Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/9/2021 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Phil Koch: Stated that a ditch would be created in part of the area and basically the edge of the grading, there would be <br /> 3 no clearing past that. The edge of the grading can extend to the edge of the right of way in certain circumstances, but it <br /> 4 would not do that through the entire roadway. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Nathan Robinson: Asked if the buffer were required, where would it start. Would it be the edge of the road or the edge <br /> 7 of the 18 feet or the edge of the 50 foot right of way? <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Phil Koch: Stated the buffer would be measured from the property line back in if it were required. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Nathan Robinson: Stated and it would take you to where? <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Phil Koch: Stated if varies compared to the shape of the road. A large portion of the road, particularly in the one corner, <br /> 14 it isn't anywhere near the right of way. As it travels eastward and goes around the pond, that is the spot that would be <br /> 15 most affected. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Nathan Robinson: Asked if the area underneath the barn and the area where the dressage ring, What is the distance <br /> 18 between the edge and the edge of the property line? <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Phil Koch: Stated from the edge of the roadway here to the property line? Iterated that the image referenced was not <br /> 21 the approved plan because there is more distance from the dressage ring down to the roadway than shown on this <br /> 22 plan. That distance is well beyond a 30 foot buffer. Referred to a mail kiosk that is not shown on the plan that is more <br /> 23 than 30 feet away. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Leon Meyers: Confirmed that Mr. Koch was looking at Applicant Exhibit 4. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Phil Koch: Stated, yes this is much closer but it doesn't show the mail kiosk. But the distance is more than 30 feet. <br /> 28 Detailed why it was moved to provide more buffer. During an original meeting with Ms. Arter, she expressed her <br /> 29 concerns of wanting to keep as many trees to the property line and as close to the pond. Stated that both could not <br /> 30 happen and split the difference as best as they could. A large span of trees were kept by the pond and kept as many <br /> 31 trees as they could along the property line to help buffer her property even though it was not required. Stated that Mr. <br /> 32 Harvey gave him his interpretation which was the same for 2 years. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Michael Harvey: Corrected Mr. Koch that this project was originally reviewed by Patrick Mallett of his staff and he <br /> 35 affirmed his determination. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Phil Koch: Agreed with that statement. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Beth Bronson:Asked for the record that the final site plan has not been submitted? <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Phil Koch: Answered that the final site plan had been submitted and approved where it is shown what you have in your <br /> 42 hand. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Michael Harvey: Stated he needed to correct the record it isn't a site plan it is a subdivision plan. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Beth Bronson: Stated this Applicant Exhibit 4 isn't the final <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Phil Koch: Stated that it looked to be one revision back because it doesn't show the mail kiosk, which was a required <br /> 49 element and the road modification due to the kiosk. <br /> 50 <br /> 16 <br />