Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-05-1985
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1985
>
Agenda - 08-05-1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 4:22:57 PM
Creation date
9/12/2016 11:01:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/5/1985
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
291
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 /> 069. , . <br /> a . • <br /> Walters inquired if the road was constructed before <br /> approval . Smith responded that staff had already <br /> reviewed the sketch and okayed the general Layout so <br /> the developer could pursue the construction of the <br /> ' road so as to have everything complete by the time <br /> the final plat was signed off on and recorded . <br /> Walters inquired why Frazier Road was not considered <br /> in the beginning . Shepherd responded citing reasons <br /> tr <br /> for submitting the subdivision as drawn: Lot 3 has <br /> an approved septic tank location in the north. <br /> corner; for the proposed Lots there would have to be <br /> r!+ <br /> two crossings of the creek to get to Frazier Road; <br /> and three hundred feet from the southernmost point <br /> from Lebanon Road is the only paint for access to <br /> meet NC DOT sight distance, at which point the road <br /> ;t1 would have to cross the creek at its most critical <br /> area . . <br /> I MOTION: Pearson moved approval with staff conditions noting <br /> that NC DOT did not say unsafe, but undesirable . <br /> .4t Seconded by Kizer . <br /> - . <br /> Kizer noted that the ordinance requirement was for <br /> the road to be built to private road standards . <br /> -.1. <br /> -• These standards do not specify sight distance. — <br /> He felt this was a minor problem; he would Like to <br /> , have another hundred feet but there is no basis to <br /> 1; <br /> I turn this project down based on the Private Road <br /> Standards . <br /> Gordon stated that the Subdivision Regulations could <br /> i . <br /> apply a requirement for safety . Gordon continued by <br /> reading Section IV—A Minimum Design Standards . <br /> • Kizer noted that traffic is taken care of more <br /> • specifically Later on in its own section where it <br /> says the road shall meet certain design standards . <br /> Pilkey expressed concern that this project is in a <br /> watershed and that traffic safety was also a concern <br /> as she knew of an accident at this point where people <br /> • were killed . She continued that she felt this project <br /> was poorly designed and the developers were cutting <br /> • corners . <br /> Pearson inquired if the road running with. the stream <br /> would be better for the watershed . <br /> Kizer stated that he felt the requirements of the <br /> Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations had been <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.