Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Uirr 1& S6- PIANAII1(6 6M12-6 141141)7L5 <br /> 08S <br /> prior to submitting the subdivision for <br /> approval. <br /> Shanklin agreed with Walters but indicated <br /> he would not approve a road with poor sight <br /> distance. <br /> Pearson suggested that the applicant had <br /> two options: l) to construct a road at <br /> the southern end of the property which was <br /> the worst Location from the developer's <br /> perspective or 2] to construct a road at <br /> the Location recommended by staff. <br /> Smith commented that option #1 was <br /> unacceptable to NCOOT. <br /> Gordon asked why the applicant had <br /> difficulty with the staff recommendation . <br /> Griffin responded that the road was built <br /> before they were informed of a problem . He <br /> noted that the original subdivision design <br /> had changed a number of times to accomodate <br /> the sale of the tot containing the existing <br /> house. <br /> MOTION: Kramer moved denial of the subdivision . <br /> PiLkey seconded the motion . <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> AGENDA ITEM ED JOYNER SUBDIVISION— PRELIMINARY <br /> Atwater made the staff presentation . <br /> Best inquired if the owner of the front lot <br /> was the owner of the lots being subdivided. <br /> Atwater responded no <br /> Pearson asked if the Brumley lot was part <br /> of the subdivision . Smith responded no and <br /> noted that the entire tract had been <br /> subject to a 10+ acre lots subdivision and <br /> subsequent recombination . <br /> PiLkey asked what type of stream crossed <br /> the property. Shanklin responded <br /> interrmittent . <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Best seconded the <br /> motion . <br /> Jacobs inquired if this would be a private <br /> road . Atwater responded yes and that the <br /> 60' strip belonged to Lot #4. <br /> Ann Joyner, applicant , commented that she <br /> felt this was a straightforward subdivision <br />