Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-03-1985
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1985
>
Agenda - 06-03-1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2016 9:41:20 AM
Creation date
9/9/2016 3:46:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/3/1985
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
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
• <br /> • <br /> 2 <br /> Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner <br /> Carey to appoint Lula Mae Cotton to the Orange County Senior Citizens Board. <br /> VOTE; UNANIMOUS. <br /> pOMICILIARY HOME ADVISORY COMMITTEE, <br /> Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chair Willhoit <br /> to appoint Linda Rahija to the Domiciliary Home Advisory Committee. <br /> VOTE; UNANIMOUS. <br /> G. ITEMS FOR DECIAION <br /> 5. INDIAN SPRINGS-PRELIMINARY <br /> Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the <br /> Preliminary Plan for Indian Springs Subdivision. The property is located on SR <br /> 1005 in Bingham Township. The tract is designated as Agricultural-Residential <br /> on the Land Use Plan. Twelve lots are proposed out of 20.14 acres. The <br /> property is zoned A-R. The applicant is requesting approval of a Class "B" <br /> private road with access to SR 1005, a road designated as an arterial street in <br /> the Land Use Plan. <br /> Susan Smith indicated the number of lots in the subdivision was used <br /> as a basis for recommending a public state maintained road. <br /> Robert Epting, attorney representing the applicant Tony Clark, stated <br /> the road will serve nine (9) lots. The guidelines of the Private Road <br /> Standards states that a Class "B" road may service 4-9 lots. The developer is <br /> trying to keep the cost low; a paved road would add approximately $3,000 to the <br /> cost of each lot. The road would serve other lots for which no remuneration <br /> would be received. He asked that the Board approve the subdivision and all <br /> the conditions recommended by the Planning Board with condition #5 changed to <br /> read that the access be shared without any reimbursement for maintenance. <br /> Epting questioned how to stipulate a requirement that when <br /> development occurs on the adjacent tract that the developer participate in <br /> maintenance costs. <br /> Susan Smith explained that the tract adjacent to the proposed <br /> subdivision is essentially a mirror image and has less than 400 feet of <br /> frontage. It makes sense to use just the one road instead of having two roads <br /> so close together. <br /> Geoffrey Gledhill suggested a requirement be imposed on the <br /> subdivision which would require the owners of the adjacent property to agree to <br /> pay for maintenance of the road to the same degree as the original subdivision <br /> and would allow only one access to the development. He expressed concern about <br /> additional use of a private road versus construction of a public road built to <br /> state standards. <br /> Epting offered as a compromise that the road be constructed to the <br /> width of a Class "A" road along the portion subject to the most use <br /> Gledhill noted that under present agreements, the development which <br /> triggers the upgrading of the class of road, pays for the improvements. <br /> Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner <br /> Marshall to approve the recommendations of the Planning Board (listed below) <br /> with the addition to number four that 433.54 feet of the road from the entrance <br /> at SR 1005 to the point where it turns off be expanded to Class "A" width with <br /> the intent that that portion be upgraded to state-maintained standards at the <br /> point when the adjoining property is developed. <br /> Commissioner Carey questioned how the new owners would be informed of <br /> these restrictions. Epting questioned the mechanism for requiring new <br /> developers to upgrade and pay for a portion of the maintenance costs. Gledhill <br /> clarified that the road would be maintained by the owners whether the road is <br /> public or private until the state accepts the road for maintenance. <br /> Chair Willhoit requested that the attorney provide the wording for #5 <br /> so that the Road Maintenance Agreement include the stipulation for widening the <br /> initial portion of 433.54' to Class "A" standards with the intent that it be <br /> brought up to state standards when the adjoining property is developed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.