Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23r <br /> DRAFT PB MINUTES 5-19-86 PAGE 8 <br /> Road as recommended by NCDOT <br /> . 2) provide a temporary turnaround within a dedicated <br /> right-of-way for Mel Oak Road as required by NCDOT <br /> 3) provide a dedicated 101 x 70! sight easement at the <br /> intersection of Mel Oak Drive and the future right- <br /> of-way extension to the Nancy Williams Lands <br /> 4) delete the solid line separating the future right- <br /> , <br /> of-way to Nancy Williams Lands from Mel Oak Drive and <br /> designate the future right-of-way as dedicated right- <br /> , <br /> of-way <br /> 5) revise the plat in compliance with the requests of <br /> NCDOT: <br /> a. provide curve data for the extension of Mel Oak <br /> Drive through Mel Oak Phase I <br /> b. delete the dedicated right-of-way for the cul-de- <br /> sac platted for Mel Oak Phase I and i incorporate <br /> the right-of-way into Lots 17, 8 & 9 <br /> c. provide for the transition in right-of-way b <br /> between the 601 and 501 sections of Mel Oak Drive <br /> 6) include a graphic notation for Jones Ferry Road as <br /> part of the reference to the distance of 6331 to the <br /> same from revised Lot /5 . <br /> Walters inquired about condition #3 asking why the sight <br /> distance was required for the future right-of-way <br /> extension to the Nancy Williams Lands. Smith responded <br /> this would be extended as a public road eventually and a <br /> plat is needed showing the 100 x 701 sight easement before <br /> the lots are sold. <br /> MOTION: Best moved approval with staff conditions. Seconded by <br /> Kramer . <br /> Walters questioned why NCDOT wished the road extended. <br /> Smith responded there were some landlocked parcels and <br /> there were opportunities for future extension of the road . <br /> Walters inquired if the applicant agreed to this <br /> condition . Smith responded the applicant is present for <br /> questions . Jim Plymire, associate of the applicant, <br /> Calvin Mellott, noted that he did not understand the <br /> requirement to pave the road to the end . Mellott stated <br /> that the Williams property was not landlocked; there is. a <br /> driveway. Plymire continued that the applicant wished to <br /> end the cul -de-sac short of the property line with right- <br /> of-way dedicated to the property line. He felt that the <br /> expense of providing a paved road for others should not be <br /> his. <br />