Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24 <br /> 500 Whitney Watson: The last question which I think Cy intimated about was the access road issue. Can you <br /> 501 elaborate on what you see as the best possible outcome for that? <br /> 502 <br /> 503 Craig Nishimoto: We had a meeting earlier today about that, and Maribeth Carr came up with a wonderful <br /> 504 solution to this problem. She found that there was a potential route north of the current road that would no <br /> 505 matter what they did with the Soccer Complex, it should stay out of their way, and then drop down and we <br /> 506 could potentially use the same stream crossing. Apparently, the stream crossing is a big deal as far as the <br /> 507 regulatory system goes, so if we could use the same, she thought that would be a big win, and we're not going <br /> 508 through as much rough terrain. So, the idea is that, well, we don't know when this plan is going to get concrete <br /> 509 enough to say, "oh, we definitely want the road there instead of here," but we think we can accommodate this. <br /> 510 We think we can accommodate this in a really neighborly way, namely, let's spend minimal money on this <br /> 511 current road. It almost, with a few small improvements,would serve our needs for the next two years maybe. <br /> 512 Give the County time to develop its plan of where exactly they might decide "no, it doesn't work that way," but <br /> 513 give them time to decide on that, and whatever we would have put into our road improvements that we <br /> 514 eventually would have to if they decide to do nothing, we can put to contributing to the development of the new <br /> 515 road, and we're perfectly happy to do that. I'm also happy to chase down Crown Castle to get them on board. <br /> 516 They've been the most difficult. <br /> 517 <br /> 518 Cy Stober: Just an administrative point, you should all have before you a letter from Craig Nishimoto <br /> 519 and Treeist regarding that condition. That basically provides the current status of the condition. It is still under <br /> 520 negotiation. There's some details that need to be determined, but David Stancil and the Department of <br /> 521 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation on behalf of the County have offered this condition to Treeist. Treeist is <br /> 522 agreeable, but I do want to note that the negotiation is not finalized. There are some specifics that need to be <br /> 523 determined, but in general, what the UDO requires and what State Law requires is that we have written <br /> 524 consent from the applicant, which we do have for you today with regard to the general road layout and the <br /> 525 shared use of that road. <br /> 526 <br /> 527 Statler Gilfillen: A question then. If we approve this, can it be conditional based on the final resolution <br /> 528 before the County Commissioners would approve it? <br /> 529 <br /> 530 Cy Stober: Yes, so the now six conditions that the applicant agreed to, or is offering as part of their <br /> 531 application, is the package that you have before you. Your options this evening are to vote to recommend as <br /> 532 presented,which would include those six conditions, vote to recommend with additional conditions, vote to <br /> 533 deny, or vote to continue the meeting to a date later for more time to make a recommendation to the <br /> 534 Commissioners. <br /> 535 <br /> 536 Chris Johnston: My question's actually probably closer to you. So, in regards to compelling the landowner <br /> 537 to do something in the future, what is the limit on something like that? It sounds like the plans from the County <br /> 538 could be years in advance, and it sounds like the applicant would have to hold on to some amount of funds in <br /> 539 order to maintain a road or make changes that could potentially be in '28, '29. Are we allowed to make that <br /> 540 kind of stipulation? <br /> 541 <br /> 542 Cy Stober: Yeah, the law's written with the qualifier that it needs to be a reasonable accommodation <br /> 543 and a reasonable condition that's related directly to the land use, so providing safe access in harmony with the <br /> 544 adjacent land use, I believe that the Attorney's Office and the County have found that to be a reasonable <br /> 545 connection to this proposed use. We do not at this time have a timeline attached to that condition. <br /> 546 <br /> 547 Chris Johnston: I mean, is that something that needs to be attached? It just sounds like that could be a <br /> 548 plan that potentially moves on and moves on. The applicant mentioned how this particular plan for a soccer <br />