OCPB agenda 050714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Jennifer Leaf: This does have a label of 104 acres on it, the recombination plat, so the plat that was recorded in 111 2005, they shifted some boundary lines so that is how that lot ended up being 104 acres. 112 113 Tony Blake: Some lots are in the rural buffer and in the Chapel Hill school system and some are in the Orange 114 County School system and it appears as if they have already accounted for the impact fees and I wanted to 115 comment about that. 116 117 Michael Harvey: That is on page 36. There will be six lots potentially served by Orange County and 14 lots served 118 by Chapel Hill Carrboro. 119 120 Tony Blake: Since tracts two through four are owned by the same development company that ultimately these 121 tracts will be developed as well? 122 123 Jennifer Leaf: Those tracts are currently developed. 124 125 Pete Hallenbeck: It seems like it meets the requirements and staff is happy with it. Streams are getting good 126 protection and the soils are good enough for conventional. Is there anyone else from the public to comment on 127 this? 128 129 Christine Hagelburger: I share a 1,400 foot long boundary with the project. Please go to the vicinity map. Pointed 130 to the common line on the map. Four of these lots are going on our line which is a more significant impact to our 131 property than to the other properties and it seems you could draw those lines differently than they are on this plat at 132 this time and have less impact on that perimeter of the property. They are the smallest lots and four of them are on 133 my line. I would like to see it drawn more equitably so I do not get the brunt of the impact. 134 135 Dean Shangler: We own a couple of lots to the south. My concern is at the neighborhood information meeting, I 136 had asked about the boundary line along that creek and understood planning staff to say the creek is entirely 137 contained within the land owned by the developers and if that is correct, that is a concern to me because that is not 138 correct as a matter of deed record. My understanding is the lot line should be the center line in the creek. Would 139 we all agree that is correct? If you look at the site analysis, you could see that the property line is the center line is 140 the creek. 141 142 Pete Hallenbeck: When a plan for this is developed, you would like to make sure there is attention paid to exactly 143 where that boundary is in regard to the creek. 144 145 Dean Shangler: Yes. I would like that to be clear. 146 147 Pete Hallenbeck: Do you know how long it was surveyed with regard to using the creek? 148 149 Dean Shangler: I don’t know. In some of the older deeds, people who laid our subdivisions in some of the deeds 150 they go, it was mentioned. 151 152 Pete Hallenbeck: When the applicant makes that plan that is something they will be aware of. 153 154 Craig Benedict: The plat in your package is an appropriate survey of it and it does show that the boundary line 155 (showed map). The entire stream is not on that property, there is some on the other properties. (Reviewed map). 156 We will clarify that survey. 157 158 Dean Shangler: On our map, we show the stream buffer only on our property and do not show it on the adjacent 159 properties. It looks like the stream is on our property. The stream itself is the boundary line and it was traversed in 160 2006. I have another concern. I know you said there is a standard 100 foot setback, it is a rural and natural 161 preserve around the creek, could we request making the setback 150 feet to enhance the protection? 162 163 Pete Hallenbeck: That would tie into the density and impact of the houses being close. 164 165 113