Orange County NC Website
4 <br /> 9 <br /> to the property. A portion of the right-of-way <br /> is being provided via an existing lot (Lot A) . <br /> The required road classification is Class C <br /> because the access is intended to serve only <br /> these two lots. <br /> Reduction of the right-of-way from the required <br /> 50 feet to the proposed 30 feet is needed due to <br /> the location of the existing septic drain line <br /> located on Lot A (existing lot) as well as the <br /> limited area for a proposed septic system for Lot <br /> B (the newly created lot) . <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of a <br /> partial width right-of-way of 30 feet for the <br /> proposed private road. <br /> i Barrows asked what would happen if the partial <br /> width right-of-way was not granted. Garrett <br /> responded that they would not be able to create <br /> the lot in question. <br /> Reid asked if the curve in Dimmocks Mill Road was <br /> the reason that access could not be obtained. <br /> Garrett responded that Lot B does not have direct <br /> access, only Lot A. <br /> Waddell asked about the property that belongs to <br /> Mr. Wagner between Lot B and Dimmocks Mill Road <br /> and Garrett responded that was the reason that <br /> the Settlemyres do not have direct road frontage. <br /> Barrows asked if Mr. Wagner had been contacted <br /> about an easement or access. The applicant <br /> responded that Mr. Wagner had indicated he would <br /> sell the strip needed for a sum of $5,000.00 or <br /> trade it for an acre of land. Barrows indicated <br /> the property could be developed without granting <br /> a partial width right-of-way even though the cost <br /> would be high. <br /> Reid noted that he felt the curve would also <br /> prevent access and asked if DOT would agree. <br /> Garrett responded that DOT would not be contacted <br /> until the property owner applies for a driveway <br /> permit. <br /> MOTION: Boland moved approval of the partial width right- <br /> of-way as recommended by the Planning Staff. <br /> Seconded by Reid. <br /> VOTE: 10 in favor. <br /> 1 opposed (Barrows - could be bought, expense <br /> cannot be considered by the Planning Board) . <br />