Agenda - 05-01-2018 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

24 17, 2014 as a 20 lot single-family residential subdivision. At that time the applicant 1 proposed, and the BOCC approved, internal roadways to be constructed to applicable 2 NCDOT public road standards. 3 4 The developer is requesting that the roads be constructed to Class A private road standards as 5 detailed in Section 7.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The roads could still 6 meet NCDOT road standards except for elements of the drainage culvert/bridge construction 7 (i.e. the wing walls, side slopes, and bottom flow material) and other similar items. 8 9 Staff is recommending that this be approved, as articulated on Page 7. 10 11 Peter Bellantoni, of Pennoni, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, which reviewed maps 12 and photos of the land. He said the issue with getting approvals for the development pertains 13 to three creek crossings: two off Secretariat Court, and a larger one on Galant Fox. He said 14 these three crossings were approved in 2014. He said the Developer has submitted essentially 15 the same layout (19 lots), with a few changes such as the two properties on the Triple Crown 16 Drive frontage being combined into one and sold; and trying to further reduce impervious 17 surfaces by going down to an 18 foot wide road; and eliminating the fire pond, due to an outside 18 source of sustainable water. 19 • He reviewed the culverts and pipe crossing/bridge structure and durability with maps 20 and photos. 21 • He said their structure is approved by DOT Standards. 22 • No problem with Emergency Services accessing these roads. 23 • Maintenance agreements 24 • Disclosure Statements 25 • He reviewed the modified proposal of a 10 lot exempt sub-division if the present 26 proposal is not approved- pros and cons 27 28 Commissioner McKee said, in the interest of full disclosure, he is a Summit Engineering 29 employee. He said he rode out to this development and saw the span of the bridge. He said it 30 blends in well with the environment, and he has no questions about the structural integrity of the 31 bridge, but it was not the one that was approved in the original permit, which said it would meet 32 Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. 33 Peter Bellantoni said the original plan showed for a span there, and DOT was not going 34 to accept a span, because it is an environmental crossing. 35 Commissioner Burroughs said she watched the video of the April 3rd, and this is an 36 unfortunate situation, but she believes that the disclosure statements will protect the residents, 37 and it is a net benefit to the County to approve this project with the larger number of lots. 38 Commissioner Rich asked if clarification could be provided between what the Army 39 Corps of Engineers wanted and what DOT wanted. 40 Michael Harvey said it is not a question of what the Army Corps wanted, but rather what 41 it would allow as part of its permit process. He said this is a situation of a difference in opinion 42 from two regulatory agencies, each of which have a separate and independent view of the 43 needs of a particular construction item. He said the Applicant chose a path that centers on 44 requesting that this comes back as private roads, to address its concern. He said for the 45 Applicant to comply with DOT standards, would have meant further impact on the stream, and 46 would have required the Applicant to go back to the Army Corps to revise their permit, for which 47 there was no guarantee they would get one. 48 Michael Harvey said buffers will not go away regardless of what shape this project 49 takes. He said the imposition of stream buffer requirements is not a subdivision development 50