Browse
Search
5.3.23 PB Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2023
>
5.3.23 PB Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2023 3:49:52 PM
Creation date
4/27/2023 3:49:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/3/2023
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
17 <br /> 455 Cy Stober- That is correct, with the three primary uses tied together, yes. <br /> 456 <br /> 457 Statler Gilfillen- So, we have the jurisdiction for recreational facilities and the traffic it might <br /> 458 impact, versus we have no jurisdiction to consider the impact of traffic from the schools <br /> 459 themselves? They are separate issues... <br /> 460 <br /> 461 Cy Stober- That is correct. I will defer to the applicants and the traffic consultant's analysis and <br /> 462 executive summary that is provided in your packet, distinguishing the two uses. <br /> 463 <br /> 464 Statler Gilfillen- It is my understanding also that considerations of a school are not under the <br /> 465 jurisdiction of this board either... <br /> 466 <br /> 467 Cy Stober-A school, yes, the type of school, no. In your packet there are links to permissible <br /> 468 and impermissible considerations. The tenant of the building cannot be the basis of a <br /> 469 determination, the use can but not the user. <br /> 470 <br /> 471 Statler Gilfillen- Let me make sure that I understand as a board member here. We have the right <br /> 472 to rule on a school whether it is appropriate as a use. We do not have the right, on a school to <br /> 473 look at the traffic implications of it though? <br /> 474 <br /> 475 Cy Stober- That is correct, by state law. <br /> 476 <br /> 477 Taylor Perschau, Zoning and Planning Supervisor, reviewed the proposed amendment. <br /> 478 <br /> 479 James Parker, applicant with Lawrence Road Partners LLC, gave a presentation. <br /> 480 <br /> 481 Patrick Byker, attorney with Morningstar Law Group, gave a presentation. <br /> 482 <br /> 483 Eric Silinish, Design Lead with Summit Design and Engineering gave a presentation. <br /> 484 <br /> 485 Lyle Overcash, Project Manager/Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn gave a presentation. <br /> 486 <br /> 487 Statler Gilfillen- Just to clarify, looking at the southwest corner of 70 and Lawrence, is that <br /> 488 where the historic structure is? <br /> 489 <br /> 490 Lyle Overcash- yes. <br /> 491 <br /> 492 Statler Gilfillen- How much would that conflict on that corner with the historic building? <br /> 493 <br /> 494 Lyle Overcash- There is 60 foot of right of way but understand, we have not surveyed this area, <br /> 495 but we understand there is 60 foot of land in this area and so that would be our challenge is to <br /> 496 keep the improvements within the right of way. <br /> 497 <br /> 498 Taylor Perschau- I want to clarify, I think there is some confusion here with US 70 and US 70-A. <br /> 499 US 70-A, is closer to the school property. <br /> 500 <br /> 501 Will Wirt, Civil Designer with Summit Design and Engineering, gave a presentation. <br /> 502 <br /> 503 Nick Kirkland, Certified General Appraiser with Kirkland Appraisals, gave a presentation. <br /> 504 <br /> 505 Melissa Poole- What is the elementary school? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.