Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
034 2 <br /> The properties in question are located in Bingham Township) <br /> off NC 54 and are referenced on Tax Map 29. Several lot <br /> owners along this road desire to dsubdivide their property. <br /> All of Lots #21-31A are property of the O. T. Farrington <br /> family. Each 7 acre and the 16.5 acre tract were created <br /> before Subdivision Regulations went into effect. Therefore, <br /> each of these lots can request a minor subdivision. At this <br /> time a 50 ffot easement across all lots can be obtained. <br /> The property owners would pursue approval of minor subdivisi <br /> if the road would be considered a Class A gravel road. If <br /> the road is required to be paved, the cost of paving would <br /> prohibit any new lots from being created. It is anticipated <br /> that all new lots would be sold or given to family members. <br /> The Department of Transportation requires that there be at <br /> least 2 occupied houses per tenth of a mile (average along <br /> the length of the road) for a subdivision road to be <br /> eligible for state maintenance, if the road is brought up to <br /> state standards. The length of this road (including its <br /> propsed extension) is .366 miles. There are 8 existing <br /> homes served by Excel Lane or approximately 2 homes per 1/10 <br /> of a mile. <br /> Approval of a Class A private road (gravel) would result in <br /> subdivision of some of the lots. <br /> As this item was sent back to the Planning Board from Board <br /> of Commissioners for reconsideration, Gordon presented <br /> comments from Commissioners. <br /> The Commissioners expressed concnern with immediate relief <br /> for the Farrington family from •the problem of having an <br /> illegal subdivision and the family was concerned about <br /> future development. <br /> Walters expressed concerns with the road out to NC 54. He <br /> felt there would do problems later if the Class A Private <br /> Road were allowed now. <br /> Collins noted that if the applicant could get another 5 feet <br /> easement he would qualify for a partial width right-of-way. <br /> Walters again expressed concern with the fact that the <br /> applicant did not have easement out to NC 54. <br /> Yuhasz stated that he would like to see some mechanism by <br /> which all the people who would profit by a paved road would <br /> have to contribute to the cost of paving whether now or <br /> later. <br /> Gordon noted that the concerns of the Board of Commissioners <br />