Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-06-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 05-06-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 10:50:37 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 10:39:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/6/1991
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.
/
478
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
6 <br />Dpaff� <br />Stancil noted that he has not been informed of <br />any discussion of the Board of Commissioners <br />regarding the proposed joint work group. <br />stancil reminded the Board that only about half <br />of the strategies are being recommended with the <br />remainder to be left for further discussion. <br />Burklin noted that the only two options being <br />considered are two -acre and five -acre lots. He <br />continued that the Rural Character study <br />Committee is concerned and disappointed that the <br />complete package of strategies is not being <br />considered. The fear is that the remaining <br />options will never be considered. Burklin <br />indicated he would suggest that the Board of <br />Commissioners continue to work toward discussions <br />and adoption of the remaining strategies. He <br />noted that there was a great deal of public <br />support and favorable comment on the complete <br />package of strategies. Burklin said he would not <br />consider this a recommendation but, that he did <br />wish to share his concerns. <br />Cantrell expressed concern that with the <br />strategies being recommended, there would be <br />continuous, monotonous two- acre.lot development <br />with no centers of any kind. <br />Stancil stated that end -to-end two -acre lot <br />development is not rural. He noted that this <br />point was made over and over again by the <br />study committee. <br />Eidenier stated that the Commissioners wanted <br />the Rural Character Study Committee <br />recommendations approved in their entirety. The <br />Chapel Hill Town Council would only approve <br />options A and B; they wanted more discussion on <br />the remainder with the elected officials. <br />Eidenier stated, that, individual discussions <br />with Commissioners indicated they did not feel <br />more discussion was necessary and they endorsed <br />the recommendations of�the Rural Character <br />Study Committee. However, this is in the Joint <br />Planning Area and requires approval of the Chapel <br />Hill Town Council. <br />Eidenier noted the following options of the <br />Planning Board: <br />(1) recommend the resolution adopted by the <br />Chapel Hill Town Council; <br />(2) recommend that the Rural Character Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.