6.7.23 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

well lowers the level of water in the immediate area, there are people who could end up without water. That is a pretty 275 disastrous situation. The lawyer raised the point at the meeting that yes, under state law the developer has to cover it, 276 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 277 immediate problem of somebody without water, living in a house. When I raised that issue to Jim Parker, he indicated 278 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 279 to be taken care of because it has happened because the water table lowered. If like 15 years ago, we had a drought, 280 that could happen. If they are just old wells that the equipment needs to be replaced, that’s not what we are talking 281 about, we are talking about a water table. That I think could be verified as an architect. The environmental issues, unless 282 I 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 283 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 284 academic, the environmental issues over rural. I’m looking at, in the end, on this board whether I would accept or not 285 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 286 jurisdiction. 287 288 Cy Stober: Whether or not the site is appropriate for the land use of a preparatory school as described in our ordinance 289 is well within your purview. 290 291 Statler Gilfillen: In other words, any type of school but not a specific school? 292 293 Cy Stober: That’s correct. And the school size is relevant, so 400 students is relevant versus 200 students. That’s 294 relevant because it has to do with the building footprint and associated activities. 295 296 Statler Gilfillen: Remember your department’s review, this is an acceptable use at this site, of a school. 297 298 Cy Stober: I believe our staff analysis and our recommendation reflects that. 299 300 Statler Gilfillen: That makes it very difficult to vote against when the professionals that are administering the law have 301 made a decision to advise us accordingly. 302 303 Lamar Proctor: Every proposal that you submit to us, you find consistent, is that not true? 304 305 Melissa Poole: Not historically. 306 307 Lamar Proctor In my time on the board, everything that you’ve presented…. 308 309 Overlapping conversation 310 311 Cy Stober: In the 9 months I’ve been here, we have recommended all the applications that have come before this board. 312 313 Chris Johnston: To confirm, it wouldn’t make it to us if it wasn’t recommended? 314 315 Cy Stober: They have a right to be heard. 316 317 Melissa Poole: We have heard proposals that were not recommended by the Planning Department of Orange County. 318 319 Cy Stober: That’s a legal right, that every property owner and every applicant has in the State of North Carolina, 320 regardless of the staff analysis and recommendation. They have a right before the Planning Board and a right to a public 321 hearing. 322 323 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you, I have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to reach out and listen to both sides and 324 this is a very difficult issue before this board for us to vote upon. I hope my neighbors understand, regardless of how I 325 vote. It is based on what I believe will be the best in the end. I just hope that if it goes in Mr. Parker’s favor, that many of 326 you that have objections will finally sit down and try to talk to him about those things that could individually impact you. 327 That might make a difference. I think he’s open. For a couple of years of construction, as a developer, I would want to be 328 open to the people that are surrounding me. 329 40