|
16
<br /> 547 surrounding Stroud's Creek,streams, and wetlands. To call it a conservation cluster is a stretch.
<br /> 548 If you were to build a highway, and you paved the roads but not the median or the shoulder,would
<br /> 549 you call that conservation? That's the concept here. Commissioners have not yet decided
<br /> 550 whether or how to define or regulate conservation clusters, and that topic isn't on their agenda
<br /> 551 until later this fall, but it's being closely considered. I realize it's in the UDO, but they are closely
<br /> 552 considering how to more thoughtfully consider and whether or not to use conservation clusters
<br /> 553 and where. On this property, it's misleading. This does not appear to conserve in any meaningful
<br /> 554 way,watershed land,wildlife,creeks, streams,wetlands, or buffers. If this property were not
<br /> 555 rezoned, construction could still take place on the property, and the same areas would be
<br /> 556 excluded from construction because they are not buildable. They are buffers, and they are
<br /> 557 wetlands,and they are water areas that are not buildable. Putting in gardens and benches is not
<br /> 558 really a public amenity, and neither are the trails. This property, if developed as proposed,would
<br /> 559 provide benefits to only those who would choose to live there, and the housing that's provided is
<br /> 560 not affordable. It would not be available to the public. In the agenda you can see there are
<br /> 561 questions from the planning staff and from Hillsborough officials asking about whether the trails
<br /> 562 would be available, and the answer is no that they are private. They're not being built to any
<br /> 563 public standards, and they would not be able to be used by students who are walking to school to
<br /> 564 create a more walkable community. I have heard from residents around the community that there
<br /> 565 are significant questions about traffic because not only are they burdened with serious traffic
<br /> 566 issues, as you have heard, but there are many, many cars coming and going during school hours
<br /> 567 with the two schools and folks who already cut through neighborhood streets posing great risk to
<br /> 568 the folks who live there. It's also a concern that like the project a month ago, the wells are already
<br /> 569 being dug and tested in a way that may cause fluctuations in water availability or effect water
<br /> 570 quality and that that would preclude the folks who are there now from assessing at a baseline how
<br /> 571 their properties might be affected. With the considerable septic that's being proposed, I ask you to
<br /> 572 consider not recommending this project knowing that they could still build on this property,just not
<br /> 573 at the density that they're requesting. Thank you.
<br /> 574
<br /> 575 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Wayne Honeycutt, did you want to speak?
<br /> 576
<br /> 577 Wayne Honeycutt: No.
<br /> 578
<br /> 579 Lamar Proctor: No. Okay. And Susanna, I'm going to mess that up. You're good. Okay. Thank you. All right.
<br /> 580 So that concludes public comment. I'm going to turn it over to the board to see if we have any
<br /> 581 questions of the applicant,so Delores, do you want to start?
<br /> 582
<br /> 583 Delores Bailey: I do. Thank you. I actually have a couple questions. While sitting here taking note of the number
<br /> 584 of folks that had come up with questions about the traffic, and I know I think we talked a little bit
<br /> 585 about that before. Are there any changes to the plan since we last met that can alleviate the
<br /> 586 traffic danger that everyone is talking about? Is there anything that can be done about that?
<br /> 587
<br /> 588 Beth Trahos: I'm going to ask Josh Reinke to come forward and talk to you about the work that he did to study
<br /> 589 traffic in this area.
<br /> 590
<br /> 591 Josh Reinke: Josh Reinke with Bolton and Menk. We did a traffic study,so nothing was officially required by
<br /> 592 NCDOT or by the county based on the number of trips that this will generate, but the team wanted
<br /> 593 us to proactively look at this and run some analysis, submit it formally to DOT so that they would
<br /> 594 have to issue a response. So, in looking at this,we do acknowledge,yes, there is traffic on 86.
<br /> 595 This is a,while it's a low generator that doesn't require a TIA,we're always concerned about
<br /> 596 accidents,things like that. One of the things that will have to happen,so a traffic study would
<br /> 597 formally say here are recommendations. It's the driveway permit that will have the requirements
<br /> 598 that NCDOT has, so what came out of this traffic study in coordination with DOT is there is a
<br /> 599 preliminary field investigation looking at that sight distance,which has been referenced. You've
<br /> 600 got topography,things like that with the sight distance, so when you're making movements there,
<br /> 601 and probably to be honest,when you say you've got a lot of crashes, it's usually,when you have
<br />
|