N&O Index Card Listings

Displaying 1-10 of 11 results.
Real Estate Development
  • Cary plan proposed to protect watershed - Ja 4 86 1C
  • Pa. developer (KUGEL) closes Raleigh office; towns wonder if he'll keep promises - Ja 15 86 5B
  • Corps of Engineers tells Wake board not to allow building in Neuse floodplain - Ja 18 86 1C
  • Triangle J endorses plan to protect water - Ja 23 86 3C
  • Cary urged to limit development in Swift Creek watershed area - Ja 29 86 3C
  • Construction of I-40 pathway to RTP spurs development along U.S. 15-501 - Fe 3 86 1
  • Group seeks OK for (Parkway) development in west Cary - Fe 5 86 1C
  • Rhodes details proposed standards to restrict watershed development - Fe 13 86 5C
  • Auction marks end of farmer's tradition (Eddins) - Fe 16 86 39A
  • Triangle growth used as foundation for construction magazine - Fe 19 86 5B
  • Hyde imposes water moratorium (to control development) - Mr 7 86 2D
  • Developers join race for properties along I-40 - Mr 25 86 2D
  • Developer's (Lichtin's) foresight in Triangle builds fortune - Ap 20 86 6D
  • Uniform development urged for I-40 projects - Jn 12 86 3C
  • Firm adding second building to office park (near RTP) - Au 6 86 9B
  • Developers put on the brakes in office space race - Au 17 86 6D
  • Apartment glut affects developers - Au 19 86 1D
  • (Coastal) Development raises stakes in hurricane gamble - Au 24 86 1
  • Guidelines on storm runoff put coastal projects on hold - Au 25 86 1
  • Panel OKs rules to limit building near shellfish waters - Se 12 86 17A
  • Coastal development described as 'a dream' - Se 14 86 6D
  • Owners, developers along I-40 join in marketing - Se 17 86 8B
  • Development eroding beaches, geologists say - Se 26 86 19A
  • Water panel urged to protect fishing areas - Oc 14 86 6B
  • Businessman told to stop selling shares in project (near Pinehurst) - No 6 86 8B
  • Editorial: Nailed by a Nor'easter - De 7 86 6D
Real Estate Development
  • Bill would allow more use of taxes for development - Ap 11 87 9A
  • Planners wary of development along highways west of Raleigh (I-40/I-85 corridor) - My 26 87 4C
  • Developers form group to market I-40 corridor - Jy 1 87 6B
  • Office builder (Koger Properties) chips into market with 'cookie-cutter approach' - Au 30 87 1I
Real Estate Development
  • Development, killings threaten N. C. alligators - Fe 1 82 6
  • Editorial: Warning of coastal disaster - Fe 18 82 4A
  • Developers, opponents argue over fate of Onslow beaches - Mr 15 82 1C
  • Beach development moratorium fails - Mr 16 82 3C
  • Transportation, land-use plans need coordination, Hunt says - Mr 18 82 18A
  • Commercial project planned near Research Triangle Park - Ap 7 82 5B
  • Group says Currituck proposal provides for access, protection - Au 7 82 7B
  • Planning is urged to handle boom in coastal condos - No 11 82 21A
  • Condominium growth causes concern on coast - No 14 82 26A
  • Stricter setbacks posed for projects along coast - De 3 82 6C
  • Some coastal projects to be exempt from permits - De 5 82 34A
Real Estate Development
  • More lake area safeguards urged - Ja 24 84 1C
  • New projects can be a blessing or a blight for older neighborhood - Mr 5 84 1
  • Developers offer to fund RTP roads - Mr 14 84 1C
  • Panel recommends strict development plan for Falls Lake - Ap 11 84 1C
  • Chapel Hill considers trimming deadline on special-use permits - Ap 13 84 9B
  • Judge rejects suit to block gas station near Falls Lake - My 5 84 20C
  • Big cluster of industries, homes planned near Falls - My 23 84 3C
  • Falls watershed zone could prevent smooth sailing for Durham proposal - My 24 84 4C
  • Editorial: Trouble up the Neuse - My 26 84 4A
  • Developers expected to protest stricter coastal building codes - My 30 84 4C
  • Major Nags Head tract to be developed - Jn 3 84 37A
  • As growth sprawls, Lake Wheeler's life becomes threatened - Jn 25 84 1
  • University City project grows near UNC-C - Jy 5 84 5B
  • Group led by Sanford buys land, plans development near Durham - Jy 10 84 1D
  • Sanford says planned development won't harm Raleigh's water quality - Jy 12 84 12B
  • Raleigh housing project blamed for silt buildup at Lake Durant - Jy 28 84 1C
  • Speakers differ on council's policy for development in Falls Lake
  • basin - Au 8 84 1C
  • Development along coast swamps permit agencies - Au 18 84 2C
  • Diana should whip up development debate, geologist (Pilkey) says - Se 12 84 8A
  • Panel informally shifts border for development in Falls basin - Oc 12 84 1D
  • New Hanover project approved - No 20 84 2C
  • Business complex near RTP begun (Meridian Business Campus) - No 30 84 8C
  • Question posed on two projects near Falls Lake - De 14 84 5B
Real Estate Development
  • Mountaintop condo (on Little Sugar Mt.) spurs proposals to limit heights - Ja 24 83 3C
  • Editorial: on top of Old Condo - Ja 27 83 4A
  • Hunt suggests limits on height of buildings on mountain ridges - Ja 30 83 14A
  • Push for new rules stalls condo (Sugar Mountain) - Fe 26 83 2C
  • Lawmakers consider ridge laws to protect N. C. mountaintops - Fe 28 83 4C
  • Bill introduced to limit mountaintop development - Mr 11 83 7C
  • Editorial: Timid ridge law won't do - Mr 19 83 4A
  • Senate panel backs ridge building limit - Ap 7 83 12A
  • Editorial: Ridge law needs teeth - Ap 9 83 4A
  • Ridge law (action delayed) - Ap 14 83 16A
  • Senate endorses bill to limit ridge building - Ap 16 83 4C
  • Editorial: Ridge law a state concern - Ap 17 83 4D
  • Reasons for 'ridge law' detailed - Ap 19 83 2C
  • Amendment delays 'ridge law' proposal - Ap 20 83 14C
Real Estate Development
  • Out-of-state builders migrate to Wake - Ja 13 85 1F
  • State OK expected soon for island condominiums - Ja 29 85 2C
  • Official says coastal growth guards ignored - Ja 31 85 16C
  • Rapid growth in office space spurs concerns of oversupply - Fe 26 85 1D
  • Officials say N.C. leads South in losing farms to development - Mr 3 85 35A
  • Rules might affect development density (near shellfish waters) - Mr 8 85 6D
  • Environmental Management panel asks staff for coastal growth advice - Mr 15 85 15A
  • Work on 51-acre office park near RTP in Durham County to start next month (Central Park) - Ap 18 85 1C
  • Groups move to stop project that may taint shellfish waters (Carteret County) - Ap 20 85 2C
  • Developers announce resort plans (Topsail Island) - My 18 85 2C
  • Developers give Onslow County 1.7 acres of land (for beach access) - My 21 85 16C
  • Senate OKs development fees - My 31 85 1D
  • House approves developer-fee bill - Jn 25 85 1C
  • Coastal development guidelines published - Au 22 85 21A
  • Atlanta, Raleigh among growth areas - Au 27 85 3D
  • Developers should donate land for trails, Greenway panel says - Au 29 85 1C
  • NCNB to develop land near RTP - No 2 85 1C
  • Regulation of development uneven in Falls Lake basin - No 24 85 29A
  • Proposal to allow more development near lakes stirs concern - De 4 85 1C
  • State official wars Onslow developer (Bostic) about violations - De 11 85 3C
Real Estate Development
  • Senate backs ridgetop high-rise ban - Ap 27 83 2C
  • Editorial: Stronger ridge law needed - Ap 30 83 4A
  • Speakers hail, assail ridge regulation bill - My 12 83 5C
  • Ridge law - Jn 8 83 4C
  • Editorial: Ridge law needs a boost - Jn 9 83 4A
  • Panel adopts compromise version of ridge law - Jn 10 83 5B
  • Soil runoff feared sullying mountain water - Jn 13 83 12C
  • Ridge law - Jn 16 83 26A
  • Ridge law compromise clears panel - Jn 18 83 2C
  • House approves limit on building height on ridges - Jn 24 83 2D
  • Editorial; in sight of a ridge law - Jn 26 83 4D
  • Senator says ridge-law remarks cleared up in talk with Green - Jn 30 83 15A
  • House member snubbed as Senate passes ridge bill - Jy 2 83 14C
  • Official says counties will 'opt out' of ridge law - Jy 12 83 2C
  • Editorial: Big sugar on Little Sugar - Jy 16 83 4A
  • 'Condo-mania' hits the coast - Jy 17 83 1D
  • Here's what is being done about coastal growth - Jy 17 83 7D
  • Editorial: High Falls Lake risk (subdivisions in watershed) - Au 5 83 4A
  • Developers fined for sedimentation (36 mountain projects) - Se 30 83 2D
  • Deadline looms on rules for ridges - De 9 83 2D
  • Counties limit construction atop ridges - De 22 83 5C
Real Estate Development
  • the plight of Falls Lake; As more and more people flock to the water; officials face tough decisions on development - Ja 5 92, 1
  • Watershed shield faces well-heeled challenge - Ja 26 92, 1
  • Civil War battle sites targeted to stymie developers in South - Fe 3 92, 1
  • Developers, environmentalists monitor property-rights case - Mr 3 92, 1D
  • Plans for developing barrier island offered (BIRD ISLAND) - Jn 4 92, 5B
  • Hidden hazards: Golf vs. nature - Jy 12 92, 1
  • Nitrogen runoff poses threat to tidal creeks - Jy 12 92, 6A
  • Development may be further curbed; City county consider expanding special zone around Falls Lake - Au 29 92, 6B
  • Lake development battle predicted (Durham County) - Se 30 92, 3B
  • the water's edge; As development covers more of North Carolina's coast, marinas cover acres of navigable waters - De 6 92, 17A
  • New projects can rattle old bones; Wheels of progress often stilled by forgotten final resting places - De 28 92, 1B
Real Estate Development
  • Developers forced to heed erosion rules; Forestry exemption no longer applies - Ja 15 90 3B
  • Court rejects lawsuit on AIDS as handicap (Burgess case; also subdivision developers, Harwood cases) - Fe 8 90 1B
  • Towns urged to plan for 'hot spots' along I-40 - Oc 26 90 4B
Real Estate Development
  • Court restricts conditions placed on developers - Fe 8 89 1C
  • Editorial: - Idea in the danger zone - My 8 89 10A
  • Debate delayed on zoning measure, amendments - My 10 89 8A
  • Tar Heel editors speak: - Bill would bounce bad developers - Jy 16 89 7D
  • Japanese top conservationists in bidding for peat-rich land - (Map) - Au 3 89 14C
  • Developer (Woolner) mixes trees and office buildings - Au 10 89 1T
  • Editorial: - Saved: one stand of hemlocks - Se 19 89 10A