Laserfiche WebLink
201 <br /> <br /> There was no one present to speak for or against the proposed amend- <br />ment, and the public hearing was closed. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Melvin, seconded by Commissioner Payne and <br />unanimously carried, the Board approved Petition 87-15 as stated above. <br /> <br />(5) Petition 87-16. Planning Staff. Section 5.8, Off-Street Parking <br /> Requirements, Page 68. <br /> <br />Add Subsection R to read as follows: <br />R. Ail parking lots containing twenty (20) or more spaces shall meet <br />the following criteria: <br /> 1. Ail parking lots fronting on an~existing road with the excep- <br /> tion of those required to meet the Thoroughfare Overlay Zone <br /> requirements shall be as follows: <br /> A. Street Frontage: The lot shall have a ten (10) foot <br /> landscaped strip, with trees planted for every forty (40) <br /> feet of road frontage. Ail fractions in this calculation <br /> shall be rounded to the higher number. These trees shall <br /> have a minimum height of ten (10) feet at the time of maturity. <br /> B. Interior Landscaping: Ail parking lots shall be land- <br /> scaped on ten (10) percent of the total square feet in the <br /> lot. One (1) tree of a minimum height of ten (10) feet at <br /> maturity shall be planted for every three hundred (300) <br /> square feet in this ten (10) percent area. All fractions in <br /> this calculation shall be rounded to the higher number. No <br /> parking spaces shall be further than one hundred twenty (120) <br /> feet from a planting island. <br /> <br />2. Ail parking lots adjoining an existing residential zone or use <br />shall have a ten (10) foot landscaped strip adjoining the residential <br />zone or use. An evergreen tree shall be planted for every thirty <br />(30) feet of the property line adjoining the residential zone or <br />use. These trees shall have a minimum height of ten (10) feet at <br />maturity. <br /> <br />Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. <br /> <br /> There was no one present to speak for or against the proposed amend- <br />ment, and the public hearing was closed. <br />UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Chairman Lentz and <br />unanimously carried, the Board approved Petition 87-16 as stated above. <br /> The Chairman announced that this was the hour and day fixed by the <br />Board of Commissioners for the public hearing upon the orders entitled: <br />"ORDER AUTHORIZING $29,000,000 SANITARY SEWER BONDS" and "ORDER AUTHORIZING <br />$2,000,000 TECHNICAL COLLEGE BONDS" and that the Board of Commissioners <br />would immediately hear anyone who might wish to be heard on the questions of <br />the validity of said orders or the advisability of issuing said bonds. <br /> No one appeared, either in person or by attorney, to be heard on the <br />questions of the validity of said orders or the advisability of issuing said <br />bonds and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners announced that no written <br />statement relating to said questions had been received, except Mr. Bill <br />Bonny, residing at Mt. Pleasant, who appeared in person and stated he was <br />against the sanitary sewer bonds because there should be a water-sewer <br />district with those persons paying their own way, the sewer planned for the <br />southwest quadrant of the county would not be cost beneficial, and that he <br />favored using tax money and not long term bond obligations to build a sewer <br />project although he would support a later sewer bond of $5 to $10 million <br />necessary to get an industrial customer to the county. Mr. Bonny stated he <br />supported the technical college bonds as the college would provide training <br />for both old and young workers. Mr. Henry Alston of the Rock Hill Church <br />Road area appeared in person and stated he supported the sewer bonds as the <br />County has to speculate on sewer to attract new businesses and that he saw a <br />definite need for sewer as he lives in an area where the sewer comes to the <br />top of the ground when there is a heavy rain. Mr. Richard Kluttz of the <br />Rimertown area appeared in person and stated he opposed the sewer bonds as <br />in his opinion the County does not have the right to take money from him <br />through taxes to build a sewer system for the property owner who has land <br />that is unacceptable for a septic tank. Ail of the foregoing statements <br />were duly considered by the Board of Commissioners. <br /> <br /> <br />