Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-04-1988
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1988
>
Agenda - 04-04-1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2016 9:49:07 AM
Creation date
10/3/2016 3:23:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/4/1988
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.
/
239
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
D � � <br /> W <br /> Lg 1r <br /> 058- <br /> 1 <br /> could be completed and additional amendments <br /> proposed. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> proposed amendments . <br /> Jacobs noted that the time frame for further <br /> consideration is envisioned as part of the <br /> transportation element of the Comprehensive <br /> Land Use Plan. <br /> Hartwell noted that he preferred to see the <br /> lot count in the provisions . <br /> Marshall noted that #2 in the proposed <br /> provisions is a more workable provision than <br /> the one indicating the number of lots . <br /> Hartwell agreed. (Copies of the existing and <br /> proposed provisions included as attachment to <br /> these minutes on pages ) . <br /> Ted Latta expressed concern that #la was too <br /> vague and needed clarification. <br /> Hartwell agreed with Mr. Latta noting that the <br /> developers needed clarity and help now. <br /> • <br /> Carey expressed concern with restrictive <br /> covenants asking if it should be provisions <br /> restricting further subdivision rather than <br /> restrictive covenants . Kirk responded that it <br /> is understood in zoned townships and rural <br /> buffer that minimum lot size is already set <br /> and further subdivision is prohibited. <br /> Ann Joyner, developer, expressed concern with <br /> the lack of specific guidelines. Hartwell <br /> responded that while there still are some <br /> problems with vagueness that this interim <br /> policy does take care of some immediate <br /> problems . <br /> Hartwell moved, seconded by Carey to refer <br /> this item to the Planning Board for <br /> recommendation to the Commissioners on April <br /> 4 . <br /> Vote was unanimous . <br /> c. Comprehensive Plan <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.