Browse
Search
ORD-2000-130 Amendments to Orange County Private Road Standards Subdivision Regulations
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2000
>
ORD-2000-130 Amendments to Orange County Private Road Standards Subdivision Regulations
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2015 2:53:38 PM
Creation date
3/26/2013 12:02:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/15/2000
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Agenda - 08-15-2000-9c
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2000\Agenda - 08-15-2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12 <br /> Geoffrey Gledhill said that the upgrade of the road ha required toservice the new subdivided lots. <br /> Once the upgrade is done, then all of the lots in the subdivision are jointly responsible for maintaining the <br /> road to the upgraded standard. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the-18-foot travel way and asked if that included the <br /> swells orif|t was just the actual road surface. <br /> Craig Benedict said that 18 feet was just the actual road surface and that the impermeability that <br /> comes forward from both public and private roads still is counted as the entire roadway. After the swell goes <br /> up to the 50-foot area, then there is a certain amount of impervious that would be counted in the remaining <br /> 50 feet. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs asked ifit was the same amount of shoulder that must bacleared <br /> regardless of whether itioa public or private road. <br /> Craig Benedict said that typically there is the surface course, a four-foot swell down and a four- <br /> foot swell up and then whatever can be preserved after that. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs made reference b»page 13 and read the first paragraph which says, <br /> "Private roads serving more than 10 lots or dwelling units may be permitted only if constructed to NCDOT <br /> public road standards,"and said that this contradicts everything which has gone before it. <br /> Craig Benedict said that this statement could bedeleted. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Class A versus Class B private roads and asked if the <br /> staff has looked into the cost of hiring o professional engineer. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the staff has checked into the costs for engineers and the determination <br /> of one road over the other is negligible in cost because it is the engineers time to go out and see if the road <br /> meets the standards. He said that one of the most important things is if the County is going to continue to <br /> have private roadways, the hazards of living on a private road should be reduced as much as possible by <br /> having the road certified hn the standards. He said that drainage io the key for private roads, and that is <br /> where the biggest failing is. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that DOT had set up a committee to work on subdivision standards <br /> and he is concerned that the County is locking themselves in and not allowing any flexibility. He is <br /> concerned that there would be no allowance if there were some significant natural resource or rural <br /> characteristic nfthe property that might be enhanced by having a private road om opposed toopub|icroad. <br /> He questions eliminating flexibility in the concept plan amendments. He would prefer that the plan ba <br /> presented for comment to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners before the staff makes a <br /> ruling. <br /> Craig Benedict said that some of the language could be changed to allow for some flexibility. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to have incentives for people to do things the way <br /> the County would want them to, not making i%aa a right, but a privilege. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning staff could specify the reasons for modifications of <br /> the regulations. <br /> Craig Benedict said that a checklist could be implemented and reviewed to be sure the private <br /> road standards meet the goals of the Boaod'of County Commissioners. <br /> Commissioner Brown said that she would like the consumer, the one buying the lots, to be <br /> protected bv the quality of road that io being constructed. She asked for more information on the process pf <br /> getting an engineer hm evaluate the road standards and Craig Benedict described this process. <br /> Chair Carey asked if there were some procedural problems if the processfor the concept plan is <br /> changed and the County Commissioners approve the concept plan. <br /> Geoffrey Gledhill said that it is not uncommon in administrative law to do this kind of process. <br /> He thinks the objective of the Planning staff is to move non-advisory functions of the Planning Board to the <br /> County Commissioners. <br /> Chair Carey said that he feels that the Planning Board staff should review the project andnotthe <br /> Board of County Commissioners. <br /> Commissioner Gordon made reference to the private road justification and asked if there is <br /> something along that line for emiebn ado. She said that this regulation could result ina loss of trees which <br /> would not be the best thing for the County. <br /> Craig Benedict said that he would work with the Attorney on language to address the issue for <br /> existing roads. <br /> Commissioner Ha|hiptissaid that he fails to see anything wonderful about roads that are gravel <br /> where everything ie covered with dust. He asked if there was any County staff that could certify the roads oa <br /> meeting state standards. <br /> Craig Benedict said that for private roads, there is not any qualified staff to certify the roads. He <br /> said that DOT is now coming to the Development Review Committee on a biweekly basis to discuss the road <br /> standards. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.