Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
17 <br /> r <br /> 1.A 50 foot public right-of-way stub out shall be provided between lots <br /> 11 and 12 for a future road extension(now shown between lots 9 and <br /> 10). <br /> 2.Access for lots I and 17 shall be from the subdivision road(now lots 1 <br /> and 15). <br /> 3.Lots 18 and 19 shall have a joint driveway(now lots 16 and 17). <br /> These conditions have been included in the Resolution of Approval. The <br /> subdivision layout is the same as approved on the Concept Plan. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for <br /> Cedar Pointe subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of <br /> Approval(an attachment to these minutes on pages ). <br /> Price expressed concern with the stubout. Willis responded that the <br /> stubout provides access to a 47-acre parcel to the east. Price asked if <br /> Willis felt it was wise to require the stubout. Willis responded that <br /> discussions at previous meetings had indicated concerns with stubouts <br /> that would link/connect subdivisions. However, it is a policy of the <br /> Commissioners to provide such stubouts for consistency in public road <br /> networks. The 47-acre tract may be landlocked and not have another <br /> access. The stubout must be set aside set aside at Preliminary Plan stage, <br /> it cannot be obtained once the subdivision is developed. <br /> Price continued that the Planning Board is hearing more and more that <br /> people like to live in enclaves and they do not desire to have their <br /> community connected to another. <br /> Willis responded that stubouts are not required to"fix"landlocked <br /> parcels that previously existed. She continued that they are required to <br /> look at the overall big picture for the transportation network. Price noted <br /> that she felt other access was available. Willis continued that the length <br /> of this subdivision would indicate that an additional access is reasonable. <br /> Brooks asked if the Planning Board could have the developers clarify <br /> in all of the plats and marketing materials that these stubouts are intended <br /> for road extensions. Willis responded that stubouts are clearly shown <br /> on final plats,and are referenced in the Declaration of Restrictions <br /> recorded with the final plat. <br /> Barrows agreed that the issue of traffic flow does make sense,but,such <br /> stubouts have created many concerns in recent subdivisions. <br /> Price again noted concern that connecting roads and thoroughfares do <br /> decrease property values and she could understand citizen concerns in not <br /> wanting additional traffic through their community. <br /> Willis noted that this concern and discussion has been expressed a lot <br /> recently. She suggested that perhaps Planning Board members would <br /> want to communicate to the Board of Commissioners their interest and <br /> concern for this issue. If this concern is going to continue to occur,then <br /> the Planning Board may need to suggest an ordinance amendment to the <br /> Board of Commissioners that would address this concern. <br />