Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-16-1989
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1989
>
Agenda - 05-16-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2017 3:26:43 PM
Creation date
3/10/2017 3:06:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/16/1989
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.
/
252
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 /> . . , <br /> PACE 10 <br /> . . <br /> . ..... . - <br /> • - <br /> -. 4 <br /> . . <br /> 1 10 (Sr 1710). The site is further referenced as lot 20 of Orange County Tax Map 27, <br /> 2 Eno Township; lots 20 A, 47 and 48 of Orange County Tax Map 26, Eno Township; and lot <br /> 3 13 of Orange County -Tax Map 3, Chapel Hill Township. The property which contains 575 <br /> 4 acres is located primarily in Eno Township with the southernmost boundary crossing <br /> 5 into Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road for a distance <br /> 6 of 2900 feet and old N.C. 10 for 4920 feet. The area is currently zoned R-1 <br /> 7 Residential and is shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural Use and Resource . <br /> 8 Conservation on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed <br /> 9 . amendment to the plan would reclassify this site to the 10-Year Transition plan <br /> 10 category.s . . .. . . . • <br /> . . . <br /> 11 . • - : . • , .. - . <br /> 12 . QUESTIONS OR. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD. . <br /> . . . <br /> 14 • • Commissioner Marshall asked when the update of the Comprehensive Plan for the Eno <br /> 15 and. Chapel Hill Township was approved and was told by Collins that it was in July, <br /> 16 1988. ' • <br /> 17 . - - • <br /> 18 -... Commissioner Marshall questioned if the staff and the Planning Board looks at the <br /> 19 . three reasons (changing conditions, error and omissions and changing policies) when <br /> 20 making recommendations to the Board for the annual update of the Plan. <br /> 22 .-7: • ' Mr4.: Collini. indicated. that they do look at those conditions and in particularly 4 <br /> 23 .7.'io see which conditions have changed:- With the construction of 1-40, the potential <br /> 24 :'.for greater demands for development in this area, particular at higher densities, <br /> ,5 -: <br /> - - could be' seen. However, at' that time there appeared to be some agricultural use of <br /> 76 ..... the, property ' and because of the proximity of- Duke FOrest, it could go either way'. , It <br /> 27 was decided to approach it on'the' side of caution rather than on the side of proposing - <br /> 28 ..;*- . • <br /> .....:the extension.:::::`:::::1- -.; - .-:'':•----.•. .1.-..-.::-.-.....`"•-,.?•;':.......-.",•-...: ...-"7".:"'- . . , . . •. . . • ' : <br /> . . . <br /> 30 '' .L" 1- Commissioner Maiihallexpreised concern about the integrity of the Land Use Plan . . <br /> 31f" aile( the'prOCi^si.:by.which changes are made..? She stated she does not'recall discussing ' . <br /> 32 :: this'aspect of the Plan. She stated her understanding of the process is that the Plan . <br /> 33:%; iaupdated every 5 years so that the County has a direction for the future. If these <br /> 34 . changes were adopted in July or August, there would need to be changing conditions <br /> 35 that have occurred since that time to necessitate a change in the Land Use Plan. This <br /> 36 . update was just made and certain criteria have, been established for what the County <br /> 37 expects of Rural Residential. - One thing that was.not expected in a Rural'Residential <br /> 38 area was a full range of urban services. However, Rural Residential is clearly <br /> 39 identified by saying that rural areas are to be developed as low density and low- <br /> -0 density residential. The applied zoning district is R-1 Low Density Residential which <br /> 41 says nothing about changing, conditionS. Commissioner Marshall stated she cannot think <br /> 42 of anything that is going to change conditions more than such a large area suddenly <br /> 43 being taken from something that has been reaffirmed a few months earlier as Low,- <br /> -44 Density Residential and putting this kind of a planned development on it. This is the <br /> 45 way suburbs are created and all the things which are undesirable. <br /> 46 ... - . . . . <br /> Collins' stated that there are a couple of things which have changed during that - <br /> 49 .... time span. One is the whole issue of the school. It was not determined for sure if <br /> 49 ... the school was going in that location. An argument could be made that a school in a <br /> 50. .' rural area is not anything new, but sometimes a school by its very nature brings on <br /> 51 connotations of more development in an area. <br /> • <br /> . . <br /> 53 ' Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the school wIll be filled the minute the <br /> 54 door is open. . <br /> 55 . - - • <br /> 56 , <br /> 57 <br /> 58 . <br /> • . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.