Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1. Review of Proposed Draft Oranqe County Addressinq and Road Naminq <br /> Ordinance <br /> GIS Director Steve Averitt said that he had been working with Annette Moore on the <br /> addressing ordinance. On April 27th the County staff inet with staff from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, <br /> and UNC. The addressing staff is ok with the wording of the ordinance but did not know if the <br /> Boards were ready to adopt now. On May 4th he met with the Council of Fire Chiefs and he felt <br /> that there was a positive take by them on the ordinance. A lot of the feedback has come in <br /> over the past two weeks and some items on the present agenda item may be changing, so <br /> there may need to be another work session. <br /> He referred to the handout and the guidelines for enforcement. Everyone should have <br /> their addresses displayed properly. These Fire Chiefs requested that there be language that <br /> the address is made of reflective mateial, but other parties disagree with that. There is also a <br /> request to correct addresses that are incorrect (i.e., a 200 house number on a 500 block). One <br /> issue where there is no consensus is the driveway issue. Currently, any driveway that has two <br /> or more habitable structures will have to name the drive and have an address by that drive. If <br /> the ordinance is adopted, the proposal is to have 12 months before enforcement. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that if it is a joint driveway, then it is just a joint driveway. <br /> He suggested requiring numbers at the end of the road so that it is easier to see. He said that <br /> the County has a policy of requiring joint driveways in certain situations when normally <br /> individual driveways would be expected. He thinks that these extra requirements and $500 <br /> fine are excessive. <br /> Commissioner McKee said that if they allowed multiple addresses on the road, then <br /> they need to have the posted address at each individual dwelling also. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner McKee <br /> about the joint driveway. He said that if it was built as a joint driveway, it should not be <br /> considered a private road. <br /> Chair Pelissier agreed and said that she does not want it to be a separate road, but to <br /> have addresses at the road and the houses. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that his comments were applicable if there were only two <br /> houses. <br /> Steve Averitt said that the biggest concern regarding this is for mobile home parks. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to go through the ordinance page by <br /> page for comments. She said that she agreed that a joint driveway should only have two <br /> structures. She made reference to the definition of a "habitable structure" as opposed to an <br /> "addressable structure." She said that this needs to be clear. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about how Ford Road would be <br /> renumbered, which were answered by Steve Averitt. <br /> Discussion ensued on requiring reflective material for addressing. <br /> Commissioner McKee said that this would be a major change and would probably <br /> require 75-80% of the County to switch to a reflective material. <br /> The Board agreed that it is preferable but not required to have reflective material for <br /> addressing, and that the addresses need to be visible from both directions. The Board also <br /> agreed that a joint driveway could be for only two houses. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that for addresses out of sequence it might be better to <br /> have them be plus or minus one instead of 35. <br /> Frank Clifton said that sometimes you might need to leave a space just in case another <br /> structure comes in. <br />