Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Chair Halkiatis thanked Craig Benedict for all the work done on this project. He feels that <br />this has been a poorly presented subdivision and he would vote against it if he had any legal basis. <br />He said that this has cost the County money in getting an additional legal review of this issue. He <br />said that the review from the attorney clearly states, "The subdivision regulations contemplate the <br />Board making its decision based upon facts as they exist at this date. If a developer previously <br />violated a local ordinance or rule but has since remedied the violation, the Board may elect to pursue <br />civil andlor criminal penalties. The Board may not deny development applications based upon these <br />past violations." He said that he wanted to write a letter to Pickett Sprouse Real Estate, as an <br />individual or Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, to express his total indignation about this <br />process. He said that this type of aggressive marketing is totally reckless. He will send his letter to <br />the Board, and if they do not agree with him, he will sand it as an individual. <br />Syd Alexander, attorney for the applicant, spoke about enforcement for the conservation <br />easement far the drainage area. He said that he and Geoffrey Gledhill have conferred and agreed <br />that in the restrictive covenants and in a stipulation that would go with the Resolution of Approval, <br />language will be incorporated that says that the homeowner's association will have the authority and <br />an obligation to enforce the conservation area, and further, that the County of Orange, as a third-party <br />beneficiary, will have the authority to enforce and protect the area around the drainage. He said that it <br />was his belief that this application as submitted does meet ar exceed all of the requirements of the <br />ordinance. <br />Citizen Comments <br />Steve Herman made reference to the Zoning Ordinance and the issue of a private road <br />versus a state maintained road. He showed on a map the land disturbance for a private road versus a <br />state maintained road. He said that there would be much more land disturbance for astate- <br />maintained road than for a private road. He said that the main reason the developer does not want a <br />private road is because he would not be able to have nine lots and make as much money. He also <br />feels that the stream is not being protected because of the slope on both sides of the stream. He <br />feels that there has not been serious consideration from the Planning Board in regards to the stream. <br />Betsy Kraus spoke about the noise issue and said that because of the access routes there <br />will be additional noise. She said that the development activities have changed the noise level at her <br />house. She read same comments from other regulatory agencies about noise levels. <br />AI Dodson said that he is concerned about the water flaw and velocity. He said that all of <br />the land drains across the edge of his property and down through his property. He said that he <br />agreed in writing that the developer will put same Rip Rap to slow dawn the water. He is not sure that <br />this will fix the problem. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked and Craig Benedict said that there would be a significant cut <br />in the berm even with a private road. <br />Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the letter on page 75 and the Rip Rap and asked <br />if there was a timeframe. Craig Benedict said that the Rip Rap would have to be in place, including all <br />of the erosion control measures, before the first certificate of occupancy is issued on the project. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked about restricting tree clearing to the building envelope. Craig <br />Benedict said that there was some additional language put in about haw trees are not to be removed <br />except for certain reasons. <br />Steve Herman painted out that the engineer that gave an analysis about the road was <br />employed by the developer. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict about the issue of the private road and asked <br />why there could not be a private road and how many lots would be permitted if there were. Craig <br />Benedict explained that the first premise for roads in the development standards is that all roads <br />should be public roads. This is so that buses can access the road and so that the road can be <br />maintained by a stronger authority than the homeowner's association. The private road standards are <br />very specific in that the environmental features are analyzed using about seven criteria to justify the <br />private road. One of the first criteria is to increase the lot size. He said that the staff does not suggest <br />going to a private road when there is the absence of all six criteria. <br />