Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-20-1996 - IX-B
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 02-20-1996
>
Agenda - 02-20-1996 - IX-B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2013 12:59:44 PM
Creation date
10/17/2013 12:59:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/20/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-B
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960220
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
RES-1996-006 Resolution approving the Pendle Hill Subdivision 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.
/
20
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
18 <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> Preliminary Plan for Pendle Hill with a private <br /> road built to class B standards and subject to <br /> the conditions contained in the Resolution of <br /> Approval. <br /> Barrows asked the reason for the relocation of <br /> the subdivision road. She noted that it was <br /> across from Walker Farm Road on the concept plan. <br /> Kirk responded that the original plan was for a <br /> road directly across from Walker Farm Road to go <br /> into the larger tract at the back. There is only <br /> one perc site on that 20 acre tract. The road has <br /> been relocated to the north so that it will not <br /> cross the drainage swale in the common area. <br /> Barrows asked why the Private Road Justification <br /> indicated larger than average lots when Little <br /> River Township is a Protected Watershed which <br /> allows only one dwelling per two acres. She asked <br /> if this, then would be a valid reason for private <br /> road justification. Willis responded that when <br /> reviewing private road justification, the base <br /> zoning is used. The watershed overlay is related <br /> to the overall density of the project for <br /> watershed protection. Barrows continued that she <br /> felt it did not make sense to convert to <br /> something that cannot be realized when State <br /> mandate for watershed protection only allows for <br /> one dwelling per two acres. <br /> Ann Joyner, developer, noted that private road <br /> justification requirements relating to lot size <br /> pertain to the underlying zoning district, not <br /> to the density provided by the watershed <br /> regulations. Using the watershed density as a <br /> baseline for the private road justification would <br /> require a change in the Subdivision Regulations. <br /> Barrows noted that such a change would make more <br /> sense. <br /> Katz asked about the 75-foot buffer along the <br /> road that appears to have been reduced to a 50- <br /> foot buffer. Joyner indicated that it should be <br /> a 50-foot buffer. It was 75 on the concept plan, <br /> but with the size and shape of lots on the <br /> preliminary, 75 would be too much. <br /> Rosemond asked what uses would be in the open <br /> space. Steve Yuhasz, surveyor, responded that <br /> had not yet been determined but there would not <br /> be any structures in the open space. <br /> Waddell asked about access from Carol Lane rather <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.