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

Browse Search

Judith Wegner: You haven't tried to figure out a way to wnnect to that to avoid going through the environmental area? 2 2 Kent Wiles: This is all UNC land. Earl McKee: I am hearing you say that own stub out and the smaller tract, do you own the larger tract or have it under contract? Kent Wiles: Under contract. Earl McKee: I understand all the comments and the problems that some of the other members have as far as the access through the 100 year plains on that stub out. I am not insensitive to that but Brian's comments were true because we have to consider whether the proposed development meets regulations as they exist and I am hearing from staff that they do meet those regulations. My understanding is that this approval doesn't mean this project goes through but progresses to the next step. MoTioN made by Earl McKee to approve Option 3 and recommend that a stub out be included back to Booth Road between lots one and two for possible future use. Seconded by Tommy McNeill. Brian Crawford: Are there any discussions on the motion? Robert Davis: We are removing condition number 9 and doing the basic approval or will you do the conditions? Earl McKee: The conditions except for number 9. Robert Davis: And reword number 8 to a 50-foot right of way stub out between lots one and two shall be provided. Earl McKee: Is 50 or 60 required? Robert Davis: 60 would work but we generally get 50 with two 10-foot easements on either side. Earl McKee: I would suggest 60 just with comments made that 40 years down the road, it may be desirable to interconnect. Mark Marcoplos: If regulations were all we needed to guide us and those regulations pointed to a solution, we would not need a Planning Board, we wouldn't need County Commissioners, all you would have to do is just open the book and read the regulations and the problem would be solved. There is an art to this public process and we are part of an evolution of policies and our personal interpretation of all aspects of the issue is fair input into the process so we need not be concerned that we meet the letter of the regulations. We have our own perspective to bring to it and we can be thinking about of the spirit of the regulations as well. I would urge everybody not to be too bound by what they perceive as the regulations. Mary Bobbin-Cooke: If we send something the Board of County Commissioners for the next step, something is contrary to state law, like you cannot deny the people access to their property, then we just face the consequences that they will override our recommendation. Mark Marcoplos: Sure, that is the beauty of being on the Planning Board. We don't have to make the final decision Brian Crawford: This is just a recommendation. Hypothetically, let's say the conservation easement was, in our opinion, damaging to the health, safety and welfare of the watershed serving the community. I don't know if that is compelling but it is certainly a reason for us to recommend to the Planning Board that we do have concerns about this and if we make that recommendation in the negative, we send to the law with those comments and they are free do and follow the actual of the plan and approve it but that is how the Planning Board felt, that is our recommendation. I agree with your assessment. My only point was to point out what the letter of the law is and have us also wnsider that. Don't feel like your hands are tied by the decision here but consider that in our deliberations. Robert Davis: If the Planning Board recommends denial, you have to state the reasons why. If you don't make a decision tonight, it will go to the next step, which is the Board of County Commissioners. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Without our recommendation? Robert Davis: With the minutes. Then they will probably give it back to you and ask for recommendations Mary Bobbin-Cooke: The spirit of what you are saying is let's change the law? Mark Marcoplos: No. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If there are any environmental issues, that we have the freedom to deny landlocked parcels?