Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
aoo~~8 <br />A9otion was made bq Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd <br />to appoint Robert L. Sheppard to the Secondary Road Improvement Advisory <br />Committee. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br />ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CITI7EN5 BOARD <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner <br />Carey tc appoint Lu1a Mae Cotton to the Orange County Senior Citizens Board, <br />VOTE: iNANIMOUS. <br />pOMICILI¢~' EOME_ A~~r541~ COMMITTEE <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Nfarshall, seconded by Chair 4iillhoit <br />to appoint Linda Rahija to the Domiciliary home Advisory Committee. <br />VDTE: UNANIMOUS. <br />S R D SIO" <br />5. T~IAN SPRINGS-PRE~,~RY <br />Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the <br />Preliminary Plan for Indian Springs Subdivision. The property is located on 5R <br />I005 in Bingham Township. The tract is designated as Agricultural-Residential <br />on the Land Use Plan. Twelve lots are proposed out of 20.14 acres. The <br />property is zoned A-R. The applicant is requesting approval of a Class ~B~ <br />private road with access to 5R I005, a road designated as an arterial street in <br />the Land IIse Plan. <br />3usan Smith indicated the number of lots in the subdivision was used <br />as a basis for recommending a public state maintained road. <br />Robert Epting, attorney representing the applicant Tony Clark, stated <br />the road will serve nine (9) lots. The guidelines of the Private Rcad <br />Standards states that a Class ..B.. road may service 4-9 lots. The developer is <br />trying to keep the cost low. a paved road would add approximately $3,000 to the <br />cost of each lot, The road would serve other lots for which no remuneration <br />would be received. He asked that the Board approve the subdivision and all <br />the conditions recommended by the Planning Board with condition Q5 changed to <br />read that the access be shared without any reimbursement for maintenance. <br />Epting questioned how to stipulate a requirement that when <br />development occurs on the adjacent tract that the developer participate in <br />maintenance costs. <br />3usan Smith explained that the tract adjacent to the proposed <br />subdivision is essentially a mirror image and has less than 400 feet of <br />frontage. It makes sense to use just the one road instead of having two roads <br />so close together. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill suggested a requirement be imposed on the <br />subdivision which would require the owners of the adjacent property to agree to <br />pay for maintenance of the road to the same degree as the original subdivision <br />and would allow only one access to the development. He expressed concern about <br />additional use of a private road versus construction of a public road built to <br />state standards. <br />Epting offered as a compromise that the road be constructed to the <br />width of a Class ~A~ road along the portion subject to the mast use. <br />Gledhill noted that under present agreements, the development which <br />triggers the upgrading of the class of road, pays for the improvements. <br />rlotion was made by Commissioner Careya seconded by Commissioner <br />rarshall to approve the recommendations of the Planning Board (listed below) <br />with the addition to number four that 433.54 feet of the road from the entrance <br />at 5R 1005 to the point where it turns off be expandee. to Class ~A" width with <br />