Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br /> 1 physical development of the County as provided in these regulations, specifically the UDO and <br /> 2 the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 3 Madame Chair, I would be happy to answer questions at this time, however, before questions <br /> 4 are asked I would ask that the Board acknowledge and have a motion to place this agenda <br /> 5 packet into the record. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to <br /> 8 place this agenda packet into the record. <br /> 9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Chair Pelissier: So we can have further discussion before we close the public hearing, <br /> 12 because after that, we cannot. Any questions, any comments before we close the public <br /> 13 hearing? <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Commissioner Jacobs: I have several questions. I have a question for the County Attorney <br /> 16 about the applicant's assertion that a condition that the Triangle Land Conservancy might close <br /> 17 a trail that could result in an invalidation of their special use permit. Have I heard that <br /> 18 correctly? Could you just address whether that is in fact a valid assertion? <br /> 19 <br /> 20 John Roberts: I don't remember hearing that. Is that in the packet somewhere? <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Commissioner Jacobs: I thought that's what Mr. Harvey said. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Michael Harvey: That's correct. It's actually contained in Attachment 2. As a summary, the <br /> 25 Triangle Land Conservancy indicated that they would allow a trail to be extended. They require <br /> 26 the applicant to bear some financial burden and pay for stewardship and that TLC technically <br /> 27 reserves the right to limit or require the trail to close in the event it became a potential hazard <br /> 28 on the property. The applicant's response, and I'm paraphrasing somewhat, essentially <br /> 29 indicates that they would not want to go to the expense of developing and installing the trail if it <br /> 30 is subject to be closed by TLC, and #2, if they are required to have the trail which is <br /> 31 subsequently required to be closed they would not want to create a situation causing a <br /> 32 technical violation of the SUP and therefore risk having the SUP revoked. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 John Roberts: I don't know that this Board or any board could mandate that they open a trail <br /> 35 on another property. I don't agree that that's something within this Board's power. If the <br /> 36 mandate is that they maintain a trail on this portion of the property, all they would have to do is <br /> 37 do that to remain in compliance with their special use permit. There can be no mandate that <br /> 38 they open a trail on another property. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Jacobs: If I can follow up, theoretically, if the trail connection is made to the <br /> 41 TLC property, then it would be up to either the developer or the homeowners' association to <br /> 42 negotiate with Triangle Land Conservancy whether or not there would be an adequate <br /> 43 connection. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 John Roberts: That is correct. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Commissioner Jacobs: Another question I had, on page 6, the fifth bullet: "BOCC members <br /> 48 requested additional information on the operational parameters of the off-site septic field. The <br /> 49 applicant agreed to supply additional information." Is that additional information in here about <br />