Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
"t55'''d THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. <br /> CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> 100 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL <br /> PD.BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (1319)967-70n <br /> December 30, 1981 <br /> Orange County Planning Board Members, and <br /> Orange County Planning Department Staff <br /> 106 East Margaret Lane <br /> Hil/sborough, North Carolina 27278 <br /> RE: The Timbers Mobile Home Park <br /> CFS 8101 <br /> Ladies and Gentlemen: <br /> When the December 22 Planning Board meeting was cancelled due to weather, The <br /> Timbers was rescheduled for the January 5, 1982 meeting. This causes a con- <br /> flict for me; I have a project before the Chapel Hill Planning Board on <br /> January 5. <br /> I will, try to attend both meetings. The Timbers should be fairly early on <br /> the January 5 agenda, and I have arranged for my Chapel Hill project to be <br /> last on their agenda. <br /> In order to handle The Timbers item efficiently on January 5, I wish to make <br /> available to you the comments I am prepared to make at the Planning Board <br /> meeting. <br /> The planning staff has produced a document for your consideration containing <br /> their negative recommendation on The Timbers application, and seven "reasons" <br /> for the recommendation. it is that recommendation and the reasons for it to <br /> which these remarks are addressed. (We have reproduced and attached a copy <br /> of the recommendation and reasons.) <br /> BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS <br /> It is the applicant's position that there is a strong need for mobile home <br /> housing in this area, and this was demonstrated clearly in the Public <br /> Hearing. <br /> It is the applicant's position that low monthly fees are of greater importance <br /> to the potential residents than improved privacy, and this position was <br /> upheld in the Public Hearing. <br /> It is the applicant's position that the site is well situated and sufficiently <br /> buffered from the surroundings, and this was upheld in the Public Hearing <br /> both through comments from residents in the development (stating the noise <br /> was not objectionable), and from the complete lack of comments from the <br /> neighbors of the proposed development. <br /> 15 <br />