Agenda - 05-26-2015 - C-2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

272 A question was posed on the location of septic facilities for the project. The applicant identified the septic area for the project. A question was asked if the master plan was approved by the County could work be done to construct the solar array denoted on the site plan without the residential units being constructed at all. They were concerned this was just an attempt to skirt established review processes for solar facilities. Staff indicated the applicant could not construct the solar array unless required permits were issued by the County. In this case a Class B Special Use Permit would have to be applied for and obtained after a separate public hearing had been advertised and held. There was general discussion over the development regulations and review process for solar facilities in Orange County. A concern was posed by an adjacent property owner over traffic on Frazier Road being increased over the development of the parcel. The applicant indicated they had reviewed the project with NC Department of Transportation officials where it had been determined there was adequate capacity within the existing road network to accommodate the project and not have a major impact on existing traffic thresholds. A comment was made there was already enough residential development along Frazier Road and that more was not needed. This individual also indicated he was not sure why a new subdivision was required when he felt there was enough housing in the area already. An adjacent property owner indicated he was concerned the developer would get an approval for the project, build it out, and then leave the area. The concern being all of the `checks and balances' being discussed here would be for nothing and that residents of the project would not have to answer to anyone. Once the project was complete the property owners could do what they wanted and all the promises of buffer retention and housing limits would go away. The applicant reminded all in attendance that the `developer' was actually going to live on the property and that development/redevelopment of the parcel would have to be in accordance with the permit issued by the County. There was no way to add additional housing unless the applicant chose to go through the process again and seek approval by the County Board of Commissioners, which would require a new public hearing. A comment was made by an attendee he felt better hearing the applicant/developer would be living on the property as part of the community and that empty promises were not being made over how the project would be managed. There was general discussion over this fact and over the development model being proposed by the applicant. A question was asked about the required 100 foot buffer for the project. Staff reiterated this was not a buffer but a building setback and that the applicant was proposing a variable width buffer along the common property line of 20 feet. There was general discussion on the proposed landscaping along common property lines and the difference between a land use buffer and building setback line.