Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-05-2000-8q
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Agenda - 09-05-2000
>
Agenda - 09-05-2000-8q
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 5:34:07 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 11:20:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/5/2000
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8q
Document Relationships
Minutes - 09-05-2000
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
4 <br />1 Crauford Goodwin asked about the logic of this change and said that it seems that the concern is <br />z the taking of the right and compensating the property owner in same way. Craig Benedict said that the <br />3 consequence would be that a neighbor would see that a business might move closer or adjacent to a <br />a person's property line. He said that the neighbor would receive a notification of any changes made. <br />s Commissioner Gordon asked about the question of what to do with abandoned property. Craig <br />6 Benedict said that the EC-5 standards do not follow the rule that after 180 days, the use would be lost. <br />~ It is hoped that road improvements would be made in Orange County that may involve a widening of a <br />s road of the expansion of an intersection. He foresees this as a problem for some businesses in the <br />9 future. If a person abandons the business and later wants to reopen, they would have to meet the new <br />io standards and setbacks. <br />11 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to put in writing the impacts that would be <br />12 considered. <br />13 Chair Carey asked about a situation which prevents a property from being continued in its <br />14 intended use if it would revert back to the surrounding land use and Craig Benedict said that it would <br />is revert back to the least intensive use. However, the applicant could ask for a rezoning. <br />is Commissioner Brown clarified that what this would do is keep the small businesses. She feels it is <br />i~ an improvement to offer an initiative for improving the property. <br />is A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer item C- <br />19 1-b to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no <br />20 sooner than June 29, 2000. <br />21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />22 <br />23 c. Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Amendments - <br />24 Craig Benedict said that Christy Anspach of the Erosion Control Department is here tonight <br />zs and has contributed a large amount of work towards these changes. This ordinance is not part of the <br />26 zoning text or subdivision text. It is a freestanding ordinance. These rules are ones that have been <br />a~ created at the state level and it is up to the County to put them into the ordinance. He summarized the <br />28 changes made to the ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to certain land disturbing activities <br />z9 which have to do with agriculture. There are also exemptions for forest land and mining activities. He <br />3o said that the erosion control plan had to match other environmental issues that are attached to the site. <br />31 Some of the notices of violations and penalties have been amended as well. <br />32 <br />33 UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS <br />34 Commissioner Gordan said that gender neutral language should be used throughout. She asked <br />3S about page one regarding forestlarids and the forest practice guidelines that relate to water quality. <br />35 Craig Benedict said that there were different guidelines far the state because of the preservation of <br />37 agriculture and forestry:' The County's guidelines are more stringent. <br />38 Commissioner Gordan asked about section 18 and the erosion control plan and about the <br />39 utilization of ditches for the purpose of de-watering or lowering the water table. Craig Benedict said that <br />ao it was a notification provision so that the Division of Water Quality could know if this type of land <br />41 disturbance activity could .lower the water table that might affect the fame operation ar wells in the area. <br />42 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page three and the deadline for reviewing a plan. She <br />43 said that it seems that this language sounded very similar to the other language that was just revised. <br />44 Craig Benedict said that this refers to staff. restrictions for a time frame versus an elected body. <br />4S Commissioner Gordon asked that the issues about the ditches and the forestry be brought to the <br />46 Commission far the Environment far their information. <br />47 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff analyze the forest practice guidelines related to <br />4s water quality and share comments with the boards before they are submitted. <br />49 Commissioner Jacobs made. reference to page 16, item h, "Consideration of applicant's past <br />so pertormance", and made an editorial change. <br />• s1 Cranford Goodwin asked for a definition of plants and animals use for the man. Craig Benedict <br />s2 feels the list is wide open -any plants and animals useful to humans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.