Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
33 <br />McAdams verified that lot 16, the 16-acre tract, was not part of the subdivision. The owner of this lot is also <br />the developer, Tom Heffner. <br />4 Woods asked what instruments the developer had put in place to ensure the continued maintenance and <br />5 reliability of the community water system. Smyre said that the entity that owned and would be operating the <br />6 water system would be in discussions with them. Woods would like to see a copy of the documentation that <br />7 would ensure the maintenance of the community water system. He said that it should appear in the Planning <br />8 Board's documentation as a stipulation. <br />9 <br />10 Benedict said that the staff was concerned that there were two lots that were not within the subdivision but <br />11 yet have some involvement within the subdivision. The staff wanted to make it known that this was peculiar <br />12 and that two additional properties must be added into the homeowner's association. <br />13 <br />14 Kirk said that the County Attorney would review the community water system maintenance agreement and <br />15 that it would be a stipulation of the approval of the subdivision. <br />16 <br />17 Woods asked about the 20-foot drainage easement. Smyre said that there was a swell down through there <br />18 and they were recognizing the fact that water was moving through that location. A pipe will be installed <br />19 from the road for improved drainage. <br />20 <br />21 Woods asked if the easement was anticipated to be used by NCDOT. Smyre said that NCDOT did not <br />22 require that the easements be given to them, but that the easements actually exist if needed. <br />23 <br />24 Chair Allison pointed out the two exceptions -the sleeving under the driveway of lot 4 and the review of the <br />25 maintenance of the community water system. <br />26 <br />27 MOTION: Woods moved approval of the Preliminary Plan for North Field at Creek <br />28 Wood Subdivision with the exceptions as noted above. Seconded by <br />29 Selkirk. <br />30 <br />31 VOTE: Unanimous <br />32 <br />33 Chair Allison asked about the average square footage of the homes and it was answered that it was 3,500. <br />34 <br />35 AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC FIEARING (5/22/2000) <br />36 <br />37 _ a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments <br />3 8 (1) Alternative Notification Requirements <br />39 <br />40 Davis made this presentation. He said that this particular item was still in public hearing. This is back to the <br />41 Planning Board tonight for a recommendation back to the County Commissioners. This item deals with how <br />42 to handle non-petitioning owners that are pursuing a zoning amendment, and also to provide an alternative <br />43 method of doing a public notification concerning large areas. He summarized the alternative notification <br />44 requirements as stated, beginning on page 87 of the agenda abstract. <br />45 <br />46 Woods asked why the non-petitioning owner issue was coming up. Davis said that the staff was looking at a <br />47 rewrite of the ordinance, and while the other section was added, they were trying to take care of all of it at <br />48 one time. <br />49 <br />50 Davis made reference to page 88, section 20.6.2 and said that this was the way the state law was right now, <br />51 with the exception of the certified mail. Also, state law requires letters to be mailed within 10 days, and the <br />52 County's requirement is 15 days. Adjacent property includes property within 500 feet. He pointed out one <br />