Browse
Search
6.11.25 BOA Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2025
>
6.11.25 BOA Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2025 4:18:49 PM
Creation date
6/9/2025 4:16:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/11/2025
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
9 Draft <br /> 1 to the Eno. And that's really the point that the 615 and 620 contour elevations are to a large extent, <br /> 2 I'm generalizing, is that that is the free board of the flood zone. And so, when things start rising, <br /> 3 the valves go on, things come out down the spillway. I think that she erroneously may have looked <br /> 4 at the adjacent parcel which did have a stream. This one does not. I'm sure they have lots and lots <br /> 5 of cases to review and a limited amount of time to do it. It is what it is. But we took note of that <br /> 6 fact and took note of what is correct. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Leon Meyers: And in the packet is the letter from the planning director essentially saying, acknowledging those <br /> 9 concerns and saying they don't appear to have a whole lot of significance for this case? <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Cy Stober: That's on Page 44 of the packet. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Leon Meyers: Any other discussion? Now a motion on the findings would be in order. The first on the building or <br /> 14 first on septic. Either way. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Kyle Myers: I'm happy to do it, but I don't know the wording. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Leon Meyers: I think you would just say I move that the Board find as listed, and Morgan help me here, on Page <br /> 19 40 or whatever it is, 48, is it? With respect to the building setback. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Greg Niemiroski: Motion to approve the findings of fact for building setback as noted. It says 45 here, I think. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Beth Bronson: Page 47. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Greg Niemiroski: It's 47 on the left, but it's labeled 45. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Beth Bronson: I see. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Leon Meyers: Is there a second to that motion? <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Jeff Scott: Second. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Leon Meyers: Any discussion? This is approving the variance for the purpose of the building setback. All in <br /> 34 favor, please say Aye. All right. None opposed. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Beth Bronson: I did not say aye. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Leon Meyers: Oh. Sorry. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Beth Bronson: Yeah, no, I'm more fine with the septic setback than I am of the building setback, so. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Leon Meyers: So, your vote is? <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Beth Bronson: Is no for the building setback. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Leon Meyers: No on the building setback. Okay. Then that would be 4-1. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 MOTION was made by Greg Niemiroski. Seconded by Jeff Scott. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 VOTE: 4-1 (Beth Bronson opposed) <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.