Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-06-1988
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1988
>
Agenda - 06-06-1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2016 12:21:14 PM
Creation date
10/21/2016 11:54:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/6/1988
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.
/
279
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
The Planning Staff reviewed the proposed amenaments <br /> • 245 . and draft regulations and recommended the following <br /> revisions: <br /> To the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment - • <br /> (1) Clarify the language of the amendment in order to <br /> describe more accurately where the requirements <br /> will apply. <br /> (2) Specify that site clearing, construction, and <br /> signs are not permitted in the 50-foot buffer <br /> adjacent to the rights-of-way of the interstate. <br /> • <br /> (3) Define the 100-foot "buffer" as a building <br /> setback. Under the Hillsborough Zoning <br /> Ordinance, this would also prohibit signs within <br /> the 100-foot buffer. <br /> • <br /> (4) In the definition of Building Height Above <br /> Benchmark, refer to the centerline elevation of <br /> the roadway as the bencteMatk, and not "the right- <br /> of-way" . <br /> (5) Determine a limit on_totaI.louilding height. <br /> fi:W • -4- <br /> To the draft Subdivision Regulations - <br /> • (1) On the "Required Landscapin4T Diagram, refer to <br /> Section 4.B.8.c. 1, not 4.5:1'.c. 1. <br /> (2) Under standards for Required Buffers, the first <br /> sentence should cite Article 4 .B.8.d.3, not <br /> 4.B.8.b.3. • <br /> On April 12, 1988, the Planning Staff's recommendation <br /> was. presented to the Planning Board. The Board <br /> requested that the 'Town's proposed design standards <br /> for 1-40/1-85 and draft Subdivision Regulations be <br /> • • presented to the Hillsborough Township Advisory <br /> Council for recommendation to the Planning Board. <br /> On May 3, a meeting of the Hillsborough Township <br /> Advisory Council was held to review the Land Use Plan <br /> update and to make a recommendation on Hillsborough' s <br /> ordinance amendment and Subdivision Regulations. <br /> A quorum was not present with only three TAC members <br /> in attendance. Thus, the TAC was unable to make a <br /> • recommendation to the Planning Board. The members who <br /> were present held a brief discussion of the Town's <br /> proposals. With regard to the draft SUbdivision <br /> • Regulations, the three TAC members agreed that <br /> differences from the County's present ordinance were <br /> minimal and that the Town' s proposal was basically a <br /> good document. 'One member reported that a third draft <br /> of the 1-40/1-85 design standards would be presented <br /> to the Town Planning Board on Thursday, May 5. <br /> The Planning Staff has received the Town's response to - <br /> the review comments made by Staff on the proposed <br /> regulations. Hillsborough has revised its proposals <br /> to clarify the design standards for 1-40/1-85, and <br /> made minor changes to the Subdivision Regulations to <br /> address the recommendations from Orange County. <br /> == <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.