Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-22-1982
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Agenda - 11-22-1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2017 8:38:02 AM
Creation date
4/4/2017 2:32:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/22/1982
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19821122
(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.
/
161
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
12't 811 <br /> entrances to the site have good sight distance in both directions. <br /> The service entrance which is 186' north of the public entrance <br /> should be paved according to state sctndaryp7�road <br /> dti standards rather <br /> than be a gravel road as suggested in <br /> The physical character of the site lends itself to the proposed <br /> development. The site plan shows a 100' wide buffer along the property <br /> lines to the north, east and south. The high elevation of the site <br /> is 702' near where the developer proposed to install a radio communi- <br /> cation tower to a low point of 631' near the northern property line <br /> at NC 86. The site plan indicated that a good amount of the existing <br /> vegetation should remain, considerable clearing and <br /> gradin$ involved in construction of the proposed outdoorstorage <br /> areas. <br /> The building does not exceed the maximum allowed floor areas, or <br /> heights. Nor does it exceed the maximum allowed intensity of develop- <br /> ment. The signs, used to identify the project and give directions within <br /> the project shall meet all sections of Article 9. <br /> This concluded the verbatim portion of Mr. Cannity's evidence; he cited Plan- <br /> ning Staff's suggested conditions if the Permit.is approved. Those conditions follow: <br /> 1. That all signs for the development shall be according to <br /> Section 7.16 and Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> 2, Drainage, soil erosion <br /> bynOrangesedimentation shall <br /> County. The ins <br /> reviewed and approved installation <br /> r <br /> of control devices and on going construction work shall be <br /> inspected by Orange County. The site shall at all times be <br /> in oonformance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation <br /> Control Ordinance. <br /> 3. That the proposed dumpster be placed on a 10' x 20' concrete <br /> pad 6" thick, with wire mesh. <br /> 4. That the service entrance from NC 86 to the entrance gate <br /> into the storage yard be paved to NC DOT secondary road stan- <br /> dards. <br /> S. That the developer mark the 100' buffer on the perimeter <br /> of the site and take precautions to insure that the grading <br /> contractor does not disturb the area. <br /> 6. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating <br /> all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval <br /> of the project are incorporated herein and made part of the <br /> Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative <br /> are to be maintained on file with the Orange County Planning <br /> Department. Only those uses specified in the project narrative <br /> and on the site plan, including but not necessarily limited to <br /> the offices, warehousing, maintenance service and outside storage <br /> of utility materials will be permitted at the office facility. <br /> All improvements as indicated shall be constructed according <br /> to the construction schedule set forth in this permit. <br /> 7. The following construction schedule shall be adhered to by the <br /> applicant. Construction shall begin within six months of the <br /> issuance of the Special Use Permit. <br /> 8. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, <br /> sewer and cost to the hookups to the devel- <br /> provider. <br /> Planning Board Member Wilson asked Mr. Cannity a question about the buffer on <br /> the northwest side. Mr. Cannity responded that the property at the northwest corner <br /> was transvetsed by a road and by drainage lines for the septic tank. Mr. Cannity <br /> • continuing to respond to Mr. Wilson said the fence was not on the property line but <br /> • 100' feet in. Mr. Cannity added that staff recommended as a condition that the <br /> • buffer be clearly marked on the ground and that the grading contractor be made aware <br /> of the existence of the buffer. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.