Minutes 05-23-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

opportunity to ask this body to waive, modify, or rescind development regulation requirements to address on-site specific conditions and provide evidence, testimony, or direct rationale for why it's necessary to this project. I think the direct answer to your question is yes, we will do it for any developer in this process. It is ultimately up to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs: Not making an argument pro or con, but one of the statements that you made earlier was that it would essentially be a continuous fabric of similar density residential development in which this would fit. Why then have anything more than setbacks on the individual lots? We use for the buffer for more open space. Michael Harvey: That is certainly a viable alternative and a viable suggestion. Our priority on this, Commissioner Jacobs, was to ask the applicant to abide with the components of the ordinance as they currently exist and request that the applicant make the necessary arguments as to why a development alternative was appropriate. From my standpoint I have no concern with the requested modifications. Commissioner Jacobs: Another question was raised by Commissioner Hemminger about walking to school. We had a discussion about Ashwick regarding sidewalks, and I don't see that there are any sidewalks. My question is, and I'm sure one reason is there's a cost component. Does a public entity need to have any kind of easement to put in sidewalks, and would it be better to go ahead and reserve that now without requiring any kind of sidewalks to be built? Michael Harvey: I'll let Mr. Benedict talk on this as well, but my two cents is that it wouldn't be a bad idea to begin a dialogue with Habitat that we initiate further discussion on this project. It certainly would behoove the County if they intend to put a sidewalk along School House Road to initiate such a discussion as part of this project this evening. I will note that there have been some preliminary discussions with Mr. Chuck Edwards with NCDOT. Their preference is not to have to maintain sidewalks, which is why they are not shown in the right-of- way. Craig Benedict: Good evening, my name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. In reference to where sidewalks could go at some time in the future, we will have public right-of-way. We are still working with Department of Transportation on urban style standards. We know in the rural parts, DOT has not been amenable to sidewalks in those areas, but we are still continuing our discussion with urban style growth, Efland area, under County DOT road conditions. So we will preserve those 50-foot wide right-of-ways, which accommodate future sidewalks if we can get it approved. Commissioner Jacobs: I would just point out that Hillsborough, which I'm sure was developed with the idea of suburban density, is now retrofitting sidewalks everywhere it can. We had this debate with Chuck Edwards and DOT when Ashwick was coming online and failed then. So I encourage staff to encourage speaking with him, because even though it's hard for us all to believe, at some point in the future Efland is not going to be a low-density community. I also had a question on page 49. There's a section here where there's reference to, excuse me, page 50, number 11, number 10. What does all this mean, `applicant would like to continue to review the fees associated with the project before making any formal comment.' Michael Harvey: In preliminary discussions with Mr. Tracy Parrott on the required fees associated with this project, and in Ms. Levy's defense, I don't think she was properly in the loop