Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />7 <br />tnTillhoit clarified that the developer is responsible for <br />maintenance of tdildvrood roads until they are accepted by the State. <br />tVhit'~ed questioned the private road serving Hampton Downs. <br />Sears responded the road is to be built to Department of <br />Transportation construction standards, but will remain private. He expressed <br />concern about a public road conflicting with building setbacl: requirements <br />beyond the right-of-way. He noted the developer was working toward the goal <br />of state acceptance. <br />Collins clarified there are no setbacks in a planned development <br />with the exception of those required by the Board of Commissioners. <br />:•iarshall indicated she wanted a cumulative figure on traffic <br />along P1C 86 entered into the record. <br />y <br />Carol Everhart, t9ildwood resident, expressed concern about <br />security, trash and traffic as well as about a decrease in property values <br />and the limited value of the 100' buffer. <br />Diane Harrison, resident of iildwood, asked if the rigkit-of-way <br />of Oakdale Drive had been acquired. Freeland responded he has dedicated what <br />he owns. <br />N_arrison questioned using John Breckenridge Drive for access <br />until Oakdale is built. <br />Mike Covington G•7ilcwood resident, expressed concern that no <br />recreation areas have been built in taildwood and a decrease in property <br />values. He felt a 1G0' buffer was insufficient. Gordon clarified that the <br />l00' buffer is an ordinance requirement. <br />Anthony Harris, t~7ildwood resident, expressed concern about the <br />lack of recreation area in taildwood. <br />Smith responded tht the recreation area to serve t4ildwaod will be <br />provided during construction of Section II Phase III of tdildwood. <br />Dave t9hite, t~7ildwaod resident, asked how townhouses would improve <br />the area. He expressed concerns about school capacity and property <br />devaluation. <br />Beth Johnston, t~7ildwood resident, expressed concern about slopes. <br />Freeland responded the building area was away from the steep slopes located" <br />along the front of the property. Tae noted single family houses built there <br />would cost much more. t•7illhoit suggested a single family cluster <br />development. Freeland responded that R-5 single family development would mean <br />150 units as opposed to the 207 multi-family units requested. <br />Johnston asked about a turning lane. Collins responded it was a <br />condition of approval on TIC 86 for taildwood. <br />', ~,arry Goss, taildwood resident, expressed concern that he had no <br />prior knowledge of the development and the unlikelihood of acquiring land for <br />Oakdale Drive. <br />Schiver inquired about the road in the southwest corner of <br />taildwood. Collins responded it was a stubout to provide access to the <br />Hampton Downs tract and that such a stubout is a common practice. George <br />Edwards indicated he concured with previous statements. <br />Covington asked if the Board would continue the meeting so that <br />appraisal opinions could be obtained. Schiver asked when Oakdale Drive <br />e~:tension would be built. Gdillhoit responded that only road right of way <br />would be dedicated at this point with construction during later phases. <br />t,otion was made by Commissiener tVhitted, seconded by Commissioner <br />>`9arshall to continue the public hearing until September 18. 1984 to receive <br />additional- evidence, <br />