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 /> 074 <br /> Page 15 <br /> • <br /> The Board amended h)-.to read "where appropriate" <br /> and by concensus added that "shaded areas are to be <br /> provided within the tot lot area". <br /> There was no. discussion of condition 030. <br /> The Board discussed condition 131 . <br /> Pilkey suggested- the hiring of a forester.• <br /> Margison inquired about internal tree retention. <br /> Smith noted if this was imposed on the Single- <br /> family area it would raise the question of the <br /> desirability of regulation beyond the imposed <br /> buffer requirements. <br /> Jacobs noted that Commissioner Marshall had <br /> requested specific criteria for protecting existing <br /> vegetation. <br /> Smith suggested in response. to the concern that the - <br /> condition be amended to control construction of <br /> improvements to limit clearing. <br /> MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of condition 131 to limit <br /> clearing on the entire area to <br /> installation/construction of. improvements. the <br /> seconded the motion . Kramer <br /> VOTE: 5 in favor <br /> 3 opposed -- Shanklin, Walters, Yuhasz <br /> MOTION: Shanklin- - moved the- extension of the meeting to <br /> conclude this item. Pilkey seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous <br /> There was no discussion of conditions 32--38. <br /> Yuhasz expressed concern about the responsibility <br /> of individual homeowners and the continued validity <br /> of the Special Use Permit if violation occur. <br /> Smith noted that condition 139 has been amended by <br /> staff to add specificity regarding the storm event <br /> standard. <br /> The Board discussed condition 140. <br /> Jacobs inquired how the different housing types <br /> were accounted for . Collins responded any <br /> combination resulting in 25% would satisfy the <br /> condition. <br /> Piikey inquired if commercial uses were included. <br /> Smith 'responded no as these were not typically high <br /> water users. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.