Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-07-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 10-07-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 11:52:30 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 11:39:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/7/1991
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.
/
544
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
0 <br />Planning <br />42 <br />Board Minutes <br />9 -16 -91 <br />future access to the 32 -acre tract which, if <br />subdivided, would contain three (3) 10 -acre lots. <br />MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by the <br />Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. <br />VOTE: Unanimous. <br />(Item #10 a was heard at this time) <br />AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT 8/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING <br />a. Watershed Protection Classifications <br />Marvin Collins reviewed the changes recommended <br />by the Planning Staff from those recommended by <br />the State. This list is an attachment to these <br />minutes on page Using a map, he indicated <br />locations for the recommendations for the Eno <br />River Basin. <br />Collins referred to the handout dated 9/16/91 <br />from David Stancil regarding a new DEM <br />interpretation on the Lower Eno Basin. He <br />reviewed the options included in this memo. A <br />copy of this memo is an attachment to these <br />minutes on pages <br />Collins noted that the Planning Staff concurs <br />with the State classification of WS -II for <br />University Lake Watershed. OWASA and the Town of <br />Chapel Hill have requested that the State create <br />a Critical Watershed classification for <br />University Lake Watershed which would permit a <br />higher standard than the minimum designated by <br />the State. <br />Collins reviewed the specific recommendations <br />(an attachment to these minutes on pages ). <br />He noted an item of concern is the definition of <br />new development. If a property was zoned to <br />permit a higher density than proposed in the <br />standards, current zoning could be considered a <br />"grandfather situation ". Staff does not feel <br />this is equitable since it becomes involved in <br />the issue of vested rights. The State <br />Legislature has adopted provisions for vested <br />rights. This seems to countermand what the <br />General Assembly has passed defining a "vested <br />right ". Existing zoning is not a given; it <br />should be changed to meet the standards. <br />Another area of concern is proposed agriculture <br />buffers. Greg Walker, District Supervisor for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.