Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Geoff Gledhill said that DOT is required to condemn for secondary road improvements when <br />one or more property owners refuses to dedicate the necessary right-of-way when at least 75°~ <br />of the owners of the majority of the road frontage adjacent, petition to pave the road and <br />provide DOT with the money necessary to do the condemnation. <br />Chair Brown asked how this relates to this subdivision. Geoff Gledhill said that DOT said that <br />this situation meets this particular standard. There are people who have voluntarily dedicated <br />right-of-way and in terms of numbers and frontage, this meets the requirement. <br />3. Contact DOT about issues of water drainage. DOT has gone into the field to look at culverts. If <br />there are any improvements to the road, then DOT will look at it and make sure the culvert <br />sizes meet the drainage standards. DOT has talked with the developer and the developer <br />wants to proceed with the paving of this road and DOT must enter into an encroachment <br />agreement. <br />4. Contact Sheriff's office regarding any accidents. The Sheriff's office is working with the State <br />on accident reports in this area. Transitions from paved to gravel areas are a concern. <br />5. Contact developer about reducing density and planning open space development. There have <br />been discussions with the developer by Planning staff and ERCD to look at the possibilities of <br />conservation quality on this site. <br />6. Paving of Arthur Minnis Road. Far the last few months, the County Commissioners have asked <br />DOT not to proceed with paving the road that was on the secondary road improvement <br />program. Staff is looking for direction from the Board as to whether DOT should proceed with <br />allowing the developer to pave the road. The developer has come forward and offered to fully <br />fund the paving of this 800-foot section of road. If the Board wants to ask DOT to do something <br />atypical and leave the road where it is, then the Board would have to go back to the Resolution <br />of Approval and remove the condition about paving the road. <br />Commissioner Jacobs made reference to an email from DOT from November 21 ~. He <br />verified that DOT has granted an encroachment to the developer to pave the road. Craig Benedict said <br />that DOT might honor a request from this Board to withhold the encroachment agreement. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he got calls from two legislators. One legislator was saying <br />that he was involved solely at the request of a citizen who was interested in getting the road paved that <br />traveled this section but did not actually live in this section. The other legislator said that, as far as they <br />were concerned, if the people along this section of road did not want it paved, that was good enough for <br />them and it should not be paved. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the email from DOT. He said that this is secondhand <br />information that these issues have been resolved. He does not believe that all issues have been <br />resolved. He has not received the information he requested about accident rates on unpaved surfaces in <br />Orange County. He still has the same concerns that he had a couple of months ago. <br />John Link said that he did talk with DOT District Engineer Mike Mills shortly after the last <br />meeting that this was discussed. His understanding from Mike Mills is, based on the present <br />requirements of the approved Tuscany Ridge, the road is to be paved. The developer says that he will <br />pay for it all. If the Board takes no action, the developer will pave the road. However, if the Board <br />rescinds its action that the road be paved, then the road will not be paved. Either way, the development <br />will proceed, assuming the developer meets all the other criteria in the resolution of approval. <br />Commissioner Carey said that he does not think it would be in the best interest to rescind the <br />decision to pave the road. Citizens have been lobbying for years to get unpaved roads paved. He <br />cannot see the Board going contrary to its previous policies and taking an action that would promote that <br />this section of the road not be paved. If the Board does nothing, the road will get paved and at the cost <br />of the developer. He said that paving 800 feet is better than not paving any. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if DOT at some point may want to pave all of Arthur Minnis <br />Road. He asked if it is possible to leave the requirement that the developer pay far the paving of the <br />road and hold the money in escrow until the rest of the road can be paved. <br />