|
APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24
<br /> 348 at every meeting. I'm just going to tell you that's honest to God truth. Everybody always thinks that we're going
<br /> 349 to end up creating more stormwater on them. The truth is there are State regulations regarding that, and we
<br /> 350 have to meet that, and the County has regulations involved with that and that's one of the reasons why the
<br /> 351 stormwater control measures are shown on the plan as they are. Again, the County knows me very well. I do a
<br /> 352 lot of stormwater work in this County,and we try to be very cognizant of what the County actually needs from that
<br /> 353 standpoint. The other one that came up was traffic, but again, many of the comments regarding traffic, the DOT
<br /> 354 outright has stated clearly do not apply. We were told that it is far too heavy a traffic out here, that the road has
<br /> 355 more traffic than it can bear out there, and again,the DOT is saying that we actually have less than 20 percent of
<br /> 356 the capacity of the roadway up there right now. So, in their mind, there really was no reason to do anything
<br /> 357 beyond verify the sight distance, and they have asked for some things regarding clearing some of the trees,
<br /> 358 making it more appropriate to improve the sight distance where the trees were encroaching on that and that has
<br /> 359 been handled. So, but those were the major questions, or comments, and the other was to ask again for
<br /> 36o additional open space beyond what we had preferably saving a group of trees that were in the middle of the site,
<br /> 361 and frankly, we're already providing almost 50 percent open space which is almost 20 percent more than was
<br /> 362 required to begin with. Now, admittedly, that open space is down by the stream, and that was one of the things.
<br /> 363 Well, of course, it's down by the stream. You know, you can't use the stream. Well, that's actually how your
<br /> 364 Ordinance requires us to set aside open space is to use that open space first, and we would have done that
<br /> 365 anyway because we would prefer to protect the stream, so we attempted to do those things ahead of time in our
<br /> 366 design work.
<br /> 367
<br /> 368 Mr. Koch discussed NCDOT limitations on sidewalk provision and the lack of impact the development may have
<br /> 369 on safety-improving measures for Miller Road.
<br /> 370
<br /> 371 Beth Bronson: I just have one more question about the lot size, the requirement for septic and well, is that
<br /> 372 meeting the threshold of 1 acre?
<br /> 373
<br /> 374 Phil Koch: This exceeds the threshold. We're staying at the 40,000 square foot mark. We could
<br /> 375 actually have gone down lower on this.
<br /> 376
<br /> 377 Beth Bronson: And I would assume that it also was in the report, but that all of the percing has been
<br /> 378 performed so that you could guarantee 18 homes.
<br /> 379
<br /> 380 Phil Koch: They do a soil study out there. Nobody's going to actually set the entire perc sites and septic
<br /> 381 sites up until lots have essentially been agreed on, and then Orange County will go out and analyze each one
<br /> 382 and tell them exactly what they would have to do to move a line if they feel like there's not enough, but that will be
<br /> 383 evaluated at that time.
<br /> 384
<br /> 385 Chair Beeman agreed to accept public comment.
<br /> 386
<br /> 387 Jamie Cox: I appreciate it. Hi I'm Jamie Cox. You'll see my name on there. We lived at the end of
<br /> 388 Minnick Road, so we're adjacent to this property, participated in the public meeting, and I am a recovering city
<br /> 389 planner and a land use and zoning lawyer. I did want to take the opportunity, we've asked the question, and 1
<br /> 390 think it's appropriate and within the authority of this Board to ask the question, will 18, and actually it's 19, wells
<br /> 391 being drilled there have any negative impact on the adjacent property and our water quality or water pressure? If
<br /> 392 the answer is "I don't know," can we please find out? And if the answer is "no,"that's awesome. We love that.
<br /> 393 And if the answer is"yes,"what is our recourse? This seems like the appropriate time for this body to make that
<br /> 394 determination. It seems like a lot of wells and a lot of septic tanks in an area where there are historically poor
<br /> 395 soils and a rural transition. Other than that,we're not opposed to development. We're excited about having new
<br /> 396 neighbors, and we did ask,just for point of clarification,we did ask that the existing trees, which are— I mean, 1
<br /> 397 love the fact that they're staying off of the non-buildable area. That's awesome. There is an area of mature trees
<br />
|