Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br /> DECEMBER 17, 1984 /' b <br /> PAGE 14 <br /> W <br /> Shanklin said that if the applicant does not pave the road <br /> he could not develop lots 6 and 7. Pearson countered that <br /> he could develop those lots in the absence of paving. <br /> VOTE ON <br /> MOTION 8 in favor. Pearson and Shanklin opposed. Yuhasz abstained. <br /> AMENDMENT: <br /> VOTE ON .. . <br /> - AMENDED 10 in favor. ' Yuhasz abstained; <br /> MOTION: <br /> AGENDA ITEM #4j: WILLIAM AND-FRANCES S. HOWARD - MINOR SUBDIVISION PARTIAL <br /> WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUEST. <br /> The staff presentation was made by Smith. <br /> The purpose of this agenda item' is to decide if property <br /> of William and Frances S.. Howard, Chapel Hill Township, Tax <br /> Map 112 Lot 21 can have permission to have a 25 foot partial <br /> width right-of-way under Section IV-B-3--C-2. <br /> The Howards want to create two'-new lots for their sons. <br /> A twenty-five foot easement can be secured from David and Juanita <br /> McCauley. <br /> A minor subdivision could take place if partial width right-of- <br /> way is granted. <br /> Gordon asked staff- to clarify why a partial width was OK. Smith <br /> responded that though staff- had. concern regarding additional <br /> development off. the. road and would like. to see the full easement <br /> obtained at some time, -th applicants- could not obtain a full <br /> easement. Adjacent property- could- be developed at a later date <br /> at which time the full easement would be required. <br /> Walters inquired as to the status of the main road leading <br /> back to the lot of record. Yuhasz responded that it is a <br /> "public " road. <br /> Shanklin noted that the adjacent property owner was concerned <br /> about granting right-of-way given the possibility that the <br /> house that exists would end up in the right-of-way. <br /> MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the granting of a partial width right-of-way. <br /> Shanklin seconded the motion. <br /> Walters inquired about the development of the rest of. lot 21 . <br /> Smith responded that the owner had no intentions to- further <br /> develop the lot at this time, but when he did he would again <br /> have to request a partial width right-of-way or obtain the full <br /> easement. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> IMMEmmEmmir <br />