Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />1 ~. ~ a, <br />TDepartment annually as to the maintenance undertaken. <br />Another condition requires a notation on the plat and another <br />addresses the safety consideration. DOT has certain standards which <br />are minimal for loadbearing structures. Thompson recommends as a <br />condition of approval that. the bridge meet those minimal requirements <br />which may mean upgrading the bridge. He further recommended that the <br />dam site itself be safeguarded including fencing, and more signage. An <br />engineers report could indicate more specifically how the spillway <br />could be made safe for public access. <br />Ken Thompson stated that the intent in replacing the bridge was to <br />safeguard the public by requiring that the bridge meet the flow rate <br />and the load bearing capacity as required by the State. A wooden <br />structure would suffice. <br />Chair Marshall reference a letter from Gledhill dated April 2 and <br />the statement that he has serious questions as to whether or not this <br />subdivision plan satisfies the subdivision regulation requirements for <br />a private road. The Board needs to perform the analysis called for in <br />the subdivision regulations before approving the subdivision as a <br />private road subdivision. <br />Greg Szymik noted the two basic criteria which determines when <br />private roads may be allowed to exist. One is the nature and location <br />of the subdivision including the topography of the surrounding area and <br />the second criteria. consists of 5 conditions and a private road may be <br />permitted when one or more of those conditions exist. The bridge at <br />the present time does not meet State standards and, therefore, could <br />not be accepted to the State Maintained Road System. <br />___ Discussion ensued on the ownership of the bridge which has not <br />.been determined. <br />Gledhill expressed that a concern he has with a subdivision this <br />large, with the roads and bridge not built to State Standard, is <br />keeping them maintained. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis expressed a concern with the bridge and <br />with construction equipment going across the bridge. <br />The developer, George Lattimore, stated that one of the special <br />design considerations was to limit the number of lots in the <br />subdivision. There is a recognition that the bridge must be a safe <br />structure. DOT has indicated that they will not evaluate that bridge. <br />He offered to secure an evaluation from a private engineer. <br />Chair Marshall indicated that information must be provided which <br />indicates that the bridge is safe. It would help to have an engineer's <br />evaluation of the bridge with a restriction that the plans have to be <br />approved by DOT. <br />It was the consensus that the condition of the bridge should be <br />settled prior to the approval of this Preliminary Plan. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner willhoit, seconded by Commissioner <br />Halkiotis to deny the application. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br />EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW BOARD COMPENSATION <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner <br />Halkiotis to compensate the members of the Equalization and Review <br />Board at $50.00 per meeting: <br />With no further business, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. <br />Shirley E. Marshall, Chair <br />Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk <br />