Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
36 <br />Michelle Kempinski: On page 002 under existing, the appropriate number of lots should be 18. <br />This is also noted on p. 003 at the bottom -there is no reduction of lots with the new design. <br />Glenn Bowles: It was suggested that the density was transferred from the lazger tract, but as you <br />can see, when the tract was cut off, the density was not really affected under the flexible <br />development. <br />Robert Davis: This abstract was prepared before the other property changes were made. <br />Michelle Kempinski: Is the hatched area considered as open space? <br />Glenn Bowles: It is not ,considered as open space, but the developer has considered some lot <br />restrictions. Number 3 and 2 in the staff conditions show that we want to keep the open space <br />areas in their existing natural conditions, except a possible trail. This will be further defined in <br />the preliminary plan. <br />Ted Triebel: So, the total acreage is 61.5 acres. On page 4 regarding water recharge rates, it <br />shows 67 acres. What's the difference? <br />GlennBowles: The number of households did change. There is one less house <br />Ted Triebel: Are these national averages? <br />Glenn Bowles: I used numbers which were from Madison, WI for total residential consumption, <br />not total consumption. Also, the State of the Environment 2004 report reflects that as average. <br />Ted Triebel: My gut feeling is that 65 is low, and there is potential for a problem. <br />Glenn Bowles: 100 is frequently recommended, but that reflects total consumption. I feel <br />confident about the 65. <br />Bernadette Pelissier: When you take an average of all households, this development is for rather <br />wealthy people, and wealthy people often use more water due to landscaping, etc. There is no <br />data available reflecting varying average by income levels or size of houses, The actual usage <br />will probably be higher than what is shown here. <br />Craufurd Goodwin: I'd like to point out that recommendation #2 on p. 004 makes no sense. <br />There is a duplication of words. <br />Glenn Bowles: We will make that change. <br />Michelle Kempinski: On #6 of the recommendations -why was only Gayle Wilson's attachment <br />addressed, and not the other comments? <br />Glenn Bowles: The other comments were already incorporated into the recommendations. <br />Bernadette Pelissier: On recommendation #7 regarding traffic. Does this pertain specifically to <br />this development? <br />