Feature presentation

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Feature presentation”.

by on May 20, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, CH2020, Environment, Land Use, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 20, 2013

http://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/05/20/feature-presentation/

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

6 Comments

  1. Scott

     /  May 21, 2013

    Nancy – Questions about your comment as copied: “Riparian buffer width will come into play in the very near future as some of the concept plans for Central West development involve building in the RCD.”
    (1) Are you referencing the concept plans produced by the Central West consultant and staff- or Concept Plans submitted by property owners/developers?
    (2) If you are referring to concept plans by owners/developers would you please identify which plans “. . . involve building in the RCD.”

    (3) What is it that they propose to build. I think I have seen all applicant concept plans presented to Planning Board and Council, but do not recall any of them proposing to build anything within an RCD except for required public improvements (roadway, water-sewer, utility lines).

    Thanks

  2. Nancy

     /  May 22, 2013

    Scott — From what I recall looking at the 3 plans last Saturday, and comparing them with the existing development map, it looked like one of the plans had development behind the Y that the existing map showed in green as the RCD. Is that incorrect? Does the planned development respect the current RCD buffer?

  3. Scott

     /  May 23, 2013

    Nancy – I reexamined the CW “concept” land use/ development plans. To me it seems that the RCD of 150 feet on each side of the stream behind the Y is crossed by pedestrian bridges and maybe a public roadway or private drive for access to land areas that might be developable. Not in evidence is any thought about how to provide sanitary sewer to this area, something that might also encroach into the RCD buffer areas. And in the outer 100 feet of the RCD stormwater management facilities are also allowed. All of these infrastructure type “improvements” are permitted in the RCD. I guess that qualifies as building activity in the RCD, just not buildings or parking in the RCD.

  4. Bonnie Hauser

     /  May 24, 2013

    Duke Power Substation? at Eubanks/Calvander? Is that Chapel Hill’s planning jurisdiction? Isn’t that Carrboro ETJ?

  5. Ed Harrison

     /  May 24, 2013

    The application wouldn’t be to Chapel Hill unless it was in the Planning jurisdiction. Local governments don’t screw that up, especially considering the two-inch thick Joint Planning Agreement that applies to the area.

    From the application, available in at least two places on the Town website:
    “History: In 2009 the development of the Calvander substation was proposed just north of the “Calvander”intersection on Old NC 86 at the 44kV White Cross Tap Line. Since that time a more suitable site has been placed under contract just south of Eubanks Rd. off Genestu Dr.
    Existing Conditions: The current 10.94 acre site, referred to as Calvander-Eubanks, is located just south of the Orange County Animal Shelter, east of the Orange County landfill, north and west of the White Cross Duke Energy transmission easement and west of the railroad spur serving UNC.”

    Local governments have essentially no control over what an applicant calls their proposed development, which allows for some places with really silly names.

  6. Bonnie Hauser

     /  May 25, 2013

    Thanks Ed – that helps. There’s a power substation there – next door to Gertrude Nunn’s home. We feature it on our “landfill tour”