Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-20-1996 - VIII-B
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 02-20-1996
>
Agenda - 02-20-1996 - VIII-B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2013 12:46:29 PM
Creation date
10/17/2013 12:46:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/20/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VIII-B
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960220
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
RES-1996-005 Resolution approving the Spring Farm Subdivision, Section Three, Preliminary Plat
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\1990-1999\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
1 <br /> 15 <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> Preliminary Plan for Spring Farm - Section Three <br /> with a Class B private road subject to the <br /> conditions contained in the Resolution of <br /> Approval which is an attachment to these minutes <br /> on pages <br /> Barrows asked if there had been discussion of a <br /> shared driveway for lots 11 and 12. Cameron <br /> responded that it had not been discussed. Barrows <br /> continued that she felt it would make sense <br /> because of the way they entered the cul-de-sac. <br /> Cameron responded that it could be reviewed. In <br /> the past that was a requirement only when <br /> crossing power lines, buffers, or streams. <br /> Waddell asked about the distance of the arc on <br /> the traffic circle for lots 11 and 12. Cameron <br /> responded that the minimum requirement is 20 feet <br /> and that is met. His concern was to be sure that <br /> there was sufficient area for the driveways. <br /> Katz asked about the requirement for sideyard <br /> setbacks. Cameron responded that setbacks larger <br /> than the minimum is a part of the private road <br /> justification. Katz continued, asking why the <br /> concern with sideyard setbacks, he felt there was <br /> no public good associated with such a <br /> requirement. <br /> Reid stated that it had more to do with clearing <br /> the lot, clearing--for the house but not clearing <br /> up to property lines. <br /> Jobsis noted that there is a sideyard setback <br /> requirement in the ordinance and Cameron <br /> confirmed that the requirement is 20 feet. <br /> Rosemond asked how many do not pay the parkland <br /> fee. Cameron responded that the only places <br /> where the County receives dedications are in the <br /> Rural Buffer where there are dedicated greenways. <br /> It must be a very large subdivision for <br /> sufficient area to be dedicated for a parksite. <br /> Willis responded that the issue of payment-in- <br /> lieu and the amount of fees is currently being <br /> reviewed for possible revision. The Planning <br /> Director is preparing information for the <br /> February 26 public hearing on <br /> the issue of parkland dedication and payment-in- <br /> lieu. <br /> Walters, responding to the concern regarding <br /> sideyard setbacks, stated that she felt it was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.