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
Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I would like to hear one minute. <br />Brian Crawford: Six in favor. One minute. Can one person speak for you? <br />Tommy McNeill: Can we have a timer? <br />Brian Crawford: We have one here. <br />Tom Holt: I represent the association of homes from Oakcrest. Regarding this recommended stub out, first, this map is not necessarily <br />accurate now, in that what you will be stubbing out to is not a right of way. Where you are proposing to lots one and two, you are stubbing out <br />to no right of way whatsoever. The other point I would like to make is that the land that the developer owns now is not landlocked. <br />Tommy McNeill: What is your opposition? <br />Judith Wegner: I think he wants to be clear on the record if this comes back again that the Board is apprised to those two points. <br />Tom Holt: I would prefer if you adopt this plan that it not include a stub out to nowhere. <br />Kirsten Freskin: I live to the left there. 1 want to look at the watershed map. My question is that we have had discussion about watershed and <br />crossing water. We cross water all the time but what you are doing here is crossing water and then walking along water and you are crossing <br />water again. This is a stream and this is a stream and these are all feeding into University lake. It is not just crossing one stream but this I all <br />water. It is not fioodplain its active water feeding into University Lake. The other concern is that we don't get any law enforcement on this <br />road. I live on this hill and people do 70 MPH. 1 have lost four animals there. I would ask that be considered. Also, consider when putting 12 <br />houses here that we have a high school that is overcapacity and not funding for the arts wing, which is a mandatory arts wing, and finally the <br />reason it was sold at nine acres was so it would only be one house and that was the intention. <br />Tommy McNeill: Staff has clearly stated the water has passed with various developers and so why is Damascus Road any different than any <br />other plan. <br />Kirsten Freskin: It is the access road being all water and that is the watershed. <br />Margaret Lewis: 1 noticed the board recommended Option 2 at first. What is the rationale for supporting Option 2 and I would like the <br />document that supports that, I don't have that document. <br />Brian Crawford: Ma'am, Option 2 is off the table. <br />Margaret Lewis: But we didn't get any notification of that. <br />Brian Crawford: This is public information, I will be glad to give it to you. <br />Margaret Lewis: I would also like a copy of the application for the subdivision. <br />Brian Crawford: Staff? <br />Craig Benedict: That is fine. <br />Margaret Lewis: I would like to know what the developer means by saying the hill is too high to have a road through Lovinggopd. I disagree <br />with the developer's statement about the Tots, which is now 12 but at one point it was two or three. <br />Brian Crawford: Final comments. <br />Andrew Noble: I live on Booth Road. I wanted to reiterate our concerns, which I think we expressed last time about the safety of our children. <br />The stub out sounds like connectivity by another name in the future. I am very concerned about that. If it is for purposes of emergency <br />vehicles then there should be exclusive wording to that fact. I don't anyone has a problem with safety but they are concerned about the stub <br />out being put in and then five years it becomes a through road. <br />Pete Hallenbeck: We are voting on a motion where we vole yes or no and I thought you said if we take no action there is another step and I <br />want to clarify what that step and what should we do to take that as opposed to voting yes or no. <br />24 <br />Brian Crawford: Let' have the vote first before we determine we are taking no action. If it is voted down, then we could ask that question. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.