Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
31 <br />2 FINANCL4L LI~IPACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis (attached) <br />4 <br />5 RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff Recommendation <br />6 The Planning Department Staff recommends denial in accordance with the attached resolution, which is <br />7 incorporated herein by reference. <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />3$ <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />S2 <br />53 <br />Moon made the presentation. <br />Public Comment <br />Richard Daniels, the applicant, said that the concept plan was submitted six times before it was approved <br />by the staff to bring to the Planning Board. He said that the change in the public/private recreation space <br />issue was put into effect in December 1999. He said that he was not notified about this change until six <br />months later. He said that he spent $11,000 getting this through the concept stage and $13,000 getting it <br />thmugh the preluninary stage. He said that he negotiated with Benedict, offering four acres of open space <br />and he refused it. He said that the staff did not want to work with him. <br />Woods asked if the whole plan was approved at the concept stage. Daniels said that the conventional plan <br />was approved all in one phase. <br />Woods asked if the only thing lacking was the correct amount of recreation space. Benedict said that the <br />rules that changed in December 1999 was the difference between having staff and the Planning Hoard <br />recommend flexible versus conventional plans. He said that the 0% open space did not meet the zoning <br />provision for open space. <br />Chair Allison asked if there was an option to have public recreation space or payment-in-lieu. Benedict <br />said that the payment in-lieu was satisfyring 16,000 square feet of public land dedication. There is still <br />approximately 15,000 square feet lacking, or 1/3 of an acre. <br />Benedict said that he told Mr. Daniels what he thought would be a better subdivisioq and it was never <br />resubmitted. <br />Woods asked for a copy of the ordinance that spells out the open space requirements. <br />MOTION: Woods moved to approve the Preliminary Plan for Highridge <br />Subdivisioq with the condition that four acres of open space be created <br />on the west side of Highridge Drive, between the north line of Lat 22 and <br />the south line of Lebanon Church Road. Seconded by McAdams. _ <br />Language was added to the Resolution of Approval to say that, "'The <br />developer is offering four acres for private recreatioq which will be <br />maintained by the Homeowner's Associatioq which is acceptable W the <br />County," <br />Gooding-Ray would rather deny the plan and have the applicant bring forward a proposal with the open <br />space included. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Gooding-Ray) <br />AGENDA ITEM #9: PLANNIl~TG BOARD ITEMS <br />AGENDA ITEM #10: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS <br />