Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2t <br /> MOTION: Kramer moved approval with the three changes <br /> proposed by staff . Seconded by Pilkey. <br /> MOTION AMENDMENT: Jacobs recommended that the Planning Staff be <br /> immediately directed to prepare a watershed <br /> protection ordinance pursuant to the <br /> Water/Sewer Policy approved by the Planning <br /> Board in June, including Little River and Cedar <br /> Grove Townships. <br /> VOTE: 9 in favor. <br /> 1 opposed (Yuhasz - felt that the Draft Plan <br /> was not sufficient to zone the Township and <br /> preferred a plan whereby it could be zoned ) . <br /> Jacobs informed the Board that a Planning Board <br /> member needed to be appointed to the Board of <br /> Adjustment and nominated Dan Eddleman. The <br /> nomination was seconded by Dickinson. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> c. Zoning Atlas Amendments <br /> ( 1 ) PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete <br /> Presentation by Marvin Collins. <br /> Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an <br /> application for a PD- I-3 ( Planned Development- <br /> Industrial -3 ) zoning classification on 2. 0 <br /> acres of property located on the south side of <br /> Old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 86. The <br /> property is currently zoned PD- I- 1-3 and R-1 <br /> Residential , and is designated Ten-Year <br /> Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity <br /> Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has <br /> been made in order to bring an existing wash- <br /> water recycling facility and the use of the <br /> site for trucking parking into compliance with <br /> the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. <br /> A history of the request is as follows: <br /> 10/10/85 <br /> Chandler Concrete Company was granted a <br /> secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned <br /> Development rezoning and Class A Special Use <br /> Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on NC Highway 10. <br /> The request was prompted by State-mandated <br /> requirements to contain runoff from the <br /> existing concrete plant. <br /> 01 12/12/86, <br /> Following a challenge to Orange County ' s <br /> approvals, the court ruled that the Special Use <br />