Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2010
>
Agenda - 04-06-2010 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2010 3:04:08 PM
Creation date
4/1/2010 3:02:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/6/2010
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7c
Document Relationships
Minutes 04-06-2010
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2010
RES-2010-028 Resolution approving The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision Preliminary Plat
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2010-2019\2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Brian Crawford: Hypothetically, there is an ordinance and this plan meets the ordinance so we decide that because of our concerns to turn it <br />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 <br />action that we are not following the ordinance as it is written. <br />Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: To the Board of County Commissioners or us? <br />Robert Davis: Most likely, the Planning Board. <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />come back with a more detailed project. That is something we are going to be talking about again. Your points about he access for <br />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 <br />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 <br />the Commissioners that whatever action the Commissioners would take is inwnsistent with the ordinances and would somehow deny all <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />be any surprises the next time around. <br />Brian Crawford: I am starting to hear a friendly amendment, Earl, regarding this Floodplain and whether we should say loud and clear in our <br />recommendations to the developer to consider the impact on the environment in the next stage so he minimizes as much as possible the <br />impact on our land and that is what the Planning Board wants to see. <br />Earl McKee: I am not insensitive to the environmental sensitive area. On Damascus Road, maybe a few hundred yards, there are hundreds <br />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 <br />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 <br />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 <br />project without crossing a creek. <br />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 <br />developer to do anything differently than any other developer in the County. <br />Unidentified Citizen: Point of order Mr. Chairman <br />Brian Crawford: There is no opportunity for <br />Unidentified citizen: I want to ask if public comment would be allowed given public connectivity was taken off the considerations by the <br />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 <br />reopen connectivity, which is a major amendment to Option 3 that has not been considered for public comment, I would respectively ask that <br />you consider public comment on your little bit of connectivity because this Board has never considered that for public comment. <br />Robert Davis: We are not recommending connectivity, we are recommending the easement for this subdivision line up with the withdrawn right <br />of way dedication for what is at the stub street. It allows for potential connectivity but nothing that forces the issue tonight. <br />Unidentified citizen: Again, a stub out is something.... <br />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 <br />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? <br />Margaret Lewis: As a point of order, I ask to be given an oppprtuniy to speak. <br />Tina Love: No one signed up to speak. <br />Robert Davis: The plan that is being proposed tonight is basically this with the exception of Booth Road being opened <br />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 <br />hear one minute of comment on a new issue that v/e have not already addressed, what is the Board's pleasure? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.