Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
future projects. <br />Commissioner Jacobs made a friendly amendment to the motion that if Mr. Bridges could work with this <br />contractor to chip or haul away some of the debris the County will pay subject to the Manager's approval of the proposal. <br />VOTE UNANIMOUS <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to extend the meeting. <br />VOTE UNANIMOUS <br />e. Bradford Ridge Preliminary Plan <br />The Board considered a preliminary plan for the proposed 69.5-acre Bradford Ridge subdivision in Bingham <br />Township near the intersection of Borland and Chestnut Ridge Church roads. <br />Robert Davis from the Planning Department explained the plan for this subdivision, which includes 22 lots. <br />The Planning Department is recommending that the wildlife corridor be platted as a separate lot and dedicated to the <br />County. The developer opposed the dedication of the wildlife corridor as an individual lot. He would prefer maintaining <br />the wildlife corridor as being owned with an easement granted to the homeowners' association. The Planning Board <br />asked that the staff and the developer discuss the corridor dedication and try to resolve the issue. The Planning staff <br />spoke with the developer on July 8 ", and offered to reduce the dedication from five acres to two acres with a 30-foot <br />access easement. The developer did not decline, but wanted to think about it. The Planning Board is asking the County <br />Commissioners to approve the proposal of the five-acre tract. The dedication of the two-acre wildlife corridor would fulfill <br />the fee in lieu of Recreation and Parks, which is $9,555. <br />Kevin Huggins, the developer of the proposed tract, gave a history of the dedication of the wildlife corridor. <br />He came before the Planning Board in September 1997 with the concept plan that did not include the <br />wildlife corridor. He did not get the preliminary plat to the Planning Board in time to meet the one-year deadline. He <br />came back with the present plan that did not include the dedication of the wildlife corridor, and the Planning Board <br />approved it unanimously. Four days before he was to go before the Planning Board for approval of the preliminary plat, <br />he received a message saying they had some ideas about the wildlife corridor. He has been in contact with OWASA <br />about these issues. He said he is not sure why the Planning Board decided to cut the corridor down to two acres. He <br />has spoken with an attorney to find out about the access to the corridor and how it will affect the quality of life for the <br />residents. He has also asked the attorney about liability issues and who is responsible for the easement. He does not <br />have sufficient answers to these questions at this time. He does not understand why he is being asked to give five <br />acres for the dedication if he is only legally required to give 1.1 acres. He said he is prepared to make a payment in lieu. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the private road was granted by right, and Planning Director Craig Benedict <br />said no. <br />Chair Gordon asked if it is possible for the developer to grant an extension for the Board to discuss this <br />further. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said yes, but the developer would not grant the Board of County Commissioners an <br />extension of time to discuss this item. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said there are two different definitions on how much open space there is, page 14 <br />says 44.6%, and page 16 says 42.7%. <br />Robert Davis said that four acres of the land is in a one hundred-year flood plain, so it would not be suitable <br />for building. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked a number of questions about the open space. <br />Robert Davis said that the right-of-way, the electric power, and easements were all included within the open <br />space calculations. He said the Planning Board wanted to take the opportunity to salvage the wildlife corridor, working <br />with the existing regulations. <br />Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that in deciding whether the road is public or private, there are <br />environmental factors. He said it could be argued that this particular piece of property is what makes it more acceptable <br />to recommend the private road. <br />Chair Gordon asked if a follow-up could be done. The developer is arguing that this is beyond what the <br />requirements would be. However, the County could require this road to be a public road. She pointed out that there is <br />some advantage to the developer to give the five acres, because there would be no expense for a public, paved road. <br />She asked if the Board decided to approve the five acres for the wildlife corridor, can the granting of the private road be <br />tied to the five acres. Then if there is a court case that deletes the five acres it also deletes the private road and makes <br />it a public road. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that it is possible to tie the granting of the private road to the five acres. He said that <br />language could be added to the resolution. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis is concerned about having another unpaved road. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the <br />resolution, including the easement. Geoffrey Gledhill will add the appropriate language tying the private road grant to <br />10