Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-05-94-IX-C
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 10-05-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 10-05-94-IX-C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2016 8:31:23 AM
Creation date
10/7/2016 8:29:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/5/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-C
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
25 <br /> Draft 9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes <br /> AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/22/94) <br /> a. Economic Development Districts Amendments <br /> ( 1 ) CP-4-94 I-85/US 70 Economic Development <br /> District <br /> (2 ) Z-4-94 I-85/US 70 Economic Development <br /> District <br /> (3 ) Approval Procedures <br /> (The abstract information with proposed ordinance <br /> amendments and other supporting documentation are <br /> attachments to these minutes on pages . ) <br /> Presentation by Marvin Collins. <br /> Collins stated that the amendments related to <br /> Economic Development Districts involve amendments <br /> to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan <br /> and also the zoning district boundaries of the <br /> Economic Development District. Collins explained <br /> the proposed expansions and adjustments using the <br /> maps included in the attachments. He also <br /> reviewed and explained the primary and secondary <br /> EDD's and buffer requirements (also included in <br /> the attachments) . <br /> Collins continued that the property owners who <br /> have requested that their properties be included <br /> in the ED District could request that their <br /> property be rezoned to some other non-residential <br /> district. If that request was approved, then, <br /> they would not, be subject to the design standards <br /> applicable within the Economic Development <br /> District. So, in one sense, if the boundaries <br /> are extended, the property owners are going to be <br /> subject to a higher set of standards than if they <br /> applied for a straight rezoning. Collins also <br /> explained the public hearing procedure if a <br /> property owner could not adhere to the design <br /> standards. <br /> Waddell stated that citizen comments at the <br /> public hearing indicated support for the <br /> extension to the east but not to the west. There <br /> was also a question of prohibiting access to Old <br /> NC 10 by those properties and/or requesting a <br /> berm along NC 10 to shield the residential areas <br /> to the south of NC 10 . Collins responded that <br /> the Design Standards would have to be amended <br /> in order to specifically require a berm in that <br /> location and/or limit access to Old NC 10 . . <br /> Collins continued that the other item involving <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.