Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 1 LN 6 <br /> incomplete simply because more information was <br /> desired beyond that required by ordinances. <br /> Jacobs reminded Board members that time was still <br /> available within the time period to request the <br /> additional information . <br /> Pilkey indicated a desire for a soils map showing <br /> the reasoning for a ground absorption system. <br /> Yuhasz withdrew his motion after Board discussion <br /> indicated that the reason for deferring action was <br /> a desire for more information , not because it was <br /> incomplete. The additional information requested <br /> was a response from Duke University and information <br /> about soil conditions. <br /> Mr . OtNeal stated that Mr . Osborne could supply the <br /> information regarding soil conditions. <br /> It was the consensus of the Board to delay consid- <br /> eration of Piney Mountain Cluster - Preliminary <br /> Plan until the August 17 , 1987 meeting to receive <br /> additional information from Duke Forest repre- <br /> sentatives. <br /> Discussion <br /> continuation Chair Jacobs asked the County Attorney, Geof <br /> following G l e d h i l l , could the Planning Board approve the <br /> consideration of Preliminary Plan for Piney Mountain Cluster upon <br /> other projects the condition that no negative comments are <br /> received from Duke Unversity concerning impacts of <br /> the project on the forest. Gledhill responded that <br /> he felt the Planning Board should make its recom- <br /> mendation on the information that it has, other- <br /> wise, an administration problem is being created . <br /> He continued that the Board of County Commissioners <br /> has the authority to attach conditions. If <br /> additional information is presented to the Board of <br /> Commissioners at the time they consider the Pre-- <br /> liminary Plan which they see as significant enough , <br /> the Board of Commissioners may then attach con- <br /> ditions. <br /> Kramer asked that since the Planning Board was <br /> acting within the time frame, did it have the <br /> disgression to postpone the project for further <br /> information. Gledhill responded yes. <br /> The developer, Mr. O' Neal questioned the legality <br /> of postponing the vote on a project that meets all <br /> the written criteria and all the criteria provided <br /> in the feedback from Staff . Gledhill responded to <br /> Mr. O' Neal that if he felt the Board had to vote on <br /> a project which had all the information required by <br /> the Ordinance, then he could pursue that question . <br /> However, Gledhill said he did not feel that the <br /> Planning Board was required to do so as long as the <br /> Board was acting within the time frame. <br />