Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
26 <br /> Willis responded that the notation on the plat reads: "easement for future <br /> road extension". If the plat is looked at prior to purchase of property,the <br /> buyer would know that future road extension is likely. <br /> Price expressed agreement with Walters noting that this is pre-determining <br /> where roads should be in future subdivisions. She felt this would change <br /> the character of the lots located on the stubout. She felt more options <br /> should be provided for the future owners. Willis agreed that this was pre- <br /> determining in order to provide that good traffic circulation. <br /> Price continued expressing concern that there are not enough options <br /> provided for buyers for the more private,secluded lots if stubouts are <br /> required for future extension. Willis responded that there are subdivisions <br /> with more secluded lots and potential buyers can choose from such lots. <br /> Price asked if the Commissioners said anything about"undoing"stubouts. <br /> Willis responded that the Commissioners were supportive of the concept of <br /> stubout. Price continued asking if it comes to a point in the future where <br /> it appears that it will never be developed or it is unwanted,did the <br /> Commissioners say anything about removing it. Willis responded that there <br /> was no discussion of that. Price asked if that could be brought to the <br /> attention of the Commissioners by the Planning Board. Willis responded <br /> that the Planning Board could bring that concern to the Commissioners if <br /> they wished. Collins stated that once a right-of-way has been dedicated <br /> there is a formal process to go through to withdraw it. The process <br /> requires a public hearing and four weeks of advertising and it can only be <br /> done by petition of the property owners. <br /> Katz asked how much the Planning Staff is able to evaluate the adjoining <br /> properties. He asked how much site evaluation takes place on the part of <br /> the Planning Staff to determine the best locations for stubouts. Willis <br /> responded that there is not a detailed site analysis. It is easy to determine <br /> those areas that are not suitable for a stubout. Kirk noted that the County <br /> Engineer,Paul Thames,had walked the property with him and had <br /> agreed that the locations recommended by Staff for stubouts are the most <br /> suitable and logical due to the topography. <br /> Katz stated that his question had to do with the property for which the <br /> stubout was being provided,not this subdivision. Kirk responded that due <br /> to the topo lines,this would be the most logical spot for a stubout for the <br /> other property also. Due to the drainage,this location is the only suitable <br /> area on the northern property line. <br /> Selkirk stated that he was not in favor of requiring stubouts without the <br /> kind of analysis that Katz was referring to. He felt the property to the <br /> north could have adequate circulation without access through this <br /> subdivision. He felt it was pre-determining it for the other property and <br /> restricting the way it could be developed. He felt it was good to have <br /> stubouts for landlocked properties. <br /> Barrows stated that many Planning Board members seemed to have <br /> concerns with the policy regarding stubouts and asked how dialogue with <br /> the Commissioners could be arranged to address those concerns. <br />