Orange County NC Website
��� <br /> '^^° ' <br /> . � . <br /> Cmmnissiuncr. Hil|hoit suggested changes in some recommendations: with <br /> regard to 4, he said recent studies done by the State indicated the possibility <br /> of a large dam on Corporation Lake and consequently, he would modify # 8 to delete <br /> the sentence beginning "Medium- and high-density residential kovcin9.. .NcGoon Creek <br /> sub-basin'" He added that references to "If development intensifies in McGmm <br /> / Creek" should also be deleted "because under what I am proposing we would not <br /> be proposing any higher intensity development in the McGown Creek sub-basin than <br /> in the rest of the ah Upper Eno," Beginning with "If development intensifieo. . .° <br /> } <br /> Commissioner Uillhnft said the remainder of the paragraph in #8 should be struck, <br /> Concerning # 10, Commissioner Hillhoit said to strike references to "extending <br /> water and sewer lines into McGown Creek sub-basin"; he clarified that such extension <br /> was dependent on the ultimate site of the dam and was consistent with "al/ our <br /> discussions that at some point sewer lines will be extended in the vicinity .[ I- <br /> O5." He continued to leave in the reference that the "Upper Eno watershed in accord- <br /> ance with the Land Use Plan." For recommendation 0 12, Commissioner Uillhuit <br /> suggested striking reference to lot size; there was a consensus that this would <br /> entail striking the entire recommendation # 12' <br /> Responding to a question regarding the necessity of returning the amended <br /> recommendations to another public hearing, Commissioner Willhoitsaid his under- <br /> standing was that these deletions were less restrictive than what was taken to <br /> public hearing and therefore, no second public hearing was required. <br /> Mr. Shanklin, Planning Board member, said he thought an 18th renowmenctinn <br /> regarding the New Hope Creek Watershed had been adopted. Planning Board o/�notes <br /> were consulted and it was noted that the motion to include an 28th recommendation <br /> on New Hope Creek Watershed had not passed. <br /> Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that the Board hear audience comments <br /> on the proposed changes to the recommendations; accordingly, Chairman Whitted <br /> reviewed the recmnendations: # 5, # 7, he said had been "taken care of"; <br /> #8 had been amended /i.ee above7; # 9 reads as is; R 10 had been amended / ee <br /> ) - <br /> above/; I! )2 had been deleted as above, however, Commissioner Willhoit said the <br /> last sentence, regarding the impervious surface ratio should remain; R 13, <br /> Chairman Whitted conintued, hed been "dealt with"; and R 14, 15, 16 and 17 were <br /> as printed. Chairman Whitted asked for audience comments on the recommendations. <br /> Mr. Ben Lloyd, Route l, Efland, asked Commissioner Nillhoit to "clarify" the <br /> changes he had nnUe in the recommendations; Commissioner Nillhnit did so. <br />