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

Browse Search

Brian Crawford: Hypothetically, there is an ordinance and this plan meets the ordinance so we decide that because of our concerns to turn it down, could the developer say that we are not following the ordinance, and he would be right to say that and could come back in some sort of 2 3 action that we are not following the ordinance as it is written. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: To the Board of County Commissioners or us? Robert Davis: Most likely, the Planning Board. Judith Wegner: First of all, even if there are some of us who are lawyers here, we should not be acting as the County's voice. We are here as citizens. I would have to say if he owns fee title to that other parcel, it is not a landlocked parcel. He has fee title. The questions for us are does the set of proposals meet the requirements, in our judgment? I, for myself, want to flag this 100 year floodplain issue because it may be going the other way is expensive but I want to ask our planning staff to get this on record now if we feel we have considerable concern about the potential implications for University Lake, water in the range of things when we come back to the next stage because this is concept plan and we get two more rounds of this over time if we were to say there had to be considerable, expensive steps taken to ensure against a disaster. We won't be locked about raising those issues in the next stage. There are opportunities to be thinking about the next stage, what that conservation requirement would have to be. I think about wncept plan is do you get a chance to go up io the Commissioner and then come back with a more detailed project. That is something we are going to be talking about again. Your points about he access for emergency vehicles was very good advice in the same way I am trying to give advice now. You should think about the things that have been presented for your observations. Now in terms of if the developer wanted to challenge this, I would think they would have to make a claim to the Commissioners that whatever action the Commissioners would take is inwnsistent with the ordinances and would somehow deny all possible use of this property but we know there could be at least one house built there which could go across. I just think that for environmental consideration the more lots that are there, the more trips per day, the more you run the risk that you are going to do something that would be drained into the University Lakes so that should be something that they hear. Those are things I want to put forth so there won't be any surprises the next time around. Brian Crawford: I am starting to hear a friendly amendment, Earl, regarding this Floodplain and whether we should say loud and clear in our recommendations to the developer to consider the impact on the environment in the next stage so he minimizes as much as possible the impact on our land and that is what the Planning Board wants to see. Earl McKee: I am not insensitive to the environmental sensitive area. On Damascus Road, maybe a few hundred yards, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of cars every day, you have 12 houses that are not to minimize the fact that if a gas tanker goes off delivering fuel to the homes, you have a disaster. I am not minimizing anything but stating that the percentage of probably that a problem will occur on this drive, is minuscule compared to Damascus Road or any other area in Orange County with a major road. I see no way to get out of this proposed project without crossing a creek. Tommy McNeill: Staff has clearly indicated chat this is common practice for the County and 1 don't see why we should ask this particular developer to do anything differently than any other developer in the County. Unidentified Citizen: Point of order Mr. Chairman Brian Crawford: There is no opportunity for Unidentified citizen: I want to ask if public comment would be allowed given public connectivity was taken off the considerations by the Planning Board last time and now a little bit of connectivity is being put back in which makes it almost a little bit pregnant. If we were going to reopen connectivity, which is a major amendment to Option 3 that has not been considered for public comment, I would respectively ask that you consider public comment on your little bit of connectivity because this Board has never considered that for public comment. Robert Davis: We are not recommending connectivity, we are recommending the easement for this subdivision line up with the withdrawn right of way dedication for what is at the stub street. It allows for potential connectivity but nothing that forces the issue tonight. Unidentified citizen: Again, a stub out is something.... Brian Crawford: Order. If we go back to the map we are saying that it will stop there with no easement. There is nothing we can do to cennect to that land. This is just what the developer already owns and we are lining it up. Thank you for the comment. Are we ready to vote? Margaret Lewis: As a point of order, I ask to be given an oppprtuniy to speak. Tina Love: No one signed up to speak. Robert Davis: The plan that is being proposed tonight is basically this with the exception of Booth Road being opened Brian Crawford: On this form we have to sign up, it doesn't say for anyone who wants to speak. As a practical matter, if the Board wants to hear one minute of comment on a new issue that v/e have not already addressed, what is the Board's pleasure?