Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-23-2007-11b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2007
>
Agenda - 10-23-2007
>
Agenda - 10-23-2007-11b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 2:02:15 AM
Creation date
8/28/2008 10:53:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/23/2007
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
11b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20071023
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 5 6 <br />Robert Davis <br />From: Craig Benedict <br />Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:05 AM <br />To: .Robert Davis <br />Subject: FW: Churton Grove <br />fyi <br />From: Barry .7acobs [mailto:Barry.J@mindspring.com] <br />Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:50 PM <br />To: Craig Benedict <br />Subject: FW: Churton Grove <br />fyi <br />From: Bryan Hampton [mailto:brypa93@yahoo.com] <br />Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:50 PM <br />To: mcareyi@mindspring.com; barry.j@mindspring.com; vfoushee@co.orange.nc.us; <br />gordonam@mindspring.com; mikenelsonnc@aol.com; Iblackmon@co.orange.nc.us <br />Subject: Churton Grove <br />Hello, <br />I.am a resident of Orange County residing in Churton Grove and the purpose for my communication <br />with you is to share my concerns regarding the completion of the development. Milce Bucic presented to <br />you a collection of resident concerns regarding current projects, incomplete or faulty past projects, and <br />problematic future plans for Churton Grove. From personal interactions with the developers and county <br />planners I can say without a doubt that if these problems are to be rectified, phase 4 should not be <br />allowed to open or they will never be corrected. The county planners have failed to enforce the tenets of <br />the special permit, but by limiting expansion, the current developer will be motivated to correct current <br />problems, and more importantly, they will supply the needed influence on the past developer to finish <br />his contracted projects. <br />I would like to echo the concerns that Mike Buck raised and urge you to respond to his questions prior <br />to the sale of lots from the final phase of construction in the development (phase 4). Timing is of the <br />essence since the strongest motivator for the developers to complete past contracted projects is to require <br />their completion prior to moving forward with the last phase. The power of this influence was <br />recognized from the inception of the development and the reason for its requirement in the original <br />special use permit. <br />To date there are still many projects that remain unfinished from the first and second phases, which <br />demonstrates that if the projects are not completed before moving on to the next phase, they will not be <br />completed or move at a snails pace over years of prodding. I hold the county planners responsible to a <br />great extent for this by allowing many important and obvious safety issues to be overlooked and not <br />applying the pressure they have at their disposal to require contracted projects to be completed. <br />I have personally contacted Robert Davis and Craig Benedict at least a dozen times in the past 9 months <br />to ask that they require the developers past (Jim Moore) and present (Newland) to act on unfinished <br />contracted projects and obvious safety problems that were negligently overlooked during <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.