Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br /> 27 <br /> Dan Paxton,engineer for this subdivision,stated that the property to the <br /> north was thirty-three acres and could possibly have 25 lots. He noted that <br /> he felt it could have sufficient traffic circulation withoul this project <br /> providing a stubout. He stated that he preferred cul-de-sacs and dead end <br /> streets for safety reasons. Barrows responded that this had been a concern <br /> of many citizens as well and would like to know how the Planning Board <br /> could address those concerns. <br /> Collins disagreed with comments by Mr.Paxton,noting that the largest <br /> subdivisions being dealt with are usually 25 to 50 acres. He expressed <br /> concern that there would someday be many 25 lot subdivisions throughout <br /> Orange County with only one access and those suffering the most would be <br /> emergency services personnel. Those providing emergency services are <br /> the ones who most want a secondary access to subdivisions. In regard to <br /> site planning on adjacent properties,it is done on a general basis and it is <br /> known what is the best location for stubouts to address concerns constantly <br /> expressed by those providing emergency services to Orange County. <br /> Barrows expressed concern again for dialogue with the Commissioners <br /> regarding the concerns expressed over and over by citizens and Planning <br /> Board members on this issue. <br /> Brooks stated that she felt there has been an understanding that this is the <br /> best way for development to proceed noting that it was better for school bus <br /> traffic to be able to circulate rather than go to cul-de-sacs and turn around to <br /> get out of a subdivision and relieve traffic on the main roads. She felt it <br /> was a sound policy and should be regarded as such and to move on. <br /> Price stated she was not opposed to stubouts,there are areas where they are <br /> needed. She continued that she would like to have som(:more dialogue so <br /> that the Commissioners could hear again the citizens' and Planning Board's <br /> concerns regarding stubouts and providing more options. There are people <br /> who prefer small,private communities. She noted,however,that she also <br /> had concern for emergency vehicles. <br /> Searles asked if the property to the north was developed,would the <br /> developer be required to extend the stubout. Kirk responded that it is a <br /> public right-of-way and it would be required of future development to <br /> extend the stubout if the density is such that requires public roads. If it was <br /> subdivided into 10-acre lots,a private road could be used. <br /> Allison asked why,since the roads have been lined up,do Loganberry and <br /> Springhollow Court not carry the same name. The engineer,Mr.Paxton, <br /> responded that could be changed to the same name using North and South. <br /> Allison felt it would be better to carry one name. <br /> Strayhorn asked if the dedicated right-of-way was a deeded easement and <br /> off the tax records. Kirk responded that it would be deeded to Orange <br /> County which would remove it from tax records. <br /> MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Plannnig Staff. Seconded <br /> by Hoecke. <br /> VOTE: 9 in favor. <br />