Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-16-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 04-16-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 10:42:28 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 10:35:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/16/1991
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.
/
324
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
DRAFT 3 -18 -91 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br />Design standards were mentioned. Stancil <br />responded that it is a possibility that one <br />of the recommendations from one of the work <br />groups will be for design standards for some <br />node in the future. <br />Eidenier noted that the Target Advisory Committee <br />of the Economic Development Commissions has asked <br />that all of the interchanges be reconsidered. <br />MOTION: Burklin moved to accept the Planning Staff <br />recommendation. Seconded by Cantrell. <br />VOTE: 5 in favor. <br />1 opposed (Waddell) <br />2 abstained (new members) <br />(2) CP -2 -91 Efland Area Study <br />Presentation by David Stancil. <br />This item was presented at the February 25, 1991 <br />Public hearing. Four citizens spoke to the <br />item at the public hearing. One issue was a <br />request for more information. A copy of the <br />abstract information and memorandum, with <br />attachments, of additional information requested <br />at the'public hearing are attachments to these <br />minutes on pages <br />Stancil reviewed the information included in <br />these attachments. <br />The Planning Staff recommends that the Efland <br />Area Study be received by the Planning Board, and <br />that the Efland node adjustment, plan amendment <br />CP -2 -91, be adopted. <br />Jobsis asked if the residents in the proposed <br />node were notified of the proposed amendment. <br />Stancil responded that a sign had been posted and <br />special letters were sent to the residents but no <br />responses were received and none of those <br />residents spoke at the public hearing. Stancil <br />noted that it seemed that there was some <br />confusion about the meaning of neotraditional <br />planning, the end product. He noted that he did <br />not anticipate a great deal of change in the <br />Efland area. There would probably be mixed uses <br />with recommended standards. <br />Eidenier asked about the Habitat for Humanity <br />project was explained. Stancil responded that <br />MiAl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.