Agenda - 06-11-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- 6 the application stage and is presented at public hearing. In practice the County has dealt with those questions at the time it considers the application. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board had previously asked that incomplete applications not be brought before the Board for consideration, however this does not address or resolve the ability to request a waiver of the 100' buffer under the planned development ordinance. She noted there is no waiver of the 100' MTC buffer requirement. Gledhill confirmed this as well as indicated that floor area ratios and sight distance requirements may not be waived and must be satisfied for approval of the application. These issues have been dealt with by the County at the time of application and reviewed at public hearing. There have been instances recently where applications have been so incomplete that the Board has directed the staff to reject the application. For some requirements of the ordinance the Board might consider variations which could be heard at the public hearing. Council member R. D. Smith asked whether the buffer around the individual lots (not the MTC buffer) should be shown on the plans; should we be concerned about this; what does the developer plan to do and at what point will this be discussed. Gledhill answered that the applicant will have the opportunity to make a presentation on that item. But as he understood it, the 100' buffer for the planned development applies to the perimeter of the overall project. He added the Boards can negotiate or waive it as long as the substitute buffer, in the opinion of the Boards, is equivalent to that provided by the 100' specified. Commissioner Walker questioned if the 100' MTC buffer applied in Chapel 411 Hill's jurisdiction? Geoffrey Gledhill responded the County does not have zoning jurisdiction in Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction. Geoffrey Gledhill continued that regulations of the county, including the 100° buffer requirement, do not apply anywhere in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Mayor Nassif clarified for Mr. Walker that even if the Town required the • MTC buffer, there were no undeveloped areas in the Town's jurisdiction along the interstate to which it would apply. Walker noted as Chapel Hill annexes it may get into that area. Nassif said until we annex, it would be in the Joint Planning Area and right now we are using your requirements for joint planning. He expressed concern that he did not know when requirements are waived and when they are not and when the issue should be considered. Geoffrey Gledhill reminded the Boards that the burden is on the applicant to prove he meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Roger Waldon continued his presentation and reviewed again the open space requirements, traffic patterns, additional rights-of-way and drainage easements. Waldon continued that to satisfy the Town's open space requirement for the subdivision the applicant would have to provide additional open space or a payment in lieu of the required open space. David Taylor addressed the following primary concerns: traffic impact, drainage and resource conservation district and the sewer service to the area. He said that his staff recommends to the Council approval of the preliminary plat with the stipulations as specified. Ms. Rawalec questioned the necessity, reliability and maintenance of pump stations. Waldon noted it would be impossible to provide service to this subdiv- ision without a pump station. R. D. Smith questioned the location of the perennial stream and compliance with the Town's standards. Boger Waldon answered that it was not a perennial stream.