Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br /> project in question, but was issued in response to a request <br /> for a single mobile home on the property. <br /> Pearson noted there were pressure problems but services <br /> would eventually be available to the site. <br /> MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 4.2b <br /> Shanklin seconded the motion. <br /> Walters noted Horace Johnson's comments regarding the <br /> pressure problem. Pearson responded that the Town and <br /> developers would abide by whatever the engineer stipulates <br /> and if earlier development was desired, the developer would <br /> have to pprovide the solution. <br /> Gordon felt there was no assurance. Pearson disagreed <br /> noting there may be problems to correct and Town <br /> requirements to be met, but that the lines must be upgraded <br /> for development to occur or else the land would remain <br /> undeveloped. <br /> Gordon asked if the applicability of the letter was cited at <br /> public hearing. Smith responded it was noted in the <br /> findings submitted by the staff. <br /> VOTE: In favor: (2) Pearson, Shanklin <br /> Opposed: (4) Gordon, Pilkey, Walters, Kramer <br /> Abstention: Yuhasz. <br /> The Board discussed item 4.2.c. <br /> Pilkey questioned the classification of the road. Smith <br /> read the definition of a collector and sub-collector.. <br /> Pearson noted that though by definition it was a sub <br /> collector on the basis of traffic, it might serve more than <br /> 100 units and, therfore, be considered a collector road. <br /> Gordon asked if evidence on this matter had been presented <br /> at public hearing. Pearson responded maps were displayed at <br /> public hearing. <br /> There was Board consensus to proceed given a previous <br /> negative finding. <br /> MOTION: Pilkey moved a negative finding on 4.2c) . <br /> Shanklin seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: In favor: (5) Walters, Gordon, Pilkey, Shanklin, Kramer <br /> Opposed: Pearson <br />