Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-03-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 11-03-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2016 3:33:04 PM
Creation date
9/26/2016 4:09:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/3/1986
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.
/
294
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
13( <br /> DRAFT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 7 <br /> ment is a more suitable approach for rezoning of <br /> this property in that it would not only allow the <br /> Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board to <br /> ‘ consider the specific request again but it would <br /> \ 'I also allow them to look at a specific site plan <br /> Ns for the development of the project. At that time <br /> conditions could be attached to the approval which <br /> would address any concerns that resulted from the <br /> review of the site plan of the request. Because <br /> of the size of the property, there could be <br /> considerable generation of traffic. This would <br /> also be addressed through a Planned Development <br /> request. <br /> Commissioner Lloyd inquired why Planning Staff <br /> would recommend Planned Development when the <br /> applicant met all the criteria for a straight <br /> rezoning. Collins responded that the rezoning <br /> process is a more open-ended process in that the <br /> Commissioners have more latitude in making a <br /> determination as to whether or not to approve or <br /> deny the request. The Special Use or Planned <br /> Development process is more closed in that if <br /> certain findings-of-fact are made, then the <br /> Commissioners must issue the permit. Through the <br /> straight rezoning process the County loses the <br /> ability to mitigate any negative impacts that <br /> result from the project whereas a Special Use <br /> Permit or Planned Development approach would allow <br /> the County to address those impacts while at the <br /> same time allowing the citizen to use the property <br /> as he wished. <br /> Collins submitted photographs showing the present <br /> condition of the property. <br /> Ken Embree, attorney representing the Turners, <br /> indicated he had more information regarding the <br /> letter from DEM concerning the non-compliance. <br /> Mr. Turner did receive a notice of the violation <br /> in May. When the investigator came out and <br /> pointed the violation out to Mr. Turner, he <br /> stopped washing the heavy equipment immediately in <br /> such a way as to cause the discharge and has <br /> refrained from doing so since that time. Mr. <br /> Embree continued that there is a special type of <br /> collection basin that can be constructed under <br /> design specifications from DEM to prevent the <br /> discharge from occurring again. He noted that Mr. <br /> Turner will comply with those regulations in order <br /> to request a permit from DEM; this would enable <br /> Mr. Turner to address the concern noted by <br /> Collins. Embree continued that before Staff knew <br /> about the discharge violation, they had recommend- <br /> ed approval of the rezoning request. Embree <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.