Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
q6t <br /> Planning Board Minutes <br /> July 20, 1981 <br /> Page 3 <br /> He added that there were additional problems when roads are <br /> involved. <br /> General discussion followed. <br /> Kizer motioned that the Latta Subdivision be considered as a <br /> major subdivision. Irvin seconded. <br /> Gledhill cited two policy issues: 1) the fee issue and 2) the <br /> policy for describing the subdivision process. He noted that <br /> these are separate issues on which the Planning Board could take <br /> the initiative. He added the Board needed to decide whether or <br /> not to treat this Subdivision as a major or minor. <br /> Gordon asked what precedent would be set with this motion. Gledhill <br /> clarified that this was merely a staff referral which could be <br /> approved without addressing the question. Callemyn noted that they <br /> had chosen this subdivision to highlight their concerns but that <br /> there will be similar cases in the future. <br /> Cleary noted two items: 1) the subdivision was referred to the <br /> Board by the staff for action, and 2) the Board has given previous <br /> instructions to the staff to refer any questions on the use of the. <br /> minor subdivision process to the Board. Kizer added that the <br /> Board would not be inconsistent in taking this approach. Irvin <br /> concurred. Shanklin also cited past interpretations. <br /> Crawford asked if the fee issue was applicable as a separate item. <br /> Gledhill responded affirmatively and added that the Commissioners <br /> usually requested Planning Board input prior to their action. <br /> Greer felt the Board had the responsibility to apply the regulations <br /> as written as well as to change the regulations as needed. <br /> The Board voted on the motion. 'Tie motion carried. Opposed: <br /> Cleary. Abstention: Lunsford. <br /> Gordon suggested that the problems with the minor subdivision process <br /> be addressed by the Staff as quickly as possible. The Board <br /> concurred, <br /> Cannity indicated that the revision of the Subdivision Regulations <br /> would be the Staff's next project. <br /> Kizer moved to recommend approval of the Latta Subdivision. Cleary <br /> seconded. The motion carried unanimously. <br /> Agenda Item #4 Gary and Gail Barker Subdivision. <br /> Kirk gave a presentation on the Gary and Gail Barker Subdivision. <br /> He noted that Carrboro recommended denial of the subdivision because <br /> of its location in University Lake watershed. Carrboro requested <br /> a minimum of 5 acre lots. H.e added that the Planning Board <br />