Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
the issue warranted further public discussion. He also <br /> suggested that the University consider using the <br /> seaplanes considered for use in Jordan Lake. <br /> Mary Penta: She stated that as a professional user of the Program, <br /> Chapel Hill Township she valued the flexibility in performing her job. <br /> However, as parent and property owner, she opposed the <br /> increase in the use of the airport by those not associated <br /> with the University or the Program. <br /> Question (Gustaveson): <br /> Response: She perceived a marked increase in air traffic and felt <br /> Horace Williams was badly located. <br /> COMMENTS ON THE ZONING ATLAS <br /> Jim Ray: Why has Article 2.2.3 been changed? Why does it include <br /> Hillsborough Township non-zoned townships? Why are the Towns included in the <br /> Board membership? <br /> Response: (Walker): There is a problem with the lack of representation from <br /> certain townships, particularly Little River. <br /> Response (Kizer) : The membership formula seeks to assure adequate local <br /> representation of local needs and concerns. The Planning <br /> Board is not a judicial body. <br /> Response (Irvin): I voted against having two representatives from each <br /> township in the Planning Board. It is not fair to have <br /> equal representation when some townships have requested <br /> that they be excluded from the application of Zoning <br /> Ordinance. <br /> I feel the Board membership should reflect and respond <br /> to growth pressures as they occur. For example, Bingham <br /> Township is currently experiencing strong growth pressures <br /> and should have greater representation at this time while <br /> Cheeks may experience strong growth pressures in the futur <br /> and would desire a larger Board representation. <br /> Question (Whitted) : Are you questioning having representation from incorporate <br /> areas? <br /> Response (Ray) : Yes. <br /> tr <br /> Cy Hogue: Representing James Freeland. He addressed the zoning of <br /> the tract on Old #10, north of the railroad tract as R-1 <br /> ie.as a non-conforming use. He indicated the preferred <br /> zoning would be I-3 as the land does not perk and does not <br /> have sewer and water services. <br /> Response (Lunsford): She asked if he would desire the 1-3 zoning if he lived <br /> next door to the tract and emphasized the existing resi- <br /> dential landowner's investment in his home. <br /> Paul Sephardt: He noted that there are existing commercial structures <br /> Hillsborough Township in the area. <br />