Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> 1 Chad Abbott made reference to the transportation comments and said that he would like <br /> 2 to see how DOT would respond to some of these comments. He said that it would be best to <br /> 3 push back the entrance as far away from the intersection of NC 57 as possible because of the <br /> 4 potential truck traffic. He will provide written responses to the comments from staff. <br /> 5 He said that this use fits this site because the soil does not perk and not many other <br /> 6 uses could be placed here. <br /> 7 Commissioner Hemminger said that she wants this project to succeed, but there are <br /> 8 many issues that were not covered in the documentation the Board received (i.e., traffic, storm <br /> 9 water runoff, etc.). She just wants it to be the best possible project and have it succeed. She <br /> 10 feels like the application is disjointed. <br /> 11 Michael Harvey said that this was supposed to be a negotiable site development <br /> 12 process. There are several concerns of staff and there are issues that need to be addressed. <br /> 13 He said that the applicant is seeking the Board's guidance on what should come next and he <br /> 14 thinks it would be perfectly reasonable for the Board to ask and provide direct guidance on what <br /> 15 should occur next and allow the Planning Board to continue this review at the October meeting. <br /> 16 Commissioner Jacobs said that he is glad this proposal is coming forward. He said that <br /> 17 the next presentation should have the staff concerns and the responses from the applicant. He <br /> 18 is more interested in having buffers along NC 57 than on other parts of the property because <br /> 19 these facilities are not very attractive. He suggested having some bullet points come back to <br /> 20 the Board. <br /> 21 Chad Abbott said that he is certain that the applicant has addressed the storm water and <br /> 22 the traffic/fire and turn radius issues. The big item is the buffer, and he needs guidance on this. <br /> 23 He said that the applicant will put in a well if needed. He said that the staff-requested buffer is <br /> 24 very expensive. <br /> 25 Commissioner Jacobs said that all of this needs to be put in writing. <br /> 26 Michael Harvey said that the Board has some options - identify areas the applicant <br /> 27 needs to address, adjourn the public hearing to a date and time certain asking the applicant to <br /> 28 submit written responses to the issues, asking the Planning Board to review the project, and <br /> 29 asking the Planning Board to continue the dialogue at the October meeting. He said that there <br /> 30 is information that is lacking and everyone is frustrated with that. <br /> 31 Chair Pelissier said that she has heard that the Board really does want a well on this <br /> 32 site. Regarding the buffers, she thinks that there should be some flexibility. She said that all of <br /> 33 the storage facilities that she has seen around here do not have buffers. She would not want to <br /> 34 put restrictions on this project when other similar projects did not have the same restrictions. <br /> 35 Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to keep this process on track and <br /> 36 come back at a September meeting. <br /> 37 Larry Wright asked the Board to provide some options for the buffer for the Planning <br /> 38 Board to discuss. <br /> 39 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would support the small buffer on the perimeter as <br /> 40 shown, as well as the clustered buffer. <br /> 41 Chair Pelissier said that the Board is happy with the proposed buffer. <br /> 42 Commissioner Gordon said that she does not agree with the proposed buffers. She said <br /> 43 that she would still like to see the Planning Board comments. She would like to see a summary <br /> 44 come back on September 1 gtn <br />