Orange County NC Website
~ ~.~ r <br />5 <br />engineer's report on the capacity of the tiVilmore pump station indicated that <br />given all three developments upgrading would be necessary only with further <br />development in the area. <br />Collins reviewed the Town of Hillsborough comments and the <br />Orange County staff response. <br />Collins noted that the project site has 1200' of frontage which <br />results in spacing of greater than a city block between each of the three <br />proposed entrances. <br />Collins reiterated .the provision regarding negotiation between <br />the Town and the developer on the sewer issue as a contingency of approval. <br />Bill Danielle, representative.for the developer, noted that the <br />public hearing was continued to address certain matters and that the <br />relevant information has been submitted. ??e addressed the revised site plan <br />as it corresponded with recommendations or the Department of Transportation. <br />The applicant wants to negotiate with the Tavan over the t7ilmore pump station <br />and has contacted tray [~=altbie who said that the matter would have to be <br />resolved v~ith the Town Board at a later date. He submitted a letter from <br />the applicant indicating that the applicant was prepared to provide the Town <br />with assurances that surpassing the pump station's capacity and upgrading of <br />the facility all problems that will be addressed through later negotiation. <br />t4otion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by <br />Commissioner Lloyn to continue the public hearing to receive the PJ.anning <br />Board's recommendation to the November S, 1984 meeting. <br />VOTE: UNAh'TMOUS <br />E2d. TxAT•1PTON DOT~dNS~ PD-3~4 <br />~'he staff presentation was made by Collins. <br />Collins reviewed the Town of Hillsborough comments and staff <br />response. <br />[Marshall raised the question of the problem of reconciling what <br />the Board has heard over the evening faith the ordinance requirements., asking <br />why there is a different approach to emptying out traffic onto Bohn <br />Breckenridge Drive in Hampton Downs and Homestead ttaad with the [McCoy <br />project. <br />Collins responded that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance <br />requires direct access to arterials or collectors as designated in the Land <br />Use Plan. He continued that tdG 86 is an arterial and that Article 7 <br />requires that traffic from a planned development cannot cause traffic aver <br />minor roads. He reviewed the definition of a minor road. He continued that <br />the number of dwelling units served by John Breckenridge Drive doesn't meet <br />the definition.of a collector or arterial road, not a minor road. The road <br />could be used to gain access to IdC 85. E?e applied the same definition to NC <br />86 and Homestead Road. <br />tarshall cited the evidence given regarding conflicting <br />policies caith Chapel Ftill. She called for staff to look at the definition <br />of a minor road and the rationalization regarding the appropriate entrance <br />for this density expressing a desire to see a reference to a "significant" <br />collector or arterial. <br />Co1,lins agreed there was confusion given the different policies <br />of the two jurisdictions. t~iarsha7.1 felt that the public health, safety anc <br />welfare of individuals is the same in all circumstances and should be <br />addressed regardless of the situation She also expressed concern about ad <br />hoe decisions. <br />