Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
in the next fiscal year because it is within Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. He said that he has a <br /> problem with being the primary funder in another jurisdiction. He would like to maintain the <br /> principle of being equal partners. <br /> Commissioner Nelson said that those are valid concerns. He said that he has heard <br /> that there are property owners who are waiting to see if there is a commitment from public <br /> sources. He said that this is a particularly unique piece of property. He has no problem with <br /> challenging Chapel Hill to come back to the table with $100,000 instead of$34,000. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to <br /> request that Chapel Hill match the County's contribution of$100,000. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> Commissioner Carey wants to be clear that the $100,000 is coming from a source that is <br /> dedicated for land acquisition purposes. <br /> d. Cabe Crossing (formerly Bramco Partners) Subdivision — Preliminary Plat <br /> The Board considered taking action on the Cabe Crossing Subdivision Preliminary Plat. <br /> Glen Bowles said that the Planning Board on June 6, 2007 approved this as a 33-lot <br /> subdivision. Now it is coming back as a 20-lot subdivision. This is off of Cabe Ford Road just <br /> west of Pleasant Green Road. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential and is in the <br /> Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The average lot size is 2.2 acres. There is also a wildlife <br /> corridor. He showed some pictures of the property. He read the Administration <br /> Recommendation. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked about the Planning Board recommendation, which was to <br /> delete the stub-outs. The recommendation is to keep them. She asked for the pros and cons <br /> on this. <br /> Glen Bowles said that the stub-outs allow connectivity into and out of the property. The <br /> pros for taking them out are that the neighbors did not see a need for them. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked about the reasons given by the one person of the <br /> Planning Board that voted against this development and Glen Bowles said it was because of too <br /> many lots. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked several other clarifying questions that were answered by <br /> Glen Bowles. • <br /> Chair Jacobs asked about the Homeowners Association and Geof Gledhill said that the <br /> documents suggest this. Some of the property is dedicated to the Homeowners Association for <br /> private recreation. The public recreation area requirement is being satisfied by the County <br /> taking title initially and then ultimately it becoming part of the State park of that 4.73-acre parcel. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that the Board asked the Attorney to work on the Homeowners <br /> Association agreement so that it does not preclude the use of clotheslines or the requirement <br /> for water-intensive lawns, or any other restrictions that are not smart growth. <br /> Geof Gledhill said that he presumes the developer would agree to this. Mr. Peloquin <br /> said yes. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked how the two items that came in afterwards regarding three <br /> archeological sites and historic preservation would be handled. <br /> Geof Gledhill said that the state Department of Cultural Resources requirements, page <br /> 2, says, "if it is subject to Section 106...." He said that this is a regulatory issue that is beyond <br /> the County's area of concern. If the National Historic Preservation Act gives this state agency <br /> regulatory authority, then that authority will be exercised. The slave cemetery is on the property <br /> and the others are not. <br /> Craig Benedict said that there is only one property that involves a cemetery within this <br /> development. This would be part of lands that are programmed to go back to the State and the <br />