Orange County NC Website
Craig Benedict: Option number 2 that staff had recommended is being withdrawn. Option 3 would be the one that is left available to us. There ~ $ <br />is one unique nuance that is left, we could take Option 3 and provide a stub out to Booth Road to the south. Not that it will ever be used, <br />except 20, 30 or 40 years from now if the next generation may like a connection through there. At least it would be there for uUlily use, <br />emergency access, or something like that. We could not use the portion of the road in Oak Crest but at least there would be a stub out and <br />some ideas of good planning from this end. <br />Judith Wegner: Craig, I would like a yes or no answer. Do you and the development review staff committee affirmatively recommend Option 3 <br />as it currently exists on paper in front of us? <br />Craig Benedict: Yes. <br />Judith Wegner: That was not in your previous presentation, was that because you preferred number 2 but you thought 3 was still in the <br />running which is not the way this reads. It reads as though you thought it had to be 2. I thought the process was there would be a full blown <br />recommendation up or down on each of the things in front of us so we could see something. It makes me uneasy since many of these kind <br />folks came back for a second time tonight and if there is more staff work that needed to be done because you thought number 2 was the thing <br />and you didn't do a full review of 3 and I heard Robert say that 3 is the only thing left. I don't care if it is all that is left; 1 want to know <br />affirmatively what the staff had to say about it as to whether it met the requirements of the ordinance. <br />Craig Benedict: Three was analyzed also and three as it's listed in the agenda packet is an acceptable option and does meet all requirements <br />of the County, so that is a reasonable option. Options 2 and 3 both meet the standards. <br />Judith Wegner: It seems that number 3 has issues about crossing a creek and environmental issues: I would surely have thought if we were <br />to have your advice, it would be written up. The last meeting all the pressure was to connect io Booth Hill. Another questions I would like to <br />ask the developer as to what rights he would claim as io the long thin road up there because we have correspondence from the Lewis family <br />raising questions about actual access rights that are legitimate and I thought that when we approved subdivisions under state law there has to <br />be actual access. Is that something the staff considered? <br />Craig Benedict: Yes. We did look at the right of way that is under ownership and it is acceptable to staff as legitimate access. <br />Judith Wegner: Can you provide details about the environmental considerations and what the actual legal status is and why you thought chat <br />was satisfactory? <br />Craig Benedict: We did look at it at the concept stage. Roads are allowed to cross floodplains and utilities at perpendicular angles upon the <br />final preliminary plan coming forward, there will be additional analysis on how they will put that road across the floodplain and we will assure it <br />limits the amount of environmental cut and fill actions and things of that nature. There are roads that do cross floodplains and streams within <br />Orange County and the design of Option 3 still does meet that standard. <br />Mark Marcoplos: I want to make some general observations about this. I think it is great that we got rid of the connectivity that 99 times out of <br />100 might be a good idea but is clearly not in this case. I think the best solution, if these houses are going to be built there at all, would be to <br />have the traffic come up Booth Road. That is a wetland, environmentally sensitive area over there in the University Lake watershed. I think <br />we should always err on the side of protecting the watershed because there is enough stress and strain on our water supplies as it is. <br />However sensitively the construction process goes, there will still be ill effects, just the traffic itself will affect chat wetland. It's a bad idea. Not <br />only that but the services that people who live there are going to want to drive to are back up Booth Road, Southern Orange, Northern <br />Chatham. There will be a lot of wasted fuel, car emissions, and extra traffic on Damascus Church Road. I am happy the connectivity issue <br />has been addressed. I wish, in a perfect world, there would be some way to negotiate no connectivity for getting access to Booth Road and <br />maybe work done on the road to accept this added bit of traffic in return for environmental protection for the greater good of the community. I <br />don't Tike this plan. <br />Brian Crawford: Any response staff? <br />Robert Davis: The Flood Plain Manager is also a member of the Development Advisory Committee and he looked at this and there are <br />numerous cases in the County where the only option to get to a property is to cross perpendicularly floodplain areas. Permits would have to <br />be pulled, they are done all the time, but it is not something that is turned down frequently because you can do it in a fairly sensitive way. <br />Earl McKee: I agree evith Mark about coming in from Booth Road. I did talk to another member who did drive down Booth Road. My <br />understanding from the comments made at the previous meeting, it is steep, narrow and dangerous as far as a connector road. There is no <br />doubt in my mind that a conventional plan is submitted before connecting Damascus with Booth would have been used to cut through. I think <br />the most logical would be to extend these 12 lots off Booth Road but that is no longer on the table because of the rescinding of the dedication. <br />My understanding is that if the Planning Board does not make a decision in two meetings, it goes to the Board of County Commissioners with <br />our discussions and our minutes, is that wrrect? <br />Robert Davis: That's correct. <br />