Agenda - 06-11-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. _ 5 Yuhasz stated that lots 62 and 63 would not be counted as recreation space. Commissioner Marshall said not much could be done about the power line easement, but that the 100' buffer and trees would help the view to those lots. Discussion continued on recreation acreage. A council member questioned the requirements if a property owner wanted to build a storage building on a lot. Collins responded a 15' setback would be required. Presentation of Chapel Hill Town Manager's Report Dave Taylor, Town Manager, requested that pages 110-145 of the agenda packet be entered as evidence to the public hearing. Chair indicated that entire packet is documented as part of the public hearing. Taylor turned the presentation over to his staff. Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director, discussed the difference between buffers and setbacks and between gravity sewers and pump stations. Planning Board Chair Dr. Alice Gordon asked if the Chapel Hill staff concurred that the setbacks and buffers as stated would be sufficient. Waldon responded affirmatively that there is sufficient room to satisfy Town standards. Gordon inquired if there is a perimeter buffer requirement, Waldon responded that a landscaping plan which would comply with Town standards would be submitted and approved. He noted there was no comparable Town standard to the MIC buffer requirement. He further noted there was no buffer requirement around the perimeter for the proposed subdivision where it adjoins vacant land. Steve Yuhasz asked if the Town has any buffer requirement along the 411 interstate in the Town's planning jurisdiction? Waldon answered negatively. Commissioner Walker asked if the Town honored the County's requirements in their jurisdiction. Cochran asked that the Chapel Hill buffer requirements be provided in place of County requirements. Nassif questioned whether his planning department should be making the decision of the necessity of the 100' buffer. He indicated the Town has accepted in joint planning that, in those areas outside of our extra- territorial jurisdiction, we will use the County subdivision regulations or any other applicable regulations. He asked: are we or are we not in our review to use the 100' buffer? He asked if subjective decisions are made to allow for this one not to have it or the next one to have it. Is it fluid at all times? If it is fluid in the Ordinance, who makes the decision how fluid • it is. Is it made by the staff or by the policy making board? Does a developer go in to our staff and the County staff and say that is fluid and everybody agree and say we do not think you ought to have it and we will go • before the Board and say you do not have to have it. How does it get evaluated by the staff when something is so fluid, but yet it is in the Ordinance written in a fairly precise manner? Mayor Nassif asked the attorney if a subjective decision may be made on the application of the open space requirement within the Ordinance and who would evaluate and make the decision. Gledhill responded that staff makes only a recommendation. He further noted that there is a standard, but also a provision, referenced as Section 7.3, which allows that some requirements need not be met provided that the applicant satisfies the Board that the purpose behind the requirement has been satisfied to an equal or greater 0 extent. This decision requires a finding on the part of the Board based on the evidence presented. Mayor Nassif asked when is the proper time for the applicant to propose changes to the project. Gledhill indicated there is no fixed answer to the question because, in practice, where an applicant proposes something that varies from the requirements of the ordinance, that proposal comes forward at