Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-17-1995 - IX-C
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 01-17-95
>
Agenda - 01-17-1995 - IX-C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2014 3:20:50 PM
Creation date
8/26/2014 3:18:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/17/1995
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-C
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19950117
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
52 <br /> developer does want to pave the road, but, it <br /> must be in cooperation with NCDOT in order to <br /> move the road as indicated by the drawing. What <br /> he felt the developer would pledge is, if it is <br /> paved, it will be no closer to the Baldwin <br /> property than is shown on the sketch. If it is <br /> possible to move it farther away, that will be <br /> done. Discussions are continuing with NCDOT. <br /> Howie asked about Black Walnut Farm Road. Mr. <br /> Yuhasz responded that it would be State- <br /> maintained. It will be built to State Standards <br /> by the developer. <br /> Walters asked if the problem with Baldwin Road <br /> was in changing the location of the existing <br /> road. Mr. Yuhasz responded that DOT would have <br /> to make the determination that the road could be <br /> relocated and the decision on participatory <br /> paving. Discussion will continue with DOT until <br /> such time as the road can be paved and moved <br /> farther from the Baldwin property. <br /> Burklin asked if perk sites had been located on <br /> each lot. Yuhasz responded yes. <br /> Waddell asked about the alleged line irregularity <br /> and the lots in question. Yuhasz responded the <br /> line irregularity in question does not involve <br /> this proposed subdivision. <br /> Ms. Baldwin asked if DOT does not allow for <br /> participatory paving of Baldwin Road, does it <br /> then become the road used by the subdivision with <br /> designated right-of-way twelve feet from her <br /> chimney. <br /> Waddell asked if Mr. Yuhasz would commit to <br /> placing the dirt road in the same place as <br /> has been indicated the paved road would be if DOT <br /> does not allow the participatory paving. Yuhasz <br /> responded no, but he continued that if the dirt <br /> road remains, it will remain as a ditch to ditch <br /> road. Currently the public has the right to use <br /> it as a ditch to ditch road and that is all. <br /> There will be no other dedicated right-of-way. <br /> There will be no other action by the developer to <br /> bring the road any closer to the Baldwin property <br /> than it is now. <br /> Ms. Baldwin expressed concern with the <br /> possibility that the road might not be moved, but <br /> would be paved at a later time in the same <br /> location. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.