Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• <br /> 111 <br /> DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 30 <br /> Nancy Hill Creek. Kizer responded the applicant <br /> has already provided more than the minimum <br /> recreation requirements. Hubbard noted some of <br /> the area could later be released. Smith noted a <br /> change in condition would require a public <br /> hearing. Collins noted that the minimum standards <br /> is all that can be required of an applicant unless <br /> there is a specific showing that more area is <br /> needed and there has been no evidence that more is <br /> • <br /> needed. <br /> VOTE: 10 in favor. <br /> 1 opposed (Yuhasz) . <br /> MOTION: Kizer moved approval of conditions 128 and 29. <br /> Seconded by Shanklin. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> Kizer left the meeting 11 :00 p.m. <br /> Jacobs read the following as his recommended <br /> replacement for condition 130. <br /> "Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. <br /> Existing vegetation shall be maintained between <br /> units. Clearing shall only be conducted for the <br /> purposes of installing improvements (roads, <br /> utilities lines, etc. ) or for establishing a <br /> building site within an area delineated by <br /> required front, side and rear yard setbacks. <br /> Reasonable care should be taken to retain all <br /> existing vegetation." <br /> Smith commented that by this motion the <br /> opportunity has been eliminated to put up an <br /> accessory building on one of the single-family <br /> lots. <br /> Best disagreed stating that the developer would be <br /> responsible for compliance with this condition, <br /> not the owner. Smith responded that the developer <br /> will sell the lots and the purchasers of those <br /> lots will then be held responsible for compliance <br /> with the provisions of the special use permit. <br /> Jacobs indicated he would be willing to add to the <br /> statement that " changes in the existing <br /> vegetation shall be approved in consultation with <br /> the Planning Staff" . Smith questioned under what <br /> criteria would the staff review such requests from <br /> 400 single-family property owners, emphasizing <br />