Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-22-2006-9c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2006
>
Agenda - 08-22-2006
>
Agenda - 08-22-2006-9c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 4:27:55 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 9:40:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/22/2006
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20060822
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4(~ <br />Renee Price-Saunders: We are waiting to hear from Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney as to what <br />we can do about establishing thresholds for water usage. As we've seen from the various <br />presentations, this is a complicated subject. <br />Michelle Kempinski: Are there provisions for swapping impervious surface requirements? Is <br />that allowable and legal? <br />Bruce Ballenfine: We had a similar situation in Meadowmont. The developer was tackling the <br />issues of using the impervious requirements for all of all lots. With each building permit, the <br />cumulative impervious surface area is counted and recorded, so it can be determined by the <br />neighborhoods. There are situations when this could be of benefit. <br />Robert Davis: Impervious surface amounts need to be recorded on the final plat, and are redone <br />on each request. <br />Glenn Bowles: On a 2-acre lot, it's hard to hit 6%. The average impervious cover on 2-acre lots <br />in Orange county is less than 4% <br />Robert Davis: We don't encourage moving around the impervious limitations between <br />properties.. <br />.Tay Bryan: We can't solve that issue tonight. We may want to review the policy on impervious <br />surface sharing at a later time. <br />Bruce Ballentine: This is the third time this subdivision has been presented. We have made the <br />requested changes, and this is essentially the same as the approved concept plan. <br />Michelle Kempinski: Do we get to review the homeowner association covenants? <br />Robert Davis: The County Attomey has these and they are being reviewed to check for' conflicts. <br />.Jay Bryan: The Planning Board doesn't review these. <br />Renee Price-Saunders: The Carrboro review with trails and slopes, do we need to consider this? <br />Glenn Bowles: No. <br />Jay Bryan: Regarding the use of University Lake as a source of water, what needs to be done? <br />Bruce Ballentine: There are details relating to signage and traffic safety,. OWASA is outlining <br />the process. Is that a requirement for subdivisions in Orange County? I'm not sure why we're <br />being requested to do this, and it will be quite an expense. <br />Glenn Bowles: It was included in the Fire Marshal's comments. It is not a staff regulation but it <br />is encouraged if the Fire Marshal recommends it. <br />MOTION made by Craufurd Goodwin to accept the staff recommendations. Brian Dobyns <br />seconded. <br />VOTE: 9 ayes; 0 nay <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.