Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br /> than New Sharon Church Road. Joyner responded <br /> that she had spoken with that property owner on <br /> two occasions and they were not willing to <br /> provide access. Waddell noted disappointment that <br /> access was not allowed from Carol Lane and <br /> expressed concern that there would be almost <br /> urban density of roads in this particular area <br /> (every two hundred feet) . He was concerned that <br /> this would create problems later. <br /> Katz asked for clarification on the relocation of <br /> the subdivision road. Joyner responded that <br /> there was a severe swale at that point that <br /> would require considerable buildup to align the <br /> road with Walker Farm Road. The relocation also <br /> allows for better erosion control. Yuhasz noted <br /> that NCDOT is concerned with offset roads when <br /> there are left turn conflicts. He indicated there <br /> are no such conflicts at this site. Joyner <br /> continued that contact with NCDOT indicated that <br /> the site distance was very good with the <br /> relocation. <br /> Barrows asked about a shared driveway for lots 3 <br /> and 4. Joyner responded that a shared driveway at <br /> that point would interfere with the perc sites. <br /> The best soils are along the lines between lots 3 <br /> and 4. She continued that she felt there would <br /> not be much advantage with a shared driveway on a <br /> dead-end road. She noted it could also create <br /> problems with road maintenance. Willis noted <br /> that joint driveways are sometimes required when <br /> they access arterial or collector roads. On <br /> private roads they are sometimes required when <br /> there are streams, stream buffer areas, or some <br /> constraint that could be addressed by a joint <br /> driveway. During review and discussion of the <br /> subdivision, it was determined that a joint <br /> driveway would not address any of those concerns. <br /> Howie asked what is served by Carol Lane. Joyner <br /> responded it serves 8 to 10 10-acre lots. Kirk <br /> noted that those lots were not subject to the <br /> subdivision process since they are over 10 <br /> acres. Joyner also noted that they are part of an <br /> estate which involves several heirs. <br /> Brown asked about the amount of open space and <br /> Kirk responded 2.92 acres. <br /> NOTION: Barrows moved approval as recommended by the <br /> Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid. <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor. <br /> 4 opposed (Reid, Waddell - preferred that <br />