Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> r <br /> Jobsis asked for the applicant's comments. <br /> Ms.Maxine Pope stated that she felt it was unfair to require her to construct a public <br /> road. She was not notified in 1991 by Mr.Yates as he was requested by the <br /> Planning Director. Ms. Wendy Browning,co-applicant with Ms.Pope,stated that <br /> had they known of such a requirement in 1991,they could have made different <br /> arrangements for the property. <br /> Price stated that she felt this was inconsistent with previous subdivisions. Garrett <br /> responded that according to the ordinance,this is the extension of a State road.She <br /> continued that Staff is following the ordinance and the ordinance requires <br /> dedication. <br /> Price asked why it could not be considerec a driveway.Garrett responded because it <br /> is the extension of a public road and it is the letter of the ordinance that it be <br /> dedicated as public. Price asked if the road could be abandoned and make a <br /> driveway. Mr.Yuhasz responded that if the appeal fails,efforts will be made to <br /> obtain an easement from Mrs.Clark which will create a much longer driveway and <br /> disturb a greater number of trees as well as creating many more problems. He noted <br /> that it is an extension of Yates Road Extension Private rather than an extension of <br /> the public road. He continued that NCDOT has paved Yates Road and it ends in a <br /> cul-de-sac. Thus,the extension is off the cul-de-sac. <br /> Strayhorn stated that he did not feel that it made sense that it should be paved for <br /> two lots. <br /> Brooks asked if the subdivision issue is the only issue that created the need for <br /> paving/dedication as public. Garrett responded yes. Willis clarified that this is the <br /> last chance for this road to be included in the public road system. <br /> Allison asked who owns lots 25 and 25H. Garrett responded that these lots were <br /> created and placed under separate ownership in 1991. He asked if lot 25 must be <br /> crossed to get to lot 25E and the response was yes. Lot 25 is owned by Bertha Clark. <br /> Brooks asked why it must be dedicated now rather than later. Willis responded that <br /> this is the last chance for the County to require public dedication. The owner could <br /> dedicate on his own,but,this would be the last chance for requirement. Mr.Yuhasz <br /> noted that there was an offer of dedication for future development at the concept <br /> plan stage,but,the owners are not willing to construct it at this time. <br /> Jobsis asked if the County has a vested interest in getting these roads paved. Willis <br /> responded that the offer of dedication is accepted when the plat is recorded. The <br /> road would have to be constructed to NCDOT standards if it were to be maintained <br /> by the State. That would address the issue of access. <br /> Strayhorn asked if the State had plans for extension of this road and the response <br /> was no. <br /> Jobsis asked if the Board has leeway to make deviations from the ordinance. <br /> Strayhorn asked if it is policy for the County to get right of way whenever possible <br /> for the State in case of the possibility of road paving or extension. Willis responded <br /> that it is a part of planning ahead for a road network. <br />