Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
� <br /> � - <br /> "�~�� prior to submitting the subdivision for <br /> approval . <br /> • • <br /> BhonkLin agreed with Walters but indicated <br /> he would not approve a road with poor sight [ <br /> distance. <br /> ' <br /> Pearson suggested that the applicant had <br /> two options : 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 NODOT . <br /> Gordon asked why the applicant had <br /> difficulty with the staff recommendation . <br /> Griffin responded that %h 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 Lot containing the existing <br /> house . <br /> • <br /> MOTION : Kramer moved denial of the subdivision . <br /> P1Lhay seconded the motion . <br /> VOTE: Unanimous . <br /> • <br /> AGENDA ITEM ED JOYNER SUBDIVISION— PRELIMINARY <br /> Atwater made the staff presentation . <br /> Best inquired if the owner of the front tot <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 end <br /> subsequent recombination . <br /> piikey asked what type of stream crossed <br /> the property . 8henhtin responded <br /> intermittent . <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 f4. <br /> Ann Joyner, applicant , commented that she <br /> felt this was a straightforward subdivision <br />