Browse
Search
OCPB minutes 030718
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2018
>
OCPB minutes 030718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2018 2:49:24 PM
Creation date
4/24/2018 2:49:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/7/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
OCPB agenda 030718
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Approved 4/4/18 <br />111 <br />Peter Bellantoni, an engineerwith Pennoni, answered questions about the culvert. Hesaid the road itself is 112 <br />constructed to NCDOT standardsbut the keystone blocksdid not meet the standards for state roadways. The 113 <br />construction and design of those meet industry standards but NCDOT requires they be reinforced concretewhich are 114 <br />notaesthetically pleasing and are significantlymore expensive. Also, NCDOT staff wanted the developers to grade 115 <br />an area off the traffic circle and the developers chose to instead install a retaining wall becausethat area was already 116 <br />someone’s backyard with a swimming pool. The roads have same pavement width and stone depth as NCDOT 117 <br />requires.It also bears the amount of weight that NCDOT requires. 118 <br />119 <br />Rebecca Ryan, a member of the audience,said she is concerned about water quality with lawns that require fertilizer 120 <br />and she is concerned that this development is not appropriate in the rural buffer.Patrick Mallett told her that is a 121 <br />completely separatediscussion.Also, this subdivision is already approved. The discussion this evening was only 122 <br />about allowingthe roadtobe private.123 <br />124 <br />Kim Piracciasked if any lots are sold and whether the homeowners would understand the financial responsibility of 125 <br />this road falls to them and whether the homeowners association would collect feeds to pay for the maintenance of 126 <br />this road. 127 <br />128 <br />Michael Harvey said Orange County requires a meeting when a homeowners associationtakes over so that 129 <br />homeownersare fully aware. 130 <br />131 <br />Board members asked how much money would be put away. That was not answered.132 <br />133 <br />Alexander Gregory asked what could happen to the bridge. Bellantoni said the lifespan of the bridge is 75 years. If 134 <br />the homeownersmaintain and seal the road, it will last. 135 <br />136 <br />Kim Piracci and David Blankfard are concerned that the cost will be surprisingly astronomical to the homeowners. 137 <br />Bellantoni said he doesn't know what the cost will be but it will be collected and grow over time. 138 <br />139 <br />Patrick Mallett said there will be costs for resurfacing, paving and street trees in addition to the bridge maintenance.140 <br />141 <br />Randy Marshall said the distinction is no taxpayer money will go into repairing the bridge. It is up to the homeowners 142 <br />to make sure they can handle paying for this.143 <br />144 <br />Tony Blakeaskedwho is responsibleif logs or debris block the huge culvert. Bellantoni answered thehomeowners 145 <br />association would be responsible. 146 <br />147 <br />Hunter Spitzer asked about the school boundary. Peter Bellantoni answered thatfour lots will be in the Orange 148 <br />County Schools district and the rest will be in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district. 149 <br />150 <br />Hunter Spitzer asked Peter Bellantoni whether the developer knowingly used material for the keystonesthat would 151 <br />not meet NCDOT standards. Peter Bellantoni answeredother regions around the state have used the same materials 152 <br />and those materials werethe most economical that the developercould use.153 <br />154 <br />MOTION by Kim Piraccito accept the recommendation to have these roads changed from public to private with the 155 <br />conditions recommended by staff. Seconded by Adam Beeman.156 <br />VOTE:10 in favor -1 opposed (Hunter Spitzer)157 <br />158 <br />ADDED AGENDA ITEM –FLAG REGULATIONS159 <br />Michael Harvey said passed out draft language that was under internal review.He explained that flagsare not 160 <br />regulated by Orange County; however, planning staffislooking at tweaking the countyordinance to establish size 161 <br />standards for flags erected in Orange County.162 <br />163 <br />David Blankfard askedwho is reviewingthis draft.Michael Harvey answered planning staff, the county attorney, and 164 <br />the county manager. 165
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.