Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46- <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />Commissioner Yuhasz: Looking at the plan, the three lots on the far eastern part of the <br />property seem substantially larger than the other lots and I was wondering if any thought was <br />given to reducing the size of those lots and possibly providing some additional open space <br />along that eastern boundary and maybe a little more protection for the stream that begins in that <br />area. <br />Tracy Parrott: You are correct, those lots are larger. Various things were considered on that <br />side of the site, with respect to access management including joint driveways or even a cul-de- <br />sac street, both of which appear unworkable and not to the benefit of Habitat. We tried to be <br />mindful of the economic model that we were trying to satisfy here and keep the project <br />financially feasible, so just building a short cul-de-sac street did not--make economic sense for <br />the- project. It resulted in those lots being larger, but I think that is something that we can give <br />consideration to. That southeastern point is the second area that we fully anticipate keeping in <br />a natural state. <br />Commissioner McKee: -One question I have relates to the extension of the road, which is <br />referred to as Road A off Schoolhouse Road. That's the one with the cul-de-sac. It appears to <br />go to the north and dead end at the property boundary. I may be mistaken, but is that to also <br />~Ilow for future access to the properties to the north for possible future development? <br />Tracy Parrott: Atgain, it is to provide an access point to those properties that are north of this <br />project.. <br />Commissioner McKee: The same with the extension of Tinnin Road? <br />Tracy Parrott: Yes, sir. <br />Commissioner McKee: The question I have, I'm familiar with one other problem that came up <br />with the stubbed out road in that once that future property actually came into the arena #or <br />development. The current residents did not want it used. Will there be any documentation that <br />this road is for future access to the north lying properties to prevent that problem? <br />Tracy Parrott: Only in the form that they are to be developed and deemed as public <br />roadways. In the case of Road A, we are extending the public right-of-way to the northern <br />property to eliminate a need in the future to acquire a small portion of right-of-way to complete <br />the road out. We aren't carrying the road improvements all the way to the property line, but we <br />are carrying the right-of-way in both of those to the property line. But it is fully Habitat's intent to <br />build public roadways. <br />Susan Levy: In answering that question, we had an issue in Chapel Hill as well and there was <br />a sign at the end of-the road that says that this is subject to future extension so everybody <br />knows that. We can certainly do that here so that as people come in they are familiar with the <br />intention. <br />Commissioner McKee: That is my concern. <br />Michael Harvey: Commissioner McKee, let me just add that our ordinance actually mandates <br />and requires that the road be extended and be left protected. <br />Commissioner Hemminger: Along the same lines, the public access five-foot mulch trail that <br />goes along there had similar complications and would like to have a sign posted that is public <br />