Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />i.A property owner takes their 200 acre tract of land <br />and creates, through the exempt subdivision process, <br />a total of 20individual lots all10 acresin size <br />accessed via a private roadway 12 feet in width. <br />ii.Lots are sold or otherwise conveyed. <br />iii.Individual property owners will be required, if this <br />standard is adopted, to upgrade the roadway to <br />secure zoning permits authorizing construction on <br />their property. This would include upgrading the <br />roadway to a publicstreet once certain development <br />thresholds are met based on number of existing <br />homes served by the respective road. <br />iv.Individual property owners will have to rely on their <br />neighbors’willingness to ‘dedicate’ the necessary <br />right-of-way/easement to accommodate roadway <br />improvements.If they fail to do so the road cannot be <br />improved tothe appropriate standard and Planning <br />staffwould be required to deny permits authorizing <br />development. <br />The effect of the standard may mean some lots become <br />undevelopable due to County regulations and, it could be argued, that <br />ataking of property development rights has occurred without ‘just <br />compensation’. <br />Fire Council commentsthat couldalso be addressed through UDOamendments (Planning <br />staff has no particular concerns associated with any of the following amendment options): <br />1.Cul-de-sacs: Increase theminimum clearing width for all proposed cul-de-sacs to <br />accommodate emergency vehicle access/staging within Section 7.8.5 (D) (10) of the <br />UDO. There is currently no ‘minimum clearing width’ separate from the development of <br />the actual, improved, travel area. This is something staff would verify before the <br />subdivision is recorded. <br />2.Drainage pipes under driveways: Section 7.8.5 (D) (9) could be amended to establish a <br />minimum width for all drain pipes of 16 feet, to address the concern of trucks being <br />‘hung up’ when attempting to access/leave a property. <br />3.Gates/Walls: With respect to required widths and setbacks for gates/privacy walls, <br />regulations could be adopted to require minimum travel widths and stacking areas to <br />accommodate the Fire Council’s concerns. Staff would need to determine where such <br />regulations would best fit within the UDO. <br />4.Pull-over Areas: Private road standards could be amended to include emergency pull <br />off areas as suggested by the Fire Council. Staff will have to take into consideration the <br />impact such a requirement would have on current impervious surfacepolicies, as such <br />a standard would increase the impervious surface area on a site and could possibly <br />impact overall developability. <br />4 <br /> <br />