Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
35 <br /> 11•"-..r Kramer left the meeting. <br /> Jacobs suggested a revision to the wording of the <br /> condition as follows: <br /> "Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. At <br /> least until such time as the developer conveys title of <br /> the property to individual owners existing vegetation <br /> shall be retained." He added that the rest of the <br /> provision would remain as is. He continued that <br /> individual property owners, knowing which trees have <br /> been marked on the plat as being of significance, can <br /> come to the Planning Staff and ask to remove the trees. <br /> No restrictions would be listed on how they would do <br /> that. If at some subsequent point there is some kind of <br /> recognition of special environmental features on the <br /> site the County will make an attempt to preserve them. <br /> if they do not exist because there had. been no attempt <br /> to preserve .them, then it is a moot point. He indicated <br /> a desire to establish the option for the property owner. <br /> Lewis and Yuhasz indicated that the property owner is <br /> given the ultimate option at the time of purchase. <br /> Lewis expressed concern about regulating everything and <br /> requiring that the Planning Staff enforce it. <br /> Smith asked for clarification on the transition between <br /> the developer and property owner in maintenance. <br /> Jacobs suggested adding " the property owner and <br /> planning staff shall then confer" . <br /> Yuhasz inquired of the responsibility of the builder who <br /> will acquire the property from the Grahams and then sell <br /> to the ultimate individual property owner. Hubbard <br /> suggested the responsibility should also rest with the <br /> Kizer felt homeowners need to be included in the <br /> responsibility. Shanklin questioned what was wrong with <br /> the condition as originally worded . <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved that Condition #30 be left as worded. <br /> The Board discussed the . intent and action on the <br /> original motion, <br /> REVISED <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved for clarification that Condition #30 be <br /> left as worded. <br /> Hubbard recognized that there is the possibility that <br /> the development may not be as all of us want it to be. <br /> He continued that there are too many developments where <br /> developers to clear cut sites and that Jacobs suggestion <br /> was good although it may not be worded quite right. He <br /> added that that may or may not happen in this case. <br /> Lewis responded that that is not the cheapest was to <br /> develop in this area. He noted it is cheaper to leave <br /> trees than bear the cost for clearing. <br />