /> where services are available. <br /> Yuhasz maintained that the <br /> roads but that. this projectrcould not imp <br /> responsible for all traffic problems on US 70. held <br /> He <br /> felt , the proposed improvements would address the <br /> impact of this project and that the applica nt • had <br /> expressed a willingness to make improvements as t <br /> o SolYe tra ffic problem s the project <br /> will <br /> generate. <br /> Best questioned if the Board was asking them to do <br /> their fair share. <br /> VOTE: 3 In fever <br /> - Walters, Yuhasz, Shanklin <br /> 5 opposed <br /> Motion failed. <br /> MOTION: Shanklin <br /> moved a positive findIn <br /> satisfaction of the standard o in the <br /> maintain or enhance the value that the project will <br /> property. Walters seconded the motion on contiguous <br /> n. <br /> Shanklin felt 'there was no testimony <br /> finding. Kramer indicated there was some the <br /> for less densffi desire <br /> closest to the project had objected the size the lots. He suggested one acre lots around the <br /> perimeter. <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor <br /> 1 opposed - Best <br /> Best <br /> was opposed due to concerns with density. <br /> MOTION; Shanklin moved a <br /> that the project complies ewithd1theon Land nde standard <br /> Walters seconded the motion , Use Plan. <br /> Shanklin noted the project way <br /> area designated In Year ic'cat <br /> ed within an <br /> Transition activity node. Transition and Commercial <br /> VOTE: 6 in favor <br /> 2 opposed - Jacobs, Best <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.