HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_0392 (2)1. Re-examine the Exit 42 Land Use Study to specifically review:
a. Increasing the parking lot landscaping.
b. Limiting the strip development between the interchange and Crosstie Lane.
c. Requiring the architectural facades on all single occupant, free-standing commercial
buildings, with frontage on US 21, to face the highway.
d. Including provisions for monument signs from Crosstie Lane south to the boundary of the
study area.
In addition, he said the Troutman officials wanted:
I. The county's endorsement for Troutman to be included in a legislative bill for annexation.
(Smith said in return, Troutman would be willing to sign an interlocal agreement indicating
that any property annexed or approved for water/sewer would be required to develop to the
standards of the Exit 42 study — the standards adopted by both jurisdictions assuming a
compromise was reached.
2. The county's "participation" in the development of a "comprehensive" land development plan.
The "participation" to include a county funding contribution towards the plan's cost.
Inspections/Planning Director Niblock said the Town of Troutman seemed to be pursuing
two avenues to accomplish control over the area. He said the Town was looking at (1) annexation
and (2) the drafting of an ordinance to include that everyone would have to abide by Troutman's
Land Use Plan. Niblock said this would even be in the areas not annexed by the Town.
Commissioner Bowles asked about the legality ofa municipality imposing its Land Use Plan
on properties in another jurisdiction.
Niblock said a faculty member at the Institute ofGovernment (Richard Ducker) had indicated
that an ordinance of this type could be drafted and implemented.
Smith said the ordinance route would be the least expensive for Troutman since the Town
would only need to provide water/sewer. He said that with annexed areas, however, the Town had
to provide all of its services.
Commissioner Bowles asked if Troutman could legally withhold water and sewer.
Niblock said yes.
The board agreed to continue the discussion on the Exit 42 matter at the May 1 meeting
PRESENTATION BY THE OVERCASH- DEMMITT ARCHITECTURAL. FIRM
ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION (Stand -Alone Building) TO THE DSS BUILDING: The
board members agreed to begin the May 15, 2001 briefing at 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of hearing
an architectural presentation about the social services addition.
ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Tice adjourned the briefing at 6:30 p.m.
Approved: !' B l l(:7/_ ..
Clerk to the Board