Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-18-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 02-18-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 11:26:00 AM
Creation date
9/20/2016 10:34:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/18/1986
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
274
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
_ Y <br /> I L.. <br /> JPH MINUTEST 1-6-86 PAGE 6 <br /> Commissioner Walker asked if the Town provided all <br /> of the area within the Town with water service and <br /> Johnson responded yes , except for a few properties <br /> service by wells. <br /> 1 <br /> John McAdams, agent for the applicant, stated that <br /> 1 his firm was basically pleased with the revised <br /> Planning Staff conditions. He noted that he still 1 <br /> felt that a 41 ' cross—section on Graham Drive and <br /> Hamilton Way was excessive and he was requesting a I <br /> 37' cross—section . He also cited the request of <br /> the applicant that sidewalks not be required on the <br /> cul—de—sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are <br /> not required. Ha also noted that the condition <br /> requiring a traffic light at the intersection of <br /> � St. Mary 's Road and US 70 needed clarification. <br /> This conditions requires action by an "outside <br /> party". <br /> McAdams expressed concern with the wording of the <br /> Erosion Control Officer's memo in regard to the <br /> word "phasing". He noted that term particularly <br /> applies to the stormwater detention management <br /> facilities and not the development of the tract . <br /> McAdams continued that phasing of the stormwater <br /> facilities might require construction of these <br /> facilities to serve areas that are not y et under <br /> construction . Erosion Control Officer <br /> agreed that this wording needed clarification . { <br /> McAdams commented that in regards to the water <br /> supply issue the applicant had originally suggested <br /> the 10—year phasing and is willing to work within <br /> the staff recommendation (25% of the units in a 2.5 <br /> year period) . He continued that in relation to the <br /> pacing of development issue, an impoundment or <br /> major changes in agreements affecting raw water <br /> supply would help , and if the concerns ceased to <br /> exit , that there be wording in the condition which <br /> would eliminate the pacing requirement imposed on <br /> the project . <br /> Chair Willhoit stated that he was not sure he <br /> understood the rationale behind the pacing of the • <br /> development . He felt if the Town was making a <br /> commitment to providing water it made no difference <br /> whether it was all built in one year or ten . He <br /> noted there were no firm prospects to establishing <br /> additional reservoirs even in a ten year period . <br /> McAdams responded that pacing gives the Town the <br /> opportunity to react to needs by either raising <br /> tap fees or requiring other conditions to be <br /> I satisfied. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.