Orange County NC Website
1. 6 `. <br /> J� <br /> e 6. Subdivision Plats <br /> a. Francis T. Hill: Mr. Polatty said this is a major sub- <br /> 0 <br /> 6. division adjacent to Eno State Park. <br /> jo Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, <br /> 8, approval of the Francis T. Hill Subdivision. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, <br /> 9. 0. ---- <br /> 10. b. Ariel Hill Subdivision: Mr. Polatty said this is a major <br /> subdivision in Eno Township. <br /> ;'. Commissioner Willhoit moved approval of the Planning Board's <br /> L3- recommendation to approve with all stipulations (see page of <br /> this book) ; Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, <br /> r 4;noes, 0. <br /> 1�. <br /> 16, c. Ann Joyner, et. Al. Subdivision: Mr. Polatty said this <br /> 17, was a major subdivision in Bingham Township. <br /> yg, Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, <br /> 19. approval of the Ann Joyner, Et. Al. Subdivision, as recommended <br /> 20, by the Planning Board with the Class "C" road. Vote:, Ayes, 4; <br /> 21. noes,--0. -. <br /> 22. d. Lucille King Minor Subdivision: Mr- Cannity told the <br /> ,23. Hoard this minor subdivision request was being brought to it becrl,:� <br /> 21F. of a problem the owner was encountering obtaining a right-of--wa <br /> 25. from Southern Railroad (see pages of this book for details) . <br /> 26. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, <br /> 27. approval of the Lucille King Minor Subdivision. Vote: Ayes, 4; <br /> 2S. noes, 0. <br /> 29. e. Steep Bottom Run Subdivision: Mr. Polatty said this is <br /> �Ca a major subdivision in Chapel Hill Township., Some Board members <br /> 4. <br /> expressers a concern about possible traffic hazards with the number <br /> 32. of driveways entering directly onto SR 1129 and the line of sight <br /> 33. within that curve. The Board asked the developer (who was not pre <br /> sent but was represented by Mr. Alois Callemyn) to consider joined <br /> 35. driveways. The Board asked this to be returned to the agenda after <br /> discussions between Planning Staff and the developer regarding the <br /> 374. concerns voiced by the Board. <br /> 38. <br /> 39. <br /> too. <br />