Minutes - 19780530 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~:: ~~ This rezoning request was scheduled to be heard again 4n the third Monday night~in June at the regular meeting; of the County Planning Board. Chairman Bonar referred to the third item on the agenda: Considera- tion of proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. He referred to the Definitions section of the amendments which amends the definition o£ easement to read as follows: A grant of rights by the property owner to a portion of land for a specified purpose. Dr. Sonar stated it was not the intention of the earlier definitions to provide for public use but for use by the public, a corporation, or persons, He stated this definition makes this point clear. The second item under definitions: Moved the definition of minor sub- division from; page 5 to the definition section. Dr. Sonar asked that the Board discuss the suggested definitions of a manor subdivision as shown on an attached sheet. (1) A manor subdivision is a division of a tract of land into no more than four (4) additional lots with access to be provided either from an existing public street or from a private road as defined in the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. (2) III-C-2: No more than four (4) new lots may be created through the minor subdivision process out of a tract of land in existence at the time of the adopticn of this procedure for review and approval of subdivisions through the minor subdivision process. (3) No more than four (4) lots may be created out of a tract of land by the minor subdivision process within a one year period. Add: Any tract of land which changes ownership may be resubdivided by the minor subdivisiari process. Dr. Bonar stated that two approaches to the use of a manor subdivision process had been made. He asked for comments. Lindsay Efland stated he felt the added provision regarding changing of ownership was a good provision and should be added to which ever pro- posal was decided upon. Purpose, Authority, Jurisdiction Section 1-D: Na provisions o£ this Ordinance shall be construed to grant public access, entry or use of private property without permission of the owner. Ben Lloyd informed the Board the Advisory Subcommittee has suggested an addition to this section which would state that when easements or right of ways are acquired, compensation shall be forthcoming. This is not an the proposed amendment. Mr. Lleyd stated it was also suggested that the party responsible fox compensation be specified. Discussion ensued regarding this item. Commissioner willhoit stated he found problems with this as it is extremely expensive to install sewer lines at a later time an a lot by lot basis. That easements should be given at the initial planning stage. Mr. Lloyd stated he felt developers should have all easements dedicated prior to developing thier property and should pay far involuntary easements. ". .. Mr, willhoit responded by stating this would present problems if every case had to be on a contract basis. That it would be difficult to obtain easements where services are not available. Mr. wall stated there are instances where property owners derive na benefit from granting easements across their property, that many people do not wish to have certain conveniences.' Dr. Bonar stated his concern about compensation for easements is this may be interpreted by subdividers to mean that if they are required to pro- vide easements, for utilities to supply their own development, somebody should pay them for that. He stated the proposed amendment could be read in that sense.