My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2002 08 19 (Regular)
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2002
>
AG 2002 08 19 (Regular)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2006 5:01:40 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:43:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
8/19/2002
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
352
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 />December 18, 1997 <br /> <br />Page 27 <br /> <br /> Mr. Starnes amended his Motion to deny Petition 97-19 as <br />'submitted, seconded by Mr. Moose. The vote was 5 to 4 to deny <br /> Petition 97-19. Mr. Moose, Mr. Lane, Mr. Starnes; M~. Dwiggins <br /> and Mr. Drye in favor. Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Hill, Mr. Kiefer and Mr. <br /> Hobbs opposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Marshall said Petition 97-19 will automatically go on to the <br />Commissioners meeting on January 20, 1998. <br /> <br />Mr. Marshall presented to the Board a three part subdivision text <br />amendment stating the County has adopted a local Sediment <br />Erosion Control program, so we are tying our subdivision, which <br />has previously been tied to the State program, we need to tie them <br />back to the local program instead. We have made -it so the <br />development once a preliminary approval through this.board then <br />has to get its sediment erosion control plan approved prior to any <br />construction. If they are in violations the sedimentation erosion <br />control plan then final approval cannot be approved on that <br />subdivision. The .second issue, which Was brought up by Senator . <br />Hartsell, ~tnd that is there is a provision in current state law where <br />school sites has been specifically identified that you may require a <br />developer to reserve that site. The hard part is identifying <br />specifically those school sites. We are working with the schools in <br />doing just that: Finally,. the last part is a request from Frank Clifton <br />that actually 'came out of our task force for growth management. <br />That is the adequate public facilities standards. This board in the <br />past has wanted to tie school facilities, in particular to development <br />approval. We have added a Provision so the Board may do that. <br />Where school capacity does not exist, or is not planned and <br />programmed'within the next two years, then the Board may use <br />that as a basis of denial. <br /> <br />Tha Chai~ 6parted ffta Pt~Blie Haa~:ing o-a Pati~ort'97-06(S) <br /> <br />The Chair closed the Public Hearing on 97-06(S) <br /> <br />There being no further comments Mr. Dwiggins MOTIONED to <br />approve Petition 97-06(S), seconded by Mr. Starnes. The vote was <br />unanimous. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.