Orange County NC Website
• <br /> 077; • Page 16 <br /> Shanklin inquired why there was no- nescape clausen <br /> if the water crises is solved. Smith responded the <br /> • condition also addresses the impacts of the total <br /> project over time.. Kramer noted a water policy Is <br /> needed to guide the decisions of the Board. <br /> Walters questioned why the project is bound to <br /> conditions others are not tied to. Kramer expressed <br /> concern with the tinkering with unresolved .Issues. <br /> Smith reviewed the staff options provided for <br /> conditions /41 . Collins commented on annexation <br /> requirements and the general rule of thumb that <br /> projects be 60% built-out. The Board discussed <br /> phase related conditions. <br /> MOTION: Kramer moved approval of option a) .- <br /> seconded the motion. Shanklin <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> The Board discussed condition #43. <br /> recommended its deletion as the property onine <br /> served has other access. ' Y io be <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor <br /> 1 opposed - Best <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the addition of a <br /> condition requiring consultation with the <br /> Hillsborough Postmaster for the provision of mail <br /> service. Kramer seconded the motion. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous <br /> Kramer expressed opposition to the project on the <br /> basis of a lack of clarity with the water issue and <br /> traffic problems. He felt he could not act on the <br /> proposal in any form in the absence of a water <br /> policy. <br /> MOTION: Kramer moved that the Board ask the <br /> Commissioners to develop a water County <br /> consideration of approval of Scotswoodiory any iother <br /> pending projects that require water and sewer from <br /> Hillsborough. Margison seconded the motion. <br /> Smith questioned the application of this proposal <br /> to the Town of Hillsborough 's subdivision projects. <br /> Collins determined that these projects would also <br /> be subject to these decisions. <br /> VOTE : 3 in favor - Pilkey, Kramer, Margison <br /> 5 opposed <br /> Motion failed <br /> Jacobs noted that the Planning Board could Itself <br /> work on developing such a water policy, and that <br />