Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-01-1988
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1988
>
Agenda - 02-01-1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2016 4:03:59 PM
Creation date
10/3/2016 12:30:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/1/1988
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.
/
319
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
, r rage <br /> S , <br /> Planning staff recommends approval of this preliminary 0.5 <br /> plat subject to an approved stormwater management plan. <br /> For copy of memo from Erosion Control Officer, see pages 16 and 17 <br /> of these minutes. <br /> For copy of report from Phillip Post and Associates entitled <br /> Storm water Management Report for Site of John Hackney Heirs <br /> Subdivision. See pages 18-23 of these minutes. <br /> . Greenberg inquired if the Towns had reviewed the proposal. <br /> Coutu responded that no written response had been received <br /> from either the Towns or OWASA. Greenberg felt it was <br /> imperative to get a close review of the project by the Towns <br /> given the presence of the critical feeder creeks, Phils and Neville <br /> Creeks, Collins clarified that the staff had net with Carrboro <br /> staff, OWASA staff and TJCOG staff for the purpose of jointly <br /> reviewing the proposal. <br /> Kizer inquired if the Town had any problem with the proposal. <br /> Faircloth responded that the staffs had reviewed the project <br /> interns of the Carrboro proposed Soil & Erosion Control standards. <br /> Carrboro staff had indicated that there were no problems with <br /> the subdivision meeting the requirements. <br /> Gordon asked if this was the usual procedure pursued by the <br /> staff with project review. Coutu responded staff always notifies <br /> the Towns in writing and that the Towns generally respond <br /> by phone. He added that in this case the County staff went <br /> further and set up a meeting with all the relevant staffs to <br /> review the project. <br /> Greenberg expressed a desire to have written reports on the <br /> project from both Towns given the proximity of the project <br /> to the University Lake. <br /> Pearson questioned the request stating the Towns had been <br /> notified and had not given a written response. Shanklin <br /> agreed that further delay was unwarranted. <br /> Gordon added that legitimate concerns were needed to delay <br /> consideration of the proposal, that is deviations from • <br /> established procedures or unanswered questions. Kizer noted <br /> that staff had gone further in review than normal procedures <br /> called for. <br /> Gordon asked if Greenberg had specific questions. <br /> Greenberg asked why 10 instead of a. 25 year peak flow was used- Phili1 <br /> Post, engineer, responded that he had followed the ordinance <br /> specifically, indicating that this requirement was specified <br /> in.the ordinance and tracked standard procedure used in North <br /> Carolina. <br /> Greenberg asked if lots are to be sold later to individual <br /> builders. Post answered affirmatively. Greenberg expressed <br /> concern about siting of homes without Planning Board review. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.