HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0873 (2)428
HEDRICK: Mr. Le+•!is, you gave me a copy of a letter just before the meeting started
that had been written to you and a cop" ening to me, which inadvertently had been sent to
you. Do you wish to make that part of the presentation or not?
LEWIS: Yes, sir. I believe I would like to make copies of all the legal documents
that we have procured so far.
DAVENPORT: We have two exhibits. I assume that's two of the things you mentioned
that the staff introduced. T:iis is a letter from the NRCD. Is there anything else
besides these two documents and that letter that you want introduced?
LEWIS: if you feel that the franchise that has been issued by the utilities commis-
sion, any of the other permits that have been applied for, are pertinent to your decision,
those can be entered into the record, if you so desire to have them.
Exhibit 3, letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Commu-
nity Development (NRCD), dated July 3, 1985, addressed to Mr. Duane Lewis, from Arthur
Mouberry, P.E., entered into the record.
HEDRICK: Do you want to enter this letter as one of the exhibits?
LEWIS: I think so. The intent of the letter, Larry, was to show the commissioners
that we are complying with every state law that is on the books at the present time, and
it is a lengthy, time-consuming set of laws to comply with. The reason for the urgency of
the situation is that we are in a 45 -day waiting period now because it is required by law
that we ,dvcrtis in a local newspaper that we are going to discharge into a stream.
Persons (not clear) can oppose that in Raleigh. Then we have to answer that.
DAVENPORT: Let me ask you another question, Mr. Lewis, just for the record. Is the
project as desirable with a, from the point of vieer of all the units, with the package
plant as it was with the individual septic system?
LEWIS: Judgment on some people's part. But as a developer and knowing the acreage
required for repair areas and the home owners virtually trouble-free package treatment
plant, it has to be more desirable with a package treatment plant.
DAVENPORT: Would that also be considering such things as odor (not clear)?
LEUIS: Yes.
DAVENPORT: How would this package treatment facility alter in any way the plans for
open space in the PRD?
LEWIS: Absolutely none. In fact !here it's placed on the PRD. It's a natural for
it to b- visually screened. It's as far away from any future development or proposed
condominiums thet you can get it and still be on the same property.
DAVENPORT: What was the proposed open space used prior to this proposal?
LEWIS: All spam not covered by buildings or parking lots and the swimming pool.
DAVENPORT: Any other questions?
Do you wish to ask Miss Beckham anything in terms of cross-examination? Any oppo-
nents? The Pr,cedure says you can no ahead and make closing comments if you would like.
Or you can just rest on what you've put forward.
Miss Beckham, do you have any concluding comments at all that you would like to make?
CROSSWHITE: 30' set back? Does that allow room enough to be buffered?
LE'IIS: Apparently that's part of the set back requirements that are part of the
zoning right now. (not clear)
BECKHAM: I take exception to that. 87.2(h) requires when a PRD abuts a residential/
agricultural district there be an open space of at least 45 feet or 3 times the height of the
building, whichever is greater, between any building or accessory use and the property line of the PRD.
I was under the impression that it was 50' earlier this evening. So in my opinion
30' is not adequate.
DAVENPORT: I think that's well taken.
Mr. Lewis do you have any comment on that at ail?
LEWIS: Well, let me ask. We can still put the plant in the little area because it
E