What about Alberta

Seems like an excellent opportunity to deal with the anti-social behavior of Milian and whoever he represents.

Just to clarify the two issues referenced in the "Citizen" quote:

The Board of Aldermen, after a lengthy discussion amongst themselves on two issues in particular, public access across the property and affordable housing, proposed the following conditions (to the best of my recollection) to Paul Greenberg, a partner in the Carr Mill Investment Partnership:

1) that a 10' pedestrian easement be dedicated along Roberson St, along the north side of the building;
2) that a 5' pedestrian easement be dedicated along Sweet Bay Place, along the east side of the building;
3) that a 5' pedestrian & bicycle easement be dedicated along the south of the building to ensure public connectivity between East Carr St and Sweet Bay Place;
4) that, to meet the Town's stated goal of 15% affordable units in all residential projects, the developer provide 3 affordable condo units in the building, and make a payment in lieu for the remaining fractional (.45) unit according to the formula adopted by the BofA last June.

Mr Greenberg requested to see all of the proposed conditions in writing and time to consult with the rest of the partners before responding, and the BofA agreed to table the discussion until their September 11 meeting. This project is a "conditional use re-zoning" in which both parties, the Town and the applicant, must agree on any conditions to be attached to the permit.

I am recalling this from memory, so forgive me if I don't have the details just right.

The affordable housing provision was not controversial; it was mainly a matter of stating precisely how the Town policy would be satisfied in this instance.

Mr Greenberg resisted the sidewalk and East Carr St pedestrian and bike easements. The Aldermen seemed entirely unanimous and determined in asking for these compromise conditions. In all three instances the easement proposed by the BofA represents only a portion of the entire sidewalk and of the vehicular lane that will continue to link East Carr with Sweet Bay Place.

I believe that the other issue directly relating to the approval was the public right-of-way allowing drivers to continue from Carr St. through to Sweet Bay. This is critical, and it's my understanding that this is also a condition of the approval. It's not enough to allow only bikes and peds through-access on the south side of the building.

And, although the Aldermen can't make the developer do anything about the ingress/egress from Purple Leaf Lane through Rand Rd. (the old Tri-Em property), this pressure-relief valve will provide a badly-needed access for anyone living in the existing Maple/Carr St. neighborhood, Roberson Place, Alberta, the Yaggy development, and the old Andrews-Riggsbee development, to the area around the bottom of S. Greensboro St., including access to the NC 54 bypass.

I thought the affordable question was addressed by the in-lieu-of payment, at least to the satisfaction of Orange Community Housing & Land Trust.

James is correct.

Mark, it is not within our purview in the permitting process to 'correct' anyone's behavior, 'anti-social', or not.

Cheers,
Alex

Sure it is - you do it all the time with codes, policies, regulations, etc. Actually, you probably do it every time you take an action.

Alex,

Does this mean that there is no public automobile access being considered between Carr & Sweet Bay? Is it just pedestrian & bicycle access?

thanks,
Mitch

Mark, You know good and well that that's not what you were talking about, and I responded to.

Mitch, A couple of us were trying to push for a vehicular easement as well, but it just didn't get much traction (I guess that's a pun), so, what's on the table is bike/ped.

Cheers,
Alex

Actually, Alex, - I really don't. I honestly think there will be an opportunity during the course of considering this project to communicate in some serious way that Milian's bullshit is not appropriate in Carrboro.

Oh really? And just what BS is that?

-Alex