Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1. 3 <br /> 2. 376 <br /> 3. <br /> 4• 4. WILKERSON ACRES <br /> 5. Mr. Rick Cannity of the Planning Staff reviewed this requested <br /> 6. subdivision for the Board (see Minutes of April 5, 1983,. for background) . <br /> 7. The Planning Board has denied .approval of the final plat citing the <br /> 8. road approved by the Board of Commissioners in the preliminary plat. <br /> 9. Planning Board feels that a high traffic generator may locate on one <br /> 10. of the lots at the end of the subdivision and the gravel road would be <br /> 11. insufficient (ex. dust,-noise) . Mr. Logan Irvin, Planning Board Chair, <br /> 12, confirmed the Planning Board's cited reason of the Class A Private <br /> 13- Road. which the Commissioners approved as being the reason the .Planning <br /> 14- Board denied the subdivision request. Dr. Irvin said the problem lay <br /> 15, more in the future than in the present; i.e., if the lots were sold, <br /> 16,, as they could be once divided, and if Mr. Wilkerson no longer had any <br /> 17- interest in the properties, the question of maintenance arose and the <br /> 18. question of paving. Board members said they felt it highly unlikely <br /> 19, that a high traffic generator would locate there, that the only off <br /> 20. site impact would occur to the south and the adjoining property owners <br /> 21. had offered no objections. Furthermore, it appears to the Board that <br /> 22. the adverse impact, if any, would be borne by the owners of those lots <br /> 23. and the businesses located there. The County Attorney said the main <br /> 24- tenance agreement would be conveyed with the pieces of property and <br /> 25- therefore potential buyers would be aware of their responsibility. . <br /> 26. Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to <br /> 27., approve the final plat of the Wilkerson Subdivision, Section IV-B, <br /> 28. with the Class A Private Road. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. <br /> 29, 5. WATERSHED PROTECTION <br /> 30- Ms. Susan Smith, Planning Staff, told the Board that Recommend- <br /> 31. ation # 12 of the Water Resources Task Force Report had called for <br /> 32. a minimum lot size of 2 and 5 acres in the watersheds in the County; <br /> 33- however, when the Board adopted the Recommendations of the WRTF, it <br /> 34- deleted specific minimum lot sizes.The Planning Board had, in its <br /> 35-meeting on April 25, 1983, passed a Resolution requesting the Board of <br /> 36.Commissioners to reconsider this Recommendation (that Resolution is <br /> 37- on page of this book). <br /> 38- Drt Irvin said that Planning Board reasoning was that the County <br /> 39. <br /> 40- <br />