Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-05-1987
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1987
>
Agenda - 01-05-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2016 2:18:52 PM
Creation date
9/27/2016 11:34:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/5/1987
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
324
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL <br /> 1 . C 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET <br /> CHAPEL HILL..NORTH CAROLINA 273W369I■ <br /> October 20, 1986 Tekprmar ( 9) 9GS-27O <br /> Greg Szymik <br /> Orange County Planning Dept. <br /> 106 E. Margret Lane <br /> Hillsborough, NC 27278 _ <br /> • <br /> RE: Stacy Heights Subdivision (23-D-25B) <br /> Dear Greg: _ <br /> The following are the Development Review staff's cents concerning the <br /> proposed Stacy Heights subdivision. <br /> 1. Since the proposed Fast Tally No Trail is accessing a large <br /> tract of land to the east, we feel that this road should be a <br /> public right-of-way, and not private. . <br /> 2. The subdivision does not propose any recreation space. - <br /> 3. Lots 1 and 2 should be restricted to a 'sh.ared-driveway' access <br /> onto Rogers Road. - - <br /> 4. Rogers Road will in the the future become, at a minim , a major <br /> collector street. As such, we.would recommend a I5-fo_ot widen- _ <br /> ing strip be provided along the sites frontage. - - <br /> 5. Accomodations should be made for future WASA Water and Sewer - <br /> Service. We suggest that the applicant coordinate this with <br /> OWASA and indicate on the plan the necessary easements. <br /> 6. We strongly recommend that the applicant provide evidence that <br /> each newly created lot will be suitable for individual wells and <br /> • <br /> septic tanks. - <br /> I wish to emphasize that since this proposal falls within the urban <br /> transition area of the Joint Planning Area, we are strongly opposed to <br /> developments requiring individual wells and septic tanks. We also question <br /> the timing (and design) of this development since It appears that the - <br /> applicant owns a larger adjacent tract and may have development ties with <br /> adjoining property owners. The lotting-off of road frontage with no future <br /> consideration of how adjoining properties develop only leads to undesirable <br /> environments in the future for the 4 to 5 lot _ owners, and adds to the <br /> future roadway and traffic conflicts. <br /> We hope you will consider our stated concerns and recommendations in your <br /> deliberation on this proposal. •-._. �_ _ <br /> Sincerely, <br /> CIC <br /> Dave Roesler - _ <br /> Development Coordinator as-zz- <br /> • <br /> DR/gp <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.