Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

way but requires fee simple title. Our recommendation was to build option 2 but the attorney says that cannot be required and cannot be forced as being the access point for the subdivision based on that withdrawal of the dedication of Booth Road. We have no recommendation 1 ~ tonight. The only option you have on the table tonight is this one that was just fled. It was the one Samantha asked to be filed this month. That dedication is gone; there is only one access here. Il is a conventional plan. Tommy McNeill: Did you consult with the fire chief as well, what was their opinion on option 3? Robert Davis: The fire chief, as usually, recommends both connections but I have never had one be turned down based on the fact that it is a cut-de-sac. The Board of County Commissioners has had an informal 15 or 16 lots before you start needing that second entrance. This is twelve. This is the only access they have now. Tommy McNeill: Do we have a time that the fire station could be there? Robert Davis: We have miles. Larry Wright: Where do you get the 15 lots? I am looking at the Orange County Subdivision regulations in Item 4b-3b on page 27 where it talks about lot access to streets, connectivity and it says the requirement of two or more and it is designated in the comprehensive plan and I don't see how this conforms to that. Robert Davis: We had said last time that connectivity was a requirement of the comprehensive plan when we thought we had that connection, we don't have the connection so you would have to make a determination that this plan meets the requirements with what you've just read. Larry Wright: I am asking you how this satisfies the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. That's what I'm asking you. Robert Davis: There is no lot limitation. Larry Wright: That's right and you're talking about 12 and I don't see that here on page 27. Brian Crawford: Does it have any lot limitation? Larry Wright: No, not that I can see. Brian Crawford: If it doesn't have a limitation, what does that imply? Larry Wright: That implies that there should be two or more roads designated within this community. Earl McKee: I am not following your logic. Can you explain it? Larry Wright: No I can't because that is what 1 am asking him to do. . Judith Wegner: I think you are saying there are no exceptions in the rule that says there has to be connectivity, namely two roads. Even if there is some rule of thumb that someone has been using that says they only get strict about that if it is a larger number of lots on the face of it. As you're reading it Larry, you're saying there isn't any exception for less than two accesses? Larry Wright: That is the way I read this. Mark Marcoplos: Connectivity is not a legal requirement but a suggestion. Robert Davis: No. Tommy McNeill: Basically, this is a conventional plan that has been approved by.... Robert Davis: It has gone through the development review committee. We didn't recommend for this plan but the other plan, which has been pulled. This one is shown in your packet on page 26 with conditions we would recommend. Brian Crawford: Robert, how do you propose that we react to this? We have a recommendation on the record that says we should consider Option 2, which staff recommended. You either have to withdraw that recommendation and make another recommendation. Robert Davis: We are withdrawing that recommendation, Option 2 and for simplicity the only Option left is Option 3 which is a recommendation that is all you have left. In accordance with the conditions on page 26, omitting both 8 and 9. Brian Crawford: We need to do this for the record. If staff is not prepared to make a recommendation on number 3 then we should table this until you are prepared to make a recommendation or formally make a recommendation for number 3 so the Planning Board can consider it.