Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
111 <br /> DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 31 <br /> that the means to administer the provision must be <br /> known and the objective to be achieved by such a <br /> provision must be clear. <br /> Jacobs continued with his suggestion that <br /> "develooper shall retain a professional forests to <br /> make a survey of the development prior to the <br /> initiation of construction . Said forester shall <br /> mark all trees greater than twelve ( 12) inches in <br /> diamter; both on a plat of the. property and on the <br /> trees themselves. Where there is an unusual or <br /> outstanding group of trees, the entire stand <br /> should be noted. Specimen flowering trees such as <br /> dogwoods and redbuds, which do not ordinarily grwo <br /> to twelve inches in diameter, sdhail also be <br /> identified. The developer and Planning Staff <br /> shall then confer to produce site plans that <br /> protyet the maximum number of trees identified for <br /> protection." <br /> Smith asked if Jacobs was suggesting the <br /> combination of Condition /30 and 132 since the <br /> suggestion included provisions already included in <br /> these conditions. Jacobs responded that the <br /> buffer was different in intention and that he felt <br /> the issues should be considered separately. <br /> Kizer noted that a developer could clear all the <br /> property with the exception of the setbacks on the <br /> basis of this suggestion. Jacobs responded that <br /> currently there was no restriction at all and that <br /> he felt his suggestion is both reasonable for the <br /> owner and the Planning Staff . <br /> Shanklin suggested that the condition as presented <br /> by staff is sufficient. Walters felt that those <br /> who would move into the area would want to protect <br /> it. Yuhasz commented that the provision should not <br /> be applied to individual lots and raised the <br /> question that actions by an individual property <br /> owner could jeapardize the special use permit for <br /> the entire development. Kramer commented that <br /> there was potential In the suggestion, but he <br /> questioned the practicality in its enforcement. <br /> Shanklin added that conditions of approval run <br /> with the land. <br /> Jacobs indicated he had no intention to limit the <br /> individual property buyer from making changes. <br /> His intention was to give the buyer an option " in <br /> consultation with the Planning Department" . <br />