Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />• The amendments are reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and <br />general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Comprehensive plan or part <br />thereof; and, <br />• The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />Special Note: As noted above, the Planning Board deliberated and recommended the addition <br />of "Pedestrian Circulation" requirements in the Efland Village overlay district (noted in green on <br />pages 6 -34 and 35 of Attachment 3). The discussion arose from a comment made at the <br />Quarterly Public Hearing regarding the inclusion of internal pedestrian systems for larger -scale <br />non - residential and multi - family projects in the Efland Interstate overlay district without a similar <br />requirement proposed for the Efland Village overlay district (see Section C.1.b, comment 5 in <br />Attachment 1). <br />For smaller scale projects in a `village' setting, the appropriate pedestrian plan would be within <br />the road right -of -way. However, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is <br />responsible for road maintenance in counties and does not maintain sidewalks (see link to work <br />session materials on this topic in Section B.1 of Attachment 1). Therein a quagmire exists - the <br />goal of walkability but no locational public accommodation unless on private property which has <br />associated issues. These issues have been discussed with the County Manager and County <br />Attorney's office. <br />Issues <br />1. The imposition of `requiring' public use of private property including the cost <br />(potentially upwards of $100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and <br />maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise? <br />2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) <br />compatible (i.e. paved)? <br />3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance. <br />4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in <br />the potential building size. <br />5. Would the `piece -meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and /or affect <br />the development design of adjacent parcels? <br />6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners. <br />7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability. <br />Admittedly, these issues are counterbalanced with the benefits and safety of walkability and <br />therefore the Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical, <br />legal and cost effective regulations in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a <br />village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities could potentially <br />be explored. In the interim, the proposal in Attachment 2 should be considered for adoption. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 of Attachment 1. <br />RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: <br />1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; <br />2. Close the public hearing; and <br />