Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-20-1982
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Agenda - 04-20-1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2017 2:58:49 PM
Creation date
12/14/2016 3:35:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/20/1982
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19820420
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
- <br /> U0901 <br /> ri <br /> •T <br /> AGENDA ITEM 0 4: Request by Buck Mountain Development for a Class A Special <br /> Use Permit and rezoning for a Planned Development Office <br /> Institutional <br /> MOTION: Kizer moves for denial of the rezoning to Planned Development. <br /> Office—Institutional request as recommended by Planning <br /> Staff, Irvin seconded. <br /> Kizer gave five reasons for denial, <br /> 1) Concern abouth the ability of the voluntary fire department <br /> to provide adequate protection even with additional equipment <br /> and improvements requested_ <br /> 2) The pressure of additional commerical development that <br /> would follow and the adverse impacts it would have on <br /> Highway 54 and Bingham Township_ <br /> 3) Concern that the location of the property at the edge <br /> of the watershed of Cane Creek and the effects of future <br /> developments on water quality <br /> 4) The proposal is contrary to the stated goals and policies <br /> of the Land Use Plan. <br /> 5) The intensity of development allowed under this request <br /> should have urban services available it will be many years <br /> before those services will exist in this area. <br /> Irvin added a reason for his seconding the motion, The <br /> amount of traffic that would be generated by a development <br /> of this size on Highway 54, <br /> Mohler stated that DOT has said no improvements are necessary. <br /> He did not understand the statement on watershed problems <br /> since the project is not in the watershed. Fire protection <br /> could be supplied with made by developers as requested. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.