Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-02-1987
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1987
>
Agenda - 11-02-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2016 11:41:41 AM
Creation date
10/4/2016 3:42:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/2/1987
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.
/
244
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
146 10 <br /> to the most recent traffic count. Seconded <br /> by Kramer. <br /> Yuhasz commented that he felt this gave no <br /> guidance to the general public noting that <br /> this seemed to be very indefinite. <br /> AMENDMENT TO MOTION : Yuhasz asked for an amendment to the motion to <br /> change the number from 5,000 to 3,000 and <br /> leave the balance of the amendment as <br /> proposed . This amendment was accepted by <br /> Eddleman and Kramer. <br /> VOTE : 4 in favor. <br /> 5 opposed. <br /> MOTION : Margison moved to change the word "may" to <br /> "will " and 5,000 to 3,000. Seconded by Best. <br /> Szymik cautioned the Board against adopting <br /> any proposal that was mandatory. The <br /> Subdivision Regulations do not have a variance <br /> procedure. If the proposal was adopted with <br /> mandatory language it would leave the County <br /> with no option with regards to subdivisions <br /> where application of these access restrictions <br /> would create a hazardous situation. The <br /> County would either have to approve the <br /> application with hazardous access or deny the <br /> subdivision. The permissive language in the <br /> original proposal would give the County <br /> latitude in applying the access restrictions <br /> and is recommended by Staff . <br /> MOTION: Best withdrew his second to the motion by <br /> Margison and moved to reconsider the previous <br /> motion of only changing 5,000 to 3,000. <br /> Seconded by Kramer. <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor. <br /> 2 opposed (Lewis & Margison - both felt the <br /> proposal was too confusing and needed more <br /> work) . <br /> MOTION: Pilkey moved to withdraw the proposal and send <br /> it back to the Ordinance Review Committee for <br /> further consideration of traffic impact <br /> analysis and the problem of insufficient data <br /> as well as consideration of the significance <br /> of the word "shall " or "will " as opposed to <br /> "may". Seconded by Kramer. <br /> VOTE : Unanimous. <br /> IV-B-3-c-10 Driveways <br /> Point #2, add the following statement: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.