|
180
<br /> Approved 10.1.25
<br /> 660 They're going to coordinate with DOT. They have to issue drawings and all those things saying
<br /> 661 here are the exact locations,topo, all that stuff is considered, and DOT will say you either do or
<br /> 662 you do not have adequate sight distance. Here is what we need you to implement to do that or
<br /> 663 you do not have a driveway at that location, or it's restricted to a right in, right out. Something like
<br /> 664 that.
<br /> 665
<br /> 666 Chris Johnston: I think that some of my confusion is we have a conditional zoning, a site design and site drawing
<br /> 667 and that sort of thing, but it seems like we're still waiting on a key component which is that NCDOT
<br /> 668 traffic fill in where they tell exactly what's going to happen,so we could approve this tonight, and 1
<br /> 669 apologize. I'm looking at Cy here. We can approve this tonight, but there may be large changes
<br /> 670 that need to be made based on the traffic requirements of NCDOT, and would that then cause it to
<br /> 671 come back to us or is that something that's handled at the higher level, and we have approved it
<br /> 672 and what needs to happen in order for NCDOT to be happy with it is just part of the process?
<br /> 673
<br /> 674 Cy Stober: I want to address that in two parts. One is that anything that happens in the public right of way,
<br /> 675 which is owned and managed by NCDOT is an NCDOT permitting matter exclusively. So, if all of
<br /> 676 those improvements can be made inside of the right of way,that's just NCDOT, it doesn't include
<br /> 677 the county at all, provided it's consistent with anything that would be approved by the county. If it
<br /> 678 is inconsistent, if it would say remove a substantial amount of required landscaping or something
<br /> 679 to that effect, then it would have to come back if it was deemed to be a major modification from
<br /> 680 what was approved, and there are, in Article 2,with regard to conditions, it lays out explicitly what
<br /> 681 are minor modifications that can be approved by the director and what cannot. Then there's the
<br /> 682 separate matter of those modifications. If it's on the private property, how are they going to
<br /> 683 accommodate the need and that would be, the minor modifications broadly speaking allow for a
<br /> 684 reduction in intensities so they may have to lose a lot. Perhaps they have to lose lot size.
<br /> 685 Anything that would be seen as a part of the public contribution and the separation of the uses,
<br /> 686 such as buffers namely I'm thinking of and that where the access to 86 North would be would have
<br /> 687 to be a minor modification,or it would have to come back to the Board. So,the cost is going to
<br /> 688 come to the owner, not to the county and the taxpayers of the county. The one variable to this, to
<br /> 689 your point Mr.Johnston is anything that would be offsite at that intersection,that really is a
<br /> 690 conversation between DOT and this owner and this applicant.
<br /> 691
<br /> 692 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, in regard to, and I want to make sure that I've got the
<br /> 693 public comment correct here. In regard to the Waller's question in regard to accountability and
<br /> 694 that sort of thing, if there are issues,and this has come up a number of times, if there are issues
<br /> 695 with well or whatever the case may be,what is the correct avenue for a homeowner who is in the
<br /> 696 situation to then go to, in regards to my well is no longer working after this X,Y and Z? Is that a
<br /> 697 civil dispute at that point a lawyer's involved kind of deal,or is there a county mechanism?
<br /> 698
<br /> 699 Cy Stober: There's no county mechanism I am aware of. To answer the question that you didn't ask but was
<br /> 700 asked at the last hearing with the same applicant for a different subdivision. All permitting is done
<br /> 701 by the county, and should the soils not perform to accommodate the septic needs or should the
<br /> 702 well not serve the purposes of the subdivision, then that would be, again, at the cost of the owner.
<br /> 703 Any claims of impacts to adjacent property owners is a civil dispute.
<br /> 704
<br /> 705 Chris Johnston: Okay. So, at that point then, if there's any issues on the well or anything along those lines it would
<br /> 706 be a civil dispute, but otherwise the permitting. In regard to the concerns with the encroachment
<br /> 707 on Mr., and I apologize, Medred? Is that correct? Yes. In regard to that, I mean again,this
<br /> 708 sounds more like an issue with the developer,whom you have here now, and then in terms of any
<br /> 709 kind of wall or perimeter or anything along those lines, is that something that is in contention or
<br /> 710 anything on that?
<br /> 711
<br /> 712 Beth Trahos: I would say we're certainly happy to talk with Mr. Medred. I don't believe he attended our
<br /> 713 neighborhood meeting, so this is our first exposure to this question.We do have a survey, and
<br /> 714 we're absolutely willing to talk about how we address those issues.
<br />
|