Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />~~ ~ <br />Michael Warner, property owner adjacent <br />expressed support for certain aspects of <br />opposition to the proposed density. <br />neighborhood is one dwelling per 4-10 <br />County not alter its plans to <br />- meet the objectives of the developer but <br />altering their plans to meet the obj~ <br />personal objectives of the residents. <br />to the proposed development, <br />the proposal but did express <br />The present density of the <br />acres. He asked that the <br />that the developers consider <br />actives of the County and the <br />Philip Price, property owner at the halfway point between New 86 and <br />NC l0, stated that he felt water was the primary concern with this <br />project. He also expressed concern with the ability of New Hope <br />Church Road to handle the proposed density, He expressed concern <br />with the impact of the opening of I-40 and the new school proposed <br />for the end of New 86 on the capability of New Hope Church Road. He <br />also asked that consideration be given to the traffic impact during <br />construction of the school, and this large development. <br />Alan Seiferheld, resident approximately .4 miles from this proposed <br />development, noted that one of his reasons for moving to this area <br />from Cary was the low density. He stated 'that he would like to see <br />the area developed within the zoning regulations which now exist. <br />Clint Burklin, representing the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association, <br />indicated that the Association felt reasonable uses were being <br />proposed for the property and that the golf course was compatible <br />with their objectives of keeping the density low. He asked that focus <br />- be on the following before the plan proceeds: <br />1. Do not reduce the density below one unit per <br />acre which is compatible with Strayhorn Hills; <br />2. County should accept a commitment to upgrade <br />New Hope Church Road; <br />3. Require submittal of the entire plan rather than piece-meal so <br />it can be evaluated and rezoned all at one time, <br />George Brumley asked the proposed ingress and egress of the project, <br />Collins responded that they had not been defined at this time, <br />MOTION: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell that <br />this item be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to <br />be brought back to the Board of Commissioners on October 3, 1988, <br />VOTE: Unanimous, <br />2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS <br />a. Z-1-88 Cheeks Township <br />Staff presentation was made by Brad Targan. <br />Tongan began the presentation by addressing two questions asked by <br />