Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
150 <br /> APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24 <br /> 1094 modifications to the proposed site plan, they'll have to come back before this board, they have to go back <br /> 1095 before the Commissioners for reapproval for any major modification. <br /> 1096 <br /> 1097 Charity Kirk: So, with the road, how do we approve this? I mean, it is an easement, right? And it's not <br /> 1098 even on this property, and it's not a land use, per se. What do we do to say, "Please work with the County." <br /> 1099 <br /> 1100 Cy Stober: Sure. That's an offsite commitment that is reasonably tied to the land use. So, let's go to <br /> 1101 a different case, and one that I think this body was frustrated by, the Lawrence Road case, and the impact to <br /> 1102 the surrounding road network that were going to be potentially created by the charter school that was going to <br /> 1103 go on that project, that ultimately was denied. If we were allowed to consider traffic commitments, the <br /> 1104 intersection improvements, or the turn lanes, or the widening of any of those roads, they're not on the property. <br /> 1105 They're off the property. They would be tied to the developer in that case would have been obligated to make <br /> 1106 some or all of those improvements based upon the decision of the Commissioners and the recommendation of <br /> 1107 the Planning Board. So, similar in this case, the access road, essentially a long driveway, through another <br /> 1108 property, owned by another party, in this case, the County, must be made through negotiation between those <br /> 1109 two parties in order to realize the use as proposed on the site plan that you have before you tonight. So, is it <br /> 1110 reasonably tied to this proposed use and, as the negotiations proceed, what does the Planning Board feel that <br /> 1111 its role in making recommendation on what they feel is reasonably tied to the proposal should be? Does that <br /> 1112 make sense? <br /> 1113 <br /> 1114 Charity Kirk: Can we say, "we approve this as long as you work with the County to deal with the road <br /> 1115 within a 5 year limit?" How can we proceed with this road that's currently unsettled? <br /> 1116 <br /> 1117 Cy Stober: I'll give you the answer I shouldn't, which is the direct answer, but perhaps one that steps <br /> 1118 on legal toes, which is yeah. That would be a reasonable request. When you start getting into the nickels and <br /> 1119 dimes of what that should be and exactly where on the road, in your lay opinion, Treeist obligation ends and <br /> 1120 the County's begins, that starts getting outside the bounds of reasonable, but that general statement, I think, is <br /> 1121 a reasonable recommendation as tied to the Treeist application. <br /> 1122 <br /> 1123 Melissa Poole: But isn't that addressed in the letter we discussed? <br /> 1124 <br /> 1125 Cy Stober: It is. It would be the new Condition 6 that's offered by the applicant. <br /> 1126 <br /> 1127 Melissa Poole: If we were to make the recommendation to approve with the conditions outlined, it's <br /> 1128 already outlined. <br /> 1129 <br /> 1130 Cy Stober: Yeah. <br /> 1131 <br /> 1132 Patrick Mallett: I just want to throw in one crumb. Unlike almost everything you've ever seen, Orange <br /> 1133 County is also the adjacent property owner. So, the applicant is going through a zoning process, there's also <br /> 1134 negotiations with an adjacent property owner. That's an added layer to this. So, you can take that for what it's <br /> 1135 worth. <br /> 1136 <br />