Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
224-- <br /> DRAFT PB MINUTES 5-19-86 PAGE 11 <br /> 8) provide temporary turn-arounds within dedicated <br /> rights-of-way as required by NCDOT <br /> 9) renumber lots consecutively within phases <br /> Pilkey inquired why a project this large did not come in as <br /> planned development. Smith responded the applicants were <br /> informed that planned development was one of their options <br /> but they chose to request a general rezoning and this was <br /> approved . <br /> Jacobs noted that there was a Traffic Impact Report <br /> indicating trip generation by this project but no current <br /> traffic figures were included. <br /> Jacobs also inquired about protection of existing <br /> vegetation. Redfoot indicated everything would remain <br /> wooded except the road. <br /> Smith noted that the 1985 traffic count was 2861 with this <br /> project generating an increase of about 25% at a service <br /> level of "B" . <br /> Ken Putnam from the audience inquired if the traffic count <br /> was made during the time that school is in session or <br /> during summer vacation. Smith indicated the time of year <br /> was not known; only that these were 1985 figures. <br /> MOTION: Hubbard moved to amend condition /1 to "designate southern <br /> edge of stream buffer of lot 19" . <br /> Hubbard expressed a concern with the impact that will be <br /> made on the schools. Smith responded that the school <br /> districts are contacted on every project but they never <br /> respond . When questioned about this, they simply say they <br /> are not sure what it means so they do not respond at all . <br /> Smith noted that the impact on the Chapel Hill system was <br /> considerably more than on the County system. Best noted <br /> that he had asked this question of Buz Lloyd at the <br /> rezoning hearing and he wished to hear the answer again . <br /> Lloyd indicated that he felt it is the responsibility of <br /> the school district to provide adequate school facilities. <br /> Jef, from the audience, stated that a study had been done <br /> by the State Department of Instruction dealing with maximum <br /> capacity of school systems . Smith responded that this is <br /> the kind of information needed for development projects . <br /> Hubbard inquired if the schools were already at 100% <br /> capacity, would this be sufficient reason to deny a <br /> project. Kizer responded that this could be a reason if <br /> the school boards would make such a statement. Shanklin <br /> noted that there would be no more schools constructed until <br /> the children were there ready to go to school . Liz Peters, <br />