My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG19900416
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1990
>
AG19900416
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2003 9:14:38 AM
Creation date
11/27/2017 12:04:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
4/16/1990
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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
Ray l, ]99O <br /> Ii <br /> Mr. Jerry Newton I~AY 2 ~aau <br /> P1 anning Director <br /> Cabarrus County COunty I~.n~Qcr _l <br /> P. O. BOX 707 <br /> Concord, NC 28025 <br /> <br /> Re: Coddle Creek Reservoir <br /> HDR Project No. I87-023-018(D/S)D <br /> <br /> Dear Jerry; <br /> <br /> I talked to David Franklin {COE) this morning concerning the draft Zoning Text <br /> Amendment forwarded to him yesterday. Re still had some questions and <br /> concerns about some of the wording and details of the amendment. Ilis comments <br /> are noted below along with suggestions for changes that he feels need to be <br /> incorporated into the document. <br /> <br /> Paragraph i, last sentence: lie was uncomfortable with the sentence as <br /> written because it only protects streams when (future) development occurs. <br /> ~le wants to see protection for all streams now. <br /> <br /> Suggested Revision: "Therefore, stream buffers shall be required adjacent <br /> to all perennial streams." <br /> <br /> Paragraphs 2 and 3: He did not have any concerns about these paragraphs, <br /> however, he appears to be satisfied with the estimated 3,650 acres as <br /> described in the second paragraph of my 4/30/90 letter to Franklin. <br /> reference to "...designated floodways and flood~fringe areas" in paragraph <br /> 2, and the additional area beyond the 50-foot strip in paragraph 3 could <br /> possibly be deleted without objections from Franklin. The buffer would be <br /> much simpler to describe and enforce if it were limited to a 50-foot strip <br /> each side of the stream. <br /> <br /> Paragraph 4: No comment. <br /> <br /> Paragraph 5: He felt this paragraph was too "nebulous" in defining what <br /> was restricted and what was allowed, and also in the following areas: <br /> <br /> 1. Soil disturbance/placement of fill material <br /> 2. Protection of existing forested areas <br /> 3. Agricultural crops: perennial vs. annual <br /> 4 What uses are allowed/excluded <br /> <br /> Suggested Revision: <br /> <br /> 5.A. Generally, stream buffer areas shall remain undisturbed. Soil <br /> disturbing activities such as plowing, grading,~ditching, <br /> excavating, placement of fill material, or similar activities shall <br /> <br />HDR Engim~eerinn, Inc. suae 1400 Telephone <br />of North Co~olin~ 128 $. ~yon $1reel 704 838-1800 <br /> Charlone, Norlh Carolina <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.