Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> • The amendments are reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and <br /> general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Comprehensive plan or part <br /> thereof; and, <br /> • The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted <br /> Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Special Note: As noted above, the Planning Board deliberated and recommended the addition <br /> of "Pedestrian Circulation" requirements in the Efland Village overlay district (noted in green on <br /> pages 6-34 and 35 of Attachment 3). The discussion arose from a comment made at the <br /> Quarterly Public Hearing regarding the inclusion of internal pedestrian systems for larger-scale <br /> non-residential and multi-family projects in the Efland Interstate overlay district without a similar <br /> requirement proposed for the Efland Village overlay district (see Section C.1.b, comment 5 in <br /> Attachment 1). <br /> For smaller scale projects in a `village' setting, the appropriate pedestrian plan would be within <br /> the road right-of-way. However, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is <br /> responsible for road maintenance in counties and does not maintain sidewalks (see link to work <br /> session materials on this topic in Section B.1 of Attachment 1). Therein a quagmire exists - the <br /> goal of walkability but no locational public accommodation unless on private property which has <br /> associated issues. These issues have been discussed with the County Manager and County <br /> Attorney's office. <br /> Issues <br /> 1. The imposition of 'requiring' public use of private property including the cost <br /> (potentially upwards of$100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and <br /> maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise? <br /> 2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) <br /> compatible (i.e. paved)? <br /> 3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance. <br /> 4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in <br /> the potential building size. <br /> 5. Would the 'piece-meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and/or affect <br /> the development design of adjacent parcels? <br /> 6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners. <br /> 7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability. <br /> Admittedly, these issues are counterbalanced with the benefits and safety of walkability and <br /> therefore the Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical, <br /> legal and cost effective regulations in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a <br /> village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities could potentially <br /> be explored. In the interim, the proposal in Attachment 2 should be considered for adoption. <br /> FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 of Attachment 1. <br /> RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: <br /> 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; <br /> 2. Close the public hearing; and <br />