Agenda - 05-06-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D G3 G^1 ff � G4 . Element. Each of these efforts may result in policy recommendations directly relevant to this proposal. At the hearing, the applicants stated a desire not to withdraw their application, and proceed with this proposal. If this is the case, staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment on the basis of existing policy. Waddell asked what existing policies this proposal ran counter to. Stancil cited the existing Hillsborough Township component of the Plan that recommended Rural Residential designation for this site. In addition, a 1985 Area Study resulted in Commissioners action against designation of a similar node, continuing the Rural Residential designation for the area. Stancil also cited the use of I -40 as a "hard edge" or boundary for urbanization both in this area in the Comprehensive Plan and around Chapel Hill in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Discussion of the issue of spot zoning, the appropriateness of 1 -40 as a "hard edge" to urbanization, and the lack of provision of water service ensued. Eidenier cited her opposition to this proposal since the Town and County are currently in the process of discussing the question of service provision to this area, and that water service cannot be.provided through the emergency water line owned by OWASA that the applicants wish to use. Waddell asked what the recourse would be for the applicants if this proposal is denied. Stancil responded that they would be able to reapply one year after this action: Waddell continued asking about current uses. Stancil responded it was zoned Rural Residential. Residential uses and other ancillary uses could be made of the property. Waddell expressed concern with residential uses next to the interstate. Stancil responded that issue had been under discussion for some time. It is possible to continue to have residential uses next to an interstate with buffers.