Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-21-2003-9c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2003
>
Agenda - 10-21-2003
>
Agenda - 10-21-2003-9c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 2:12:43 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:34:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/21/2003
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20031021
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2003
ORD-2003-139 Growth Management System - Amendments to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
ATTACHMENT 8 38 <br />DRAFT <br />184 been developed. We can get it all in now or stage it in and try to control the progress of the <br />185 growth. <br />186 <br />187 Craig Benedict agreed. <br />188 <br />189 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if it was correct to assume that option 1 was the most <br />190 restrictive option. <br />191 <br />192 Craig Benedict replied yes. <br />193 <br />194 Howard McAdams asked what percentage of the land is already developed or has no potential <br />195 for new growth. Craig Benedict replied that over 50% is undeveloped at this time. <br />196 <br />197 Craufurd Goodwin said the first map was outdated. Eno River Valley is committed in one way <br />198 or another with development easements. <br />199 <br />200 Craig Benedict said if all the Eno State Park easements are rezoned to a category other than Rl, <br />201 then it would become a more stringent process. <br />202 <br />203 Noah Ranells asked, based on the process if this went through the Public Hearing so they could <br />204 not be changed. <br />205 <br />206 Craig Benedict answered that all the options were mentioned at the Public Hearing. <br />207 <br />208 Hunter Schofield stated that his understanding was that this was a framework and the Board <br />209 could set any recommendations in that framework. <br />210 <br />211 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray said the difference was that the previous issues had not been <br />212 discussed at the Public Hearing and these issues have. <br />213 <br />214 Hunter Schofield suggested that more than the standards be altered for. subdivisions in the rural <br />215 area. <br />216 <br />217 Robert Davis stated that the Public Hearing is officially still open and that this recommendation <br />218 is in writing, which is proper. <br />219 <br />220 Craig Benedict said that this would be referred to the attorneys to see if the Public Hearing notice <br />221 had language about numbers. The Board's recommendations are valid. <br />222 <br />223 Ted Triebel said that Barry Jacobs questioned the staff about how the numbers were determined. <br />224 He agreed that the area was still open. <br />225 <br />226 Craig Benedict stated the questions were answered about the new maps. The other 10 comments <br />227 made were actually incorporated in the standards. <br />228 <br />229 Robert Davis stated that changes were made based on what was said. <br />38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.