Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-19-1987
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1987
>
Agenda - 05-19-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2016 4:19:00 PM
Creation date
9/29/2016 11:56:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/19/1987
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.
/
318
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
074 <br /> those families affected. 3 <br /> Planning Director Marvin Collins informed the public of changes which <br /> had been implemented to help make the public notices in the newspaper <br /> easier to locate such as the logo which has been added to the top of the <br /> notice and the addition of bold print for each topic that will be heard. <br /> in addition, he has been working with the news reporters to have lead <br /> stories as well as articles in other areas of the papers concerning the <br /> public hearing items. He indicated that the Durham Morning Herald , 'jag <br /> the News an. Observer and the dews of Orange are <br /> those newspapers in which the public hearing notices are placed. He noted <br /> there was a miscommunication about the mailing of the postcards. It was <br /> decided to send them out late rather than not send them at all . <br /> DPFNIpe STATEMENTS <br /> Marvin Collins explained that there are two items scheduled for <br /> public hearing. The first item has to do with a rural buffer study that <br /> was prepared by the Orange County Planning Department at the request of the <br /> Board of Commissioners. The second item has to do with a citizens ' <br /> petition that was presented to the Board of -Commissioners on January 5, <br /> 1987 which requested the Joint Planning Land Use Plan (plan for the <br /> southeastern portion of the County) which was jointly adopted by the Board <br /> of Commissioners and the Town of Chapel Hill be amended to change the text. <br /> The specific text provision requested for amendment is the minimum lot size <br /> standard in the Rural Buffer. That minimum lot size standard was set at <br /> one dwelling unit per two . acres when the plan was jointly approved on <br /> October 13, 1986. The requested amendment is to reduce that standard back. <br /> to the original one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) . <br /> Because both items are separate but interrelated they will be <br /> considered at the same time. <br /> Collins indicated the staff members who would be involved in the <br /> presentation were Greg Szymik (current planning) , Gene Bell and Brad Torgan <br /> (comprehensive/ long range planning) , and Emily Crudup (current planning ) . <br /> =ollowing the Orange County presentation, the Chapel Hill Planning Director <br /> Roger Weldon would make a brief presentation of the Chapel Hill perspective <br /> -egarding the Rural Buffer concept. <br /> Collins began the presentation highlighting some of the points in the <br /> iistory of joint planning. <br /> On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the <br /> , own of Chapel Hill adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. On <br /> dovember 24, 1986, a public hearing was held by the Orange County Board of <br /> 3ommissioners to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning <br /> itias to create the Rural Buffer District and to apply that district <br /> designation to 38,000. acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hlll -Carrboro <br /> area. The most significant change proposed was an increase In the minimum <br /> -esidentlal lot size requirement from 40, 000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two <br /> 2) acres. <br /> One of the concerns of the residents who live within the rural buffer <br /> as the issue of property rights. The owners felt that the two acre <br /> inimum lot size requirement denies them reasonable use of their land. The <br /> oncern presented by the County Attorney previously was also raised by some <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.