Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
n If I 123 <br /> 5 <br /> comments were received that auto repair shops <br /> should not be home occupations, and home <br /> occupations should not be permitted on private <br /> roads. <br /> Subsequent to the meeting, an attorney repre- <br /> senting citizens protesting an existing home <br /> occupation submitted proposals for the consider- <br /> ation of the Board of Commissioners and Planning <br /> Board. Those proposals as well as the County <br /> Attorney ' s response to the proposals are attach- <br /> ments to these minutes. Several options are <br /> available to address the proposals and pending <br /> ordinance amendments. They are as follows : <br /> 1 . Refer the proposed amendments and the pro- <br /> posals received after the conclusion of the <br /> public hearing to the Ordinance Review <br /> Committee for further study. <br /> 2. Prepare a recommendation on the proposed <br /> amendments and forward same to the Commis- <br /> sioners. Refer the additional proposals to <br /> the Ordinance Review committee to study and <br /> present at public hearing in February. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments and <br /> referral of the additional proposals to the <br /> Ordinance Review Committee. <br /> The Board of Commissioners will consider the <br /> proposals for decision on February 1 , 1988. <br /> Collins indicated that the only effect those <br /> recommendations or comments made by Mr. Acker <br /> would have on the proposals already presented at <br /> public hearing would be to perhaps "tighten-up".,. <br /> those proposals even more. He suggesting that the Board approve those proposals presented at public hearing and refer <br /> the remainder of the proposed amendments and <br /> proposals to the Ordinance Review Committee for <br /> further study. Jacobs responded that the <br /> Ordinance Review Committee had already reviewed <br /> Mr. Acker' s letter and it was the general sense <br /> of the committee that most of his proposals were <br /> onerous or unnecessary. He Indicated the <br /> committee would review Mr. Acker ' s letter along <br /> with the County Attorney ' s response if the Board <br /> felt it was necessary. <br /> MOTION: Best moved approval of the Planning Staff recom- <br /> mendation. Seconded by Pilkey. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> (2) Article 13 - Traffic Impacts <br />