Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Mm I � V 23 " <br />Best noted again that he felt the question can <br />need is not one on which the Planning <br />vote. It must be simplified as much as possible <br />as to whether or not the change is a substantial <br />change. This must not be discriminatory <br />andfor <br />non- <br />Habitat for Humanity, but must be equal <br />discriminatory for all developers. Even though <br />there is sympathy for the work of Habitat, he <br />felt this is a substantial change and should be <br />handled equally for all developers. <br />MOTION: <br />Best moved approval of the Planning Staff's <br />recommendation that the request for an amendment <br />to the Phasing Plan of Chestnut Oaks be <br />resubmitted without major modification to of <br />accommodate the public roads approved <br />the Preliminary Plan on February 16, 1988. <br />Seconded by Lewis. <br />Lewis expressed agreement with Best that this <br />would be a major change for any developer and <br />thus everyone should be treated equal. Lewis <br />did, however, express concern with the comment <br />from Mr. Woods about unscrupulous developers <br />indicating that he felt this was not true of the <br />greater majority of developers in Orange erCounty. <br />They abide by the rules established cd <br />County and desire to build good projects an, <br />thus, make a living. <br />Lewis continued that he felt there were times <br />when he would like for the Board to address <br />"needs" and allow projects. However, in this <br />case, the increased cost would be approximately <br />$3,300 per lot and he felt the benefits would <br />outweigh the costs in the long run. <br />Cantrell indicated she would oppose the motion <br />because she felt that this project would be one <br />for which a private road would be an appropriate/ <br />reasonable alternative. However, she also was <br />offended by the comment "unscrupulous developers" <br />and felt there have been some very high quality <br />proposals brought to the Board and the same <br />developers continue to return and not <br />disappear. She continued that she felt it is <br />indeed in the capabilities of the Planning Board <br />to decide that a private road would be <br />.appropriate for such a development project. <br />Burklin asked just what the amendment to Section <br />III -D -2 -e of the Subdivision Regulations allowed <br />the Commissioners to change as far as amending a <br />phasing plan. Crudup referred to the Staff <br />