Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> Cup-, -A Fr <br /> when Chapel Hill TOwnshipves zoned, the property was not <br /> zoned Dural Commercial because it was thought to be in <br /> Bingham Township. In 1981 when Bingham TOwnship WaS zoned, <br /> the property was not zoned because it was in Chapel Hill <br /> Township. <br /> A couple who stated they were residents next door stated <br /> their concern that the present good neighbor may sell one <br /> day and they wanted to insure that a bar could not be <br /> placed in an EC-5 zone. <br /> After brief discussion, it was noted that this request would <br /> also be heard at the November 22, 1982 Public Hearing. <br /> AGENDA WM #9: Preliminary presentation of proposed zoning Ordinance Text <br /> Changes <br /> Cannity gave a brief presentation on the proposed changes <br /> to the zoning text. <br /> Section 2.1.4 added an appeal process to Board of COmmissioners' <br /> decisions on Class A Special Use Permits. Section 2.3.3.4 <br /> made the distinction between notice requirements for Class B <br /> Special Use Permits and variances and Board of Adjustment <br /> interpretations. <br /> section 6.16.6.2.g) accessory structures for new home <br /> occupations. There was discussion about restricting peoples' <br /> right to place accessory structures on their lots. Bacon <br /> asked about placement of well houses. Cannity stated there wa. , <br /> Oist?P#41.41 tetweemi lots less than 5 acres and lots more <br /> than 5 acres. Discussion also touched on Section 6.7. There <br /> VMS considerable discussion about the need for these changes <br /> and alternative methods for control. <br /> Section 7.10 requires all changes in a Planned Development <br /> to be approved by the Board of Cemmissioners. Shanklin asked <br /> why all permitted uses in the district could not go into the <br /> Sale space. Hewes concerned with the time delays involved <br /> with proposed Changes. Cannity also indicated that some uses <br /> may be appropriate as accessory uses in a Planned Development <br /> but not as principal uses. He further stated that the impacts <br /> of a development cannot be measured unless the uses are known. <br /> Shanklin asked if it could be possible to indicate general <br /> or broad categories of uses for sections of a development. <br /> Kizer said that the developer might specify all possible uses <br /> during the approval process. <br /> Section 8.4 was being revised with the idea that all administra- <br /> tive procedures from Articles 2, 7, and 8 would eventually <br />