Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
25 <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Mill <br /> Pointe Subdivision subject to the conditions contained ui the Resolution of <br /> Approval(an attachment to these minutes on pages ). <br /> Selkirk asked the rationale for straightening the road on the right and <br /> moving the two lots to the left. Kirk responded that the larger lot had only <br /> one area suitable for a septic system. Selkirk continued,asking about the <br /> stubout to the north from the end of the cul-de-sac going;into wooded <br /> property. Kirk responded that most of the area has been cleared. In answer <br /> to a question from Selkirk regarding access for adjacent property,Kirk <br /> responded that there was access. However,the stubout would provide <br /> access to the south property line. <br /> Walters stated that she did not like the idea of extending;stubouts from one <br /> landowner to another and running development together. While she was <br /> aware of the concern with circulation and some concerns she had heard <br /> regarding bike and walking trails,she did not agree that it was a good idea. <br /> Selkirk stated that was the reason for his question about access for the <br /> adjacent property. Kirk responded that he felt the main reason was for <br /> future circulation patterns and more than one access for the subdivision <br /> with such a large number of lots. <br /> Barrows stated that the Planning Board has had this discussion before <br /> regarding stubouts and she had written the Commissioners with the concern <br /> but had not heard from them. Willis responded that the Board of <br /> Commissioners had discussed the issue when the previous subdivision of <br /> like concern was presented to them with the Planning Board comments. <br /> The view of the Board was that the ordinance deals with the issue of <br /> providing traffic circulation patterns and they wish to continue that policy. <br /> Searles referred to previous discussions on stubouts and asked how <br /> potential owners are informed. Willis responded that it is clearly shown on <br /> the face of the plat and there is a document that is recorded along with the <br /> plat. <br /> Willis continued that stubouts are not required in every subdivision. <br /> Planning Staff reviews each subdivision and where a stubout would provide <br /> for a good circulation of traffic pattern,that is where a stubout is <br /> recommended. <br /> Strayhorn asked if there was a hard and fast rule or if ii was a judgment <br /> call. Willis responded there was no hard and fast rule and agreed that it was <br /> somewhat a judgment call that would address the concern of the <br /> Commissioners regarding a need for a stubout. <br /> In response to a question from Andrews regarding the developer of the <br /> current subdivision accessing a future development. Kirk responded that it <br /> would be the future developer who would have access to the stubout and <br /> who would be required to extend the road for continuation of the circulation <br /> of the traffic pattern through future development. <br /> Brooks asked if the road could be posted that it was for future extension so <br /> that people would not assume that they would always live on a cul-de-sac. <br />