Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />sections, and they do not constitute a substantive change in the way the <br />land zoning classifications would be handled. <br />~\ <br />THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />_-,~ <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by ~ <br />Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board with a <br />recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of <br />Commissioners on October 5, 1987. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br />5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br />a. Section IV-B-8-c Landscaping (Effective Date)_ <br />Greg Szymik stated-.that on March 24, 1987 the Board of <br />Commissioners adopted regulations to clarify the effective date of the <br />amendments. At that. time, questions were asked about the treatment of <br />subdivision applications received by the County during the suspended <br />period. Section IV-B-8-C would be amended by adding an effective date of <br />March 24, 1987. <br />THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by <br />Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a <br />recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, <br />1987. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br />b. Section V -~ Im rovements <br />Greg Szymik explained that Section V identifies the forms of <br />security that may be used to guarantee construction of required <br />improvements in approved subdivisions. The amendment would delete cash as <br />an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of <br />security for required improvements. <br />THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by <br />Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a <br />recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, <br />1987. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br />-B-3-c-8 - Marai <br />~ev4ion iv-~-v-ice urivewd 5 <br />Greg Szymik explained that Section IV-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision <br />Regulations is proposed to be amended by specifying forms of common or <br />restricted access to lots in new subdivisions along major streets. Section <br />IV-B-3-c-10 would place restrictions on the number and location of <br />driveways that will be allowed in new subdivisions. The amendments are <br />intended to provide more control on the number and location of driveways <br />along major roadways, reduce conflicts between through traffic and turning <br />vehicles, and maintain the safety and traffic carrying capacity of major <br />streets. <br />Barry Jacobs referred to page 245 of the agenda and the three <br />items relating to driveways and stated that the spacing from the <br />intersection addresses a Chapel Hill requirement, the access to a road <br />with a lower classification addresses a condition that is often put on <br />subdivision during the approval process and the common drive is more of a <br />