Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-03-2000-9e
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Agenda - 10-03-2000
>
Agenda - 10-03-2000-9e
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 2:42:17 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 11:21:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/3/2000
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9e
Document Relationships
Minutes - 10-03-2000
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2000
Minutes - 10-10-2000
(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.
/
13
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
J <br />TO: ,Orange County Plaruting and Inspection <br />Attn; Craig Benedict, AICP, Director <br />306-F Rcwcrc Road <br />PO l3ax 8181 <br />Hillsborough, NC 2727'8 <br />' FROM: D. Scott Parley. <br />DATE: August 15, 2040 <br />RE: Application fior Appeal, Gavluda Hills Phase III <br />Dear Mt, Benedict, <br />1 am enclosing rrry application and reason for appeal of the Development Review <br />Commfttee rejection. You will find xny reason ins in the interpretation and application of <br />the specific subsection cited for denial. My concept plan application was denied an July <br />20, 2000 f'ar ihia reason, however, ?was contacted by the planning dopartmeazi a few days <br />later and informed that upon further review Crovinda I3i11s lies ful~- fn the protected <br />watershed line afthe Upper Eno Protected .one. I was told to rework my private mad <br />justification and did sa according to recommendativng by Robert Davis and Tom King sa <br />that my plan could bs reconsidered by Development Review. Again I was denied and <br />told that in order to be consistent, twice the minimum lot size would need to be met. I <br />was also informed that the Plantrirtg Director, Govnty Nfanager, and the County Attorney <br />were meeting to discuss a policy regarding the handlitxg of current proposals and if the <br />new private road standards to bC placed before the $oard of Commissioners could be <br />enforced on these existing proposals. The reason I submitted my concept plan on July <br />20th after the courtesy review was according to the Platuiing Department I could be an <br />the agenda of the August 15s' Camtrrissinners meeting and be heard based an the <br />standards we have been working from for the past two years. <br />As stated in my Frivate Road Justification, the four lots proposed will average $0,150 sq. <br />ft., over twice the required minimum ;rixrs in the Upper Fno Protected 2.one. The eight <br />lots in Covinda Hills will be within the current nunnber of lots allowed fior the existing <br />Class `B" private read standards. In its ~ phase (3ovinda Hills wd.I be mote <br />conforming and exceed most existing standards of the minor subdivision code. <br />I can be reached at 932-1SS3 ar 99Q-] 932 far any questions regarding this appeal. <br />Ttespectfully, <br />Scott Farley <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.