Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
198 <br /> Approved 10.1.25 <br /> 1645 Cy Stober: It was. <br /> 1646 <br /> 1647 Beth Bronson: It was? <br /> 1648 <br /> 1649 Cy Stober: Prior denials discouraged that line of thinking. <br /> 1650 <br /> 1651 Beth Bronson: That's unfortunate,yeah. <br /> 1652 <br /> 1653 Lamar Proctor: I don't know I mean,just as by way of discussion, I think there's historical issues with community <br /> 1654 septic systems and bailing and who maintains them and individual lot owners being responsible <br /> 1655 for their own poops. <br /> 1656 <br /> 1657 Chris Johnston: So just to confirm though, and in the interest of time and such, do we have as a board what we <br /> 1658 need in regard to this particular application? I want to make sure that we're asking the right <br /> 1659 questions and that sort of thing, but I also want to be cognizant of everyone's time and to make <br /> 1660 sure that we're not beating around a bush here. <br /> 1661 <br /> 1662 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,thank you, Chris. I think the idea is, are there additional conditions that we would seek that <br /> 1663 in addition to or modifications of the ten conditions that they have already. I was going to ask that. <br /> 1664 So,the conditions are based on the discussions with the County and from the NIM, the <br /> 1665 Neighborhood Information Meeting? Is that how these conditions were developed? <br /> 1666 <br /> 1667 Beth Bronson: Yes. <br /> 1668 <br /> 1669 Lamar Proctor: Okay. I'm just clarifying your points. Are there any other questions of that applicant, and is there <br /> 1670 any discussion that anyone has,wants to have in regard to approval or conditions? <br /> 1671 <br /> 1672 Chris Johnston: And just to confirm do we have the page number for the conditions? <br /> 1673 <br /> 1674 Lamar Proctor: I think it's Page 82 but correct me if I'm wrong. <br /> 1675 <br /> 1676 Beth Bronson: I would just like to make one comment before we kind of further this discussion, is that this been a <br /> 1677 lot of information and there has been a lot of good conversation about it. I do not know that it <br /> 1678 would be realistic to come to a decision tonight, necessarily,given that it is 9:40 and that <br /> 1679 discussions we've had on the theoretical conditions that could be in place could continue. <br /> 1680 <br /> 1681 Chris Johnston: My ask,what additional information you feel we'd be able to get before approval that we don't <br /> 1682 currently have? <br /> 1683 <br /> 1684 Beth Bronson: I would say additional time to review all the materials. <br /> 1685 <br /> 1686 Chris Johnston: The problem with saying that is the applicant went through the process and I believe Cy is going <br /> 1687 to say something like has a legal right for us to move some level on this. If there's not something <br /> 1688 that we're particularly waiting on, I would caution against asking for additional time. If there's a <br /> 1689 specific thing like we need this information before we move forward, yes, absolutely. If there is <br /> 1690 just a general sense that we need additional time to take in this data. <br /> 1691 <br /> 1692 Delores Bailey: Is the fact that they're working on a new memo or Land Use Plan. That plus the fact that this is so <br /> 1693 theoretical, is that not cause to delay the voting for zoning change? <br /> 1694 <br /> 1695 Lamar Proctor: I think that would come by way of a motion,well, Cy, can you tell me what the time limits are on <br /> 1696 the consideration? <br /> 1697 <br /> 1698 Cy Stober: Section 2.8.8.13 of the Ordinance Page 2-28 or 84 of the whole ordinance states that the plain <br /> 1699 words action on the application shall be one of the following. 1)To recommend approval. 2)To <br />