Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> • - • - PAGE 26 <br /> Moody recommended that the wording be made clear that this is for new parks only. <br /> The Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force increased the acreage to 50 acres and <br /> it seems that this staff is working against that. Mobile Home Parks are an excellent <br /> way of providing low and medium cost housing. This amendment is fighting against it. <br /> It places more restrictions on private property. <br /> Roger Stephens, a park owner in Orange County, spoke in opposition to the <br /> amendment. A copy of his written comments are made a part of these minutes by <br /> ) reference and are located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. <br /> Joey Cockley, Durham resident and Orange County Mobile Home Park owner, requested <br /> clarification that this applied only to planned, new parks. He read and accepted that <br /> the one change was going to be from acres to units. However, when he read the <br /> proposed amendment it went a step beyond by requiring a 100 foot perimeter buffer <br /> ; which he opposes. He indicated that he perceived a double standard in the County with <br /> , little encouragement being given to the development of low income housing. <br /> 3 Forrest Heath, a mobile home park owner, asked that it be spelled out in the <br /> 4 Ordinance that this amendment applies to new parks only. He also feels that the <br /> ) County is setting double standards for mobile home parks. He indicated that he could <br /> 1 develop a subdivision and expand it at a later date. However, with a mobile home park <br /> , he would be required to create a park. The size of a subdivision is based on its <br /> merit, but mobile home parks are restricted arbitrarily. He asked that the Board <br /> 3 <br /> consider letting the size of a mobile home park also be decided upon it merits. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ' - <br /> 7 ' ° . „ <br /> - A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell,. seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer <br /> this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the . <br /> Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. <br /> 1 <br /> VOTE: . UNANIMOUS ' <br /> 3 -- <br /> e. Retail Trade • <br /> 4 <br /> 5 (1) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table - See also <br /> . . Item # D.3.b. <br /> No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public <br /> 3 comment on proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments combining sections of the <br /> 9 Permitted use Table to eliminate duplication of text and to correct a typographical <br /> error in Section S43. <br /> - <br /> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD <br /> 22' • <br /> Commissioner Hartwell commented on the proposed change to EC-5 stating that this <br /> 5 addition might suit not only the particular location that caused it to come to the <br /> Boards' attention, but could be compatible with other areas of the county that are <br /> Existing Commercial. This would be a wise thing for the Board to adopt. <br /> 8 <br /> THERE WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS. <br /> 9 <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to <br /> refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the <br /> Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. <br /> 13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br /> 5 <br /> ' <br />