Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
202 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 221 we have many more opportunities in this county to do something like this and I hope it gets done.As many of you have <br /> 222 said, this isn't quite the right place for this project. So, I will be voting against it. <br /> 223 <br /> 224 Statler Gilfillen: I have spent a tremendous amount of time since the last meeting trying to reach out to both sides. I met <br /> 225 with Jim; he made a comment that surprised me. He said that nobody has bothered to contact him directly. I spent <br /> 226 several hours with someone who could not be today but was very outspoken against this development. I am your Eno <br /> 227 representative. I take this personally and it is difficult for me. I believe that Jim, as a developer, has done everything <br /> 228 possible to try to reach out and work with both sides.That meeting that I tried to arrange this week, never happened, I'm <br /> 229 sorry for that. I am still very mixed in many ways. When I look at the state regulations of what our jurisdiction covers, and <br /> 230 what this requires,the Town of Hillsborough's disagreement is not based upon the current laws that they have <br /> 231 presented. That's part of the problem I have. If they were objecting under the new reformed laws that are proposed,that <br /> 232 would be one thing, but they are not. If you were a judge sitting on the bench, you are bound by the laws as they are. I'm <br /> 233 not happy with this but I can't see a physical reason to say no to this proposal. I can raise that there are many issues if 1 <br /> 234 were homeowners and I think that Mr. Parker is open at least from discussions with him,to deal with that. One of them <br /> 235 that concerned me that was raised at the last meeting; if the town does not provide water and he puts a well in,and that <br /> 236 well lowers the level of water in the immediate area,there are people who could end up without water. That is a pretty <br /> 237 disastrous situation.The lawyer raised the point at the meeting that yes, under state law the developer has to cover it, <br /> 238 etc. but by the time you get through the law and you go to the courts,that's a legal answer,yes but that doesn't solve the <br /> 239 immediate problem of somebody without water, living in a house.When I raised that issue to Jim Parker, he indicated <br /> 240 that if you are talking about 5 or 6 wells in there that start to go dry, perhaps because they are drained,then people need <br /> 241 to be taken care of because it has happened because the water table lowered. If like 15 years ago,we had a drought, <br /> 242 that could happen. If they are just old wells that the equipment needs to be replaced, that's not what we are talking <br /> 243 about,we are talking about a water table.That I think could be verified as an architect.The environmental issues, unless <br /> 244 1 read it wrong as an architect,you can talk about 65 houses in this unit but if you can not properly support them with the <br /> 245 septic system for 65 units and the wells for 65 units, you can't build that many units on that site either. So,that's <br /> 246 academic,the environmental issues over rural. I'm looking at, in the end, on this board whether I would accept or not <br /> 247 accept the idea of the school. From what the county has told me, correct me if I'm wrong Cy,that is not under our <br /> 248 jurisdiction. <br /> 249 <br /> 250 Cy Stober: Whether or not the site is appropriate for the land use of a preparatory school as described in our ordinance <br /> 251 is well within your purview. <br /> 252 <br /> 253 Statler Gilfillen: In other words, any type of school but not a specific school? <br /> 254 <br /> 255 Cy Stober: That's correct.And the school size is relevant,so 400 students is relevant versus 200 students. That's <br /> 256 relevant because it has to do with the building footprint and associated activities. <br /> 257 <br /> 258 Statler Gilfillen: Remember your department's review,this is an acceptable use at this site,of a school. <br /> 259 <br /> 260 Cy Stober: I believe our staff analysis and our recommendation reflects that. <br /> 261 <br /> 262 Statler Gilfillen:That makes it very difficult to vote against when the professionals that are administering the law have <br /> 263 made a decision to advise us accordingly. <br /> 264 <br /> 265 Lamar Proctor: Every proposal that you submit to us,you find consistent, is that not true? <br /> 266 <br /> 267 Melissa Poole: Not historically. <br /> 268 <br /> 269 Lamar Proctor In my time on the board,everything that you've presented.... <br /> 270 <br /> 271 Overlapping conversation <br /> 272 <br /> 273 Cy Stober: In the 9 months I've been here,we have recommended all the applications that have come before this board. <br /> 274 <br /> 275 Chris Johnston: To confirm, it wouldn't make it to us if it wasn't recommended? <br />