OCPB minutes 110613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/4/13 6 Christine Hagelburger: I share a 1,400 foot long boundary with the project. Please go to the vicinity map. Pointed 270 to the common line on the map. Four of these lots are going on our line which is a more significant impact to our 271 property than to the other properties and it seems you could draw those lines differently than they are on this plat at 272 this time and have less impact on that perimeter of the property. They are the smallest lots and four of them are on 273 my line. I would like to see it drawn more equitably so I do not get the brunt of the impact. 274 275 Dean Shangler: We own a couple of lots to the south. My concern is at the neighborhood information meeting, I 276 had asked about the boundary line along that creek and understood planning staff to say the creek is entirely 277 contained within the land owned by the developers and if that is correct, that is a concern to me because that is not 278 correct as a matter of deed record. My understanding is the lot line should be the center line in the creek. Would 279 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 280 the creek. 281 282 Pete Hallenbeck: When a plan for this is developed, you would like to make sure there is attention paid to exactly 283 where that boundary is in regard to the creek. 284 285 Dean Shangler: Yes. I would like that to be clear. 286 287 Pete Hallenbeck: Do you know how long it was surveyed with regard to using the creek? 288 289 Dean Shangler: I don’t know. In some of the older deeds, people who laid our subdivisions in some of the deeds 290 they go, it was mentioned. 291 292 Pete Hallenbeck: When the applicant makes that plan that is something they will be aware of. 293 294 Craig Benedict: The plat in your package is an appropriate survey of it and it does show that the boundary line 295 (showed map). The entire stream is not on that property, there is some on the other properties. (Reviewed map). 296 We will clarify that survey. 297 298 Dean Shangler: On our map, we show the stream buffer only on our property and do not show it on the adjacent 299 properties. It looks like the stream is on our property. The stream itself is the boundary line and it was traversed in 300 2006. I have another concern. I know you said there is a standard 100 foot setback, it is a rural and natural 301 preserve around the creek, could we request making the setback 150 feet to enhance the protection? 302 303 Pete Hallenbeck: That would tie into the density and impact of the houses being close. 304 305 Patty Zogust: When it was going to be developed before, my understanding it that it was because they were flood 306 plains and now there are not, how does that happen? 307 308 Jennifer Leaf: FEMA does modeling so they have much better technology now to model. As a result of work done 309 in 2007 the majority of the floodplain was removed from this property. 310 311 Patty Zogust: So between then and now, they got better technology? 312 313 Michael Harvey: In 2007, FEMA released new maps which we adopted and that removed a lot of flood plain from 314 this property. 315 316 MOTION by Buddy Hartley to approve the concept plan as submitted. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 317 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 318 319 320 Agenda Item 9: Provisions and Maintenance of Sidewalks in the County’s Jurisdiction – To receive 321 educational information on the challenges North Carolina counties face in providing and 322 maintaining sidewalks in unincorporated areas. 323