Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br /> '` , <br /> n <br /> 2.. <br /> 2. <br /> 18. <br /> I <br /> 4• Mrs. James RippY. an adjacent property owner, asked the difference between <br /> S. a-i and R-3 zones. Mr. Cannily responded no her satisfaction. <br /> I <br /> • C. 3. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS <br /> 7. Mr. enr,niny made the presentation on the proposed zoning text amendments to <br /> ils the Boards. (Mr. Cannity's verbatim remarkes are on pages of this book.) <br /> 9. Following his presentation on the proposed changes, Mr. Cannily responded to <br /> 10. questions from the Boards and members of the audience, clarifying the changes as <br /> 11• and if necessary. <br /> 12.. C. 4. AMENDMENT TO TEE? L. USE PLAN—PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY <br /> 13. Ms. Susan Smith, of the Planning Staff, made the presentation to the Boards <br /> 31. on the proposed amendment to the Lead Use Plan for Piedmont Power Company. She <br /> 9. cited the location on MC 86 and said the request is reasonable given the proposed <br /> i , use and it is not incompatible with existing development. <br /> 1.x. Mr. Delman Adams, representing Piedmont Power's erchicectural firm, said <br /> 18.. the site had been purchased in 1974 and it had been Piedwanc's intention to locate <br /> 19. its facility on that site. <br /> 20. Ms. Hazel Lunsford, speaking as a private citizen, spoke- in opposition to <br /> 2i. the proposed changes; she cited the changing character of the area from its present <br /> 24. rural character. She said her opposition was not directed at the company. <br /> 21. Mr. J. T. Squires from Fayetteville spoke for Mr. and Mrs. Millis who own <br /> 241. property along NC 86. He wanted to know what the effect of the proposed use <br /> 25. would be on Mr. and Mrs. Millis' property. to asked if the buffer tone is <br /> 26. entirely on Piedmont's property. Mr. Cannily replied yes. <br /> 27. Mr. Cannily, responding to Commissioner klillhoit, said Piedmoac had acquired <br /> 29. the property in 1974 and even if Piedmont's plans had been known that knowledge <br /> 29� would not have affected the designation given the site during the zoning process. <br /> i <br /> 30. Co, icsioner 'Willhoit asked if money had been expended for planning on the <br /> 32. site at the time zoning was adopted. <br /> 32. Mr. Adams replied that he did not know when zoning was implemented in Orange <br /> i <br /> ' 334 County, however, following the purchase his firm had been commissioned to do the <br /> 1 <br /> 34, <br /> site study. He added that the "final map" indicated than the site vas to be used <br /> 35, for office purposes, "storage yard and related power company facilities_" <br /> 36i Hs. Smith, responding to Ms. Crawford said that the plat recorded showed <br />