Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/9/2021 <br /> 1 Beth Bronson: Stated that she sees the mail kiosk detail but not sure where <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Nathan Robinson: Asked if the mail kiosk is more than 30 feet off the property line? It says concrete paid for mail kiosk, <br /> 4 2 parking spaces. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Phil Koch: Stated that the mail kiosk location is not the same location because the final mail kiosk has some additional <br /> 7 parking for the common area that is there that is gardens. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Beth Bronson: Asked if you have moved this corner? <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Phil Koch: Answered that the road alignment looks close, but some minor adjustments were made during response to <br /> 12 comments with the town and the kiosk moved from the front, but the DOT did not accept that. In working it out with <br /> 13 planning that was moved up closer to the common area. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Beth Bronson: Asked about continuing up around the bend of the pond? <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Phil Koch: Stated once it gets to the bend of the pond, you cannot maintain 30 feet. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Beth Bronson: Stated no, is the right of way actually crossing into the property line? <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Phil Koch: Answered no, you can't see it that well, It is so small at this point that distance is negligent. Thinks it is about <br /> 22 3 feet to the right of way line at that point. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Leon Meyers: Asked you are saying 3 feet from the property line to the right of way? <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Phil Koch: Answered yes to the right of way. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Leon Meyers: Asked if there were any questions for Mr. Hornik or Mr, Koch. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Beth Bronson: Asked when you guys were looking at the road, you said you were looking at going over the pond. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Phil Koch: Stated that the issue with the system is that the pond creates a restriction at the corner. One look was to see <br /> 33 if there was a possibility of going over the pond, but from a stormwater standpoint that was not acceptable. This was <br /> 34 done as an LID. A low impact development. It does not need stormwater devices and is being upgraded in order to <br /> 35 improve stromwater because of a complaint downstream. We took that into account and the overall impervious is <br /> 36 roughly 4.5-5%. We tried to keep under 6% because of the low impact requirements and that allowed it to work. He <br /> 37 amount of impervious on this site is roughly the same as what is on Ms. Arter's site. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Andrew Petesch: objected as it isn't relevant to the analysis of the interpretation of Mr. Harvey's determination. For the <br /> 40 record it gets appealed. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Leon Meyers: Asked the board if there were any other questions <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Andrew Petesch: Asked to have the floor to respond. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Leon Meyers: Stated he has 1 minute. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Andrew Petesch: Stated that there was a bit of slide of hand when he said that R-1 is compatible with R-1, but he <br /> 49 referred to them as land uses, those are zoning districts. Zoning districts are compatible the land uses are not. He <br /> 17 <br />