Minutes - 19850611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ooo~ti7 Collins sur¢narized the position of the Orange County staff in that the applicant complies with the general standards and regulations with the exception of the three negative fi.rulings. He continued that staff received no i-ndication that this develoianerit would be hazardous to the general health, safety and welfare. Orange County staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval included in the agenda packet. Ms. iiawalec i.r~icated her concern about the power line that cuts through the site adding she did not suite know how to approach it using Orange County's system. 'lt appeared to her that it is going to desecrate the recreation area. She asked if staff had considered that and what their thought on this subject was? Collins responded the developer i_n this case really had an option: he could either design his lots in such a manner that they would back up to the easement or he could provide some type of apen recreational space adjacent to that power line, using that as a buffer ar screen to keep residential 'units away from the ea~er,~er_t itself. The fact that he has kept his facilities on either side addresses the latter. We do not anticipate any ~.rticular problem under the power line. .. Ms. Ingram incuired about lots 62 and 63, in particular, and then 28, 29 and 37. She noted these lots are going to have a view of a vast expanse of vacant land with power lines. Collins addressed each lot sepazately as to suggestions for best passible in~rovement. Commissioner Marshall asked if the acreage of the recreation_ space includes the land in the entire easement? Collins responded yes. Yuhasz stated that lots 62 arr] 63 would nat be counted as recreation space. Commissioner Marshall said not much could be done about the power line easement, but that the 100' buffer and trees would help the view to those lots. Discussion continued on recreation acreage. A council member questioned the requirements if a property owner wanted to build a storage building on a lat. Collins responded a 15' setback would be required. Presentation of Chapel I3i11 Town Manager's Report Dave Taylor, Town Imager, reruested that pages 110-145 of the agenda packet be entered as evidence to the public hearing. Chair ir~icated that entire packet is documented as part of the public hearing. Taylor turned the presentation over to his staff. Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director, discussed the difference between buffers and setbacks and between gravity sewers and pump stations. Planning Board Cha:~r Dr. r~lice Gordon asked if the Chapel Pi11 staff concurred that tYle sE~tbacks arai buffers as stated would be sufficient. Waldon responded affirmatively that there is sufficient roam to satisfy Town standards. Gordon inr~uired if there i.s a perimeter buffer requirement. Waldon responded that a landscaping p:can which would coanply wits Town standards would be sul=anitteci axxz approved. He noted there was no cc~aarable Z~own standard to the 1~PPC buffer requirement. fie further noted there was na buffer requirement around the perimeter for the proposed subdivision where it adjoins vacant land.