Comments for chapelhillwatch.com

Comment on Feature presentation by Bonnie Hauser

Bonnie Hauser — Sat, 25 May 2013 15:18:27 +0000

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

Comment on Feature presentation by Ed Harrison

Ed Harrison — Sat, 25 May 2013 03:48:38 +0000

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.

Comment on Feature presentation by Bonnie Hauser

Bonnie Hauser — Sat, 25 May 2013 00:58:12 +0000

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

Comment on Feature presentation by Scott

Scott — Thu, 23 May 2013 12:30:53 +0000

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.

Comment on Feature presentation by Nancy

Nancy — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:04:56 +0000

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?

Comment on Feature presentation by Scott

Scott — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:31:48 +0000

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

Comment on Obey Creek: From Outreach to Inclusion by jeanne brown

jeanne brown — Sat, 18 May 2013 11:25:37 +0000

DOM

I don’t know whether to answer “Exactly!” (as in why has it been so complicated to put a fair process in place?) or , given that you were reading this thread, ask what you were hoping to discuss about Obey Creek, Development Agreements……

Comment on Obey Creek: From Outreach to Inclusion by DOM

DOM — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:37:48 +0000

Huh?

Comment on Obey Creek: From Outreach to Inclusion by jeanne brown

jeanne brown — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:05:38 +0000

Fred,

Unfortunately, the contract between the town and East West Partners was signed before council had reviewed and approved the plan and schedule for public engagement and technical review processes.

At the April 29 work session, council members agreed that a steering committee or task force similar to the one in place at Central West should be included. In addition, council member Pease asked that the timeline be adjusted.

As Ed Harrison alluded to earlier, many council members did not feel that East West Partners was asking for their money back; however, both council members Czajkowski and Ward felt it was important that everyone understood that the process would include a steering committee/task force and, would, therefore take a little longer than expected. They went on to ask staff to verify with Mr. Perry if he wished to move forward with the Exploratory Phase given those conditions or choose to use the SUP process.

No official word is out about Mr. Perry’s answer but, presumably, Mr. Stancil’s memo suggesting a “Compass Committee” might indicate that an Exploratory Phase for Obey Creek is still in the works.

Comment on Obey Creek: From Outreach to Inclusion by Fred Black

Fred Black — Fri, 17 May 2013 22:24:54 +0000

Nancy, I don’t infer that from reading the letter. Did I miss something?