Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Craig Benedict: Option number 2 that staff had recommended is being withdrawn.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 ~ $ 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, 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, 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 some ideas of good planning from this end. Judith Wegner: Craig, I would like a yes or no answer. Do you and the development review staff committee affirmatively recommend Option 3 as it currently exists on paper in front of us? Craig Benedict: Yes. Judith Wegner: That was not in your previous presentation, was that because you preferred number 2 but you thought 3 was still in the 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 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 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 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 affirmatively what the staff had to say about it as to whether it met the requirements of the ordinance. 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 of the County, so that is a reasonable option. Options 2 and 3 both meet the standards. Judith Wegner: It seems that number 3 has issues about crossing a creek and environmental issues: I would surely have thought if we were 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 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 raising questions about actual access rights that are legitimate and I thought that when we approved subdivisions under state law there has to be actual access. Is that something the staff considered? Craig Benedict: Yes. We did look at the right of way that is under ownership and it is acceptable to staff as legitimate access. Judith Wegner: Can you provide details about the environmental considerations and what the actual legal status is and why you thought chat was satisfactory? Craig Benedict: We did look at it at the concept stage. Roads are allowed to cross floodplains and utilities at perpendicular angles upon the 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 limits the amount of environmental cut and fill actions and things of that nature. There are roads that do cross floodplains and streams within Orange County and the design of Option 3 still does meet that standard. 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 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 have the traffic come up Booth Road. That is a wetland, environmentally sensitive area over there in the University Lake watershed. I think 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. 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 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 Chatham. There will be a lot of wasted fuel, car emissions, and extra traffic on Damascus Church Road. I am happy the connectivity issue 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 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 don't Tike this plan. Brian Crawford: Any response staff? Robert Davis: The Flood Plain Manager is also a member of the Development Advisory Committee and he looked at this and there are numerous cases in the County where the only option to get to a property is to cross perpendicularly floodplain areas. Permits would have to 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. 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 understanding from the comments made at the previous meeting, it is steep, narrow and dangerous as far as a connector road. There is no doubt in my mind that a conventional plan is submitted before connecting Damascus with Booth would have been used to cut through. I think 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. 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 our discussions and our minutes, is that wrrect? Robert Davis: That's correct.