Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-19-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 08-19-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2016 12:13:13 PM
Creation date
9/26/2016 11:29:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/19/1986
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.
/
219
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 /> 057 <br /> JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 PAGE 18 <br /> don't like what's going on, they may say 'you don't vote <br /> for me' . If I go to Don Willhoit, I say I don't like it, <br /> he says I'm going to do it anyway, then I am going to talk <br /> to my friends and the next time he is not going to be <br /> Chairman of the County Board. Let's leave it in the <br /> County's hands. Let them make the decision. " <br /> Robert Markunas, resident of Hideaway Estates just north <br /> of the Blackwood Station node and south of the New Hope <br /> Church Road/I-40 Interchange. Mr. Markunas noted he was <br /> pleased to see the revised Land Use Plan and hoped some of <br /> it was due to the input from citizens at some of the more <br /> informal meetings. He expressed some of the objections <br /> from residents of Hideaway Estates to the New Hope node as <br /> follows and did present a petition. <br /> "The New Hope node as originally configured on the Joint <br /> Planning Area Map nearly bisects Hideaway Estates. The <br /> idea of a subdivision with one acre land use per <br /> residential occupancy being included in an industrial node <br /> and being called Hideaway seems to sum up the overall <br /> objection the people had. In addition, if we look at the <br /> rural buffers projected on that map, we see that we are in <br /> effect making a strip by putting, not a node, but I'd like <br /> to think of them as seeds, a seed at New Hope, a seed at <br /> Blackwood and a seed at Whitfield and although they are <br /> drawn as nicely defined circles there will be enormous <br /> pressure for those so-called nodes to link as time goes <br /> on. For sure you will have strip development going north <br /> from Chapel Hill and remember at the same time that <br /> Hillsborough is coming south so that these concepts of <br /> transition zones spreading out or well-defined activity <br /> nodes are more likely to lead to a disappearing buffer <br /> rather than a transitioning buffer. The idea of an <br /> industrial node centered at an interstate interchange at <br /> first examination seems to make a lot of sense; however, <br /> when you look at the services that are available at that <br /> node and you realize there is no sewer available, no water <br /> available and that the secondary roads that are serving it <br /> both in terms of New Hope and 86, are inadequate to <br /> support any major traffic flow, you begin to see the <br /> irrationality in our view of taking what is effectively a <br /> rural buffer that is adequately serving residential needs <br /> and turning it into an industrial node that will probably <br /> attract one or two isolated occupants that will be just <br /> enough to destroy the land for residential use and not <br /> enough to provide the real impetus to the node for which <br /> it is designed. " <br /> George Woodgates, a resident of Barrington Hills, noted he <br /> wished to go on record as being "opposed to the industrial <br /> park at Calvander and a great deal of the planning that <br /> has taken place, including the garbage dump. " <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.