My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
mins31992
>
Minutes
>
1992
>
mins31992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2009 2:30:24 PM
Creation date
8/15/2002 6:47:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Minutes
Planning Minutes - Date
3/19/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />March 19, 1992 .... <br /> <br />Page 26 <br /> <br />Ms. Stafford said she thinks the intent of this is not so <br />that somebody is out driving along the road and sees a <br />sign that says real estate for sale and they say they <br />want to go and see what it is, that is not the intent of <br />the sign ordinance. The intent is that for people who <br />are looking for a particular houSe, you say, "Howard's <br />house is for sale and I know it is on Flowe Store Road <br />somewhere" so you go out there. Once you are close to <br />that location, you may need help finding the specific <br />spot of the house and not for just general direction <br />location throughout the County, that is why we are saying <br />within 1 mile. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall stated we have a motion to approve <br />that has one amendment and that simply talks about the <br />notification of NCDOT. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen stated he offered another amendment to amend <br />number 1 to read as follows: Off-premise directional <br />signage guiding potential buyers to real estate for sale <br />of residential property (lot and/or house) is only <br />permitted at up to two locations, seconded by Mr. Smith. <br /> <br />Mr. Newton stated the problem with that as he would see <br />it is enforcing it. With this amendment signs could <br />occur anywhere with no limitation on the numbers. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen said to Mr. Newton that he understood, he is <br />going to trust the real estate association to get the <br />word out, but it has got to be sensible and if we get <br />into a situation like you are describing, we will amend <br />it again. <br /> <br />Mr. Newton stated that destroys the intent of the <br />revision. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall asked if everyone understood the <br />motion as the board has it now? <br /> <br />Mr. Alexander stated that as he understands it, you have <br />two substitute motions on the floor that have been made <br />and seconded by the same individuals. The first motion <br />that was made by Dr. Hartgen and seconded by Mr. Smith. <br />A substitute motion which was seconded, it went through <br />some amendment stage. Then you have a second substitute <br />motion which was also seconded by Mr. Smith without <br />having the first one withdrawn. So what motion is on the <br />floor? <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.