Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
AMMM <br /> 091 <br /> MOTION: Best moved that the item be tabled until August 5, <br /> 1986 in like manner to the action on the Mel Oaks <br /> request previously heard this evening. Kramer <br /> seconded the motion . <br /> Greg Shepard, representative of the applicants, <br /> commented that the Mel Oaks request was not listed <br /> on the agenda whereas this item was submitted and <br /> accepted as complete and listed on the agenda for <br /> action this evening . <br /> Yuhasz commented that he had failed to forward <br /> additional copies of the plat for distribution <br /> during his vacation . <br /> Jacobs determined that the bulk of the information <br /> had been submitted to the Board and the item should <br /> be considered . <br /> VOTE : 3 in favor (Best, Kramer, Margison ) <br /> 4 opposed <br /> Motion failed . <br /> MOTION : Best moved to adjourn the meeting fifteen minutes to <br /> review the plat. <br /> Motion failed for lack of a second . <br /> The Board discussed the use of joint driveways . The <br /> Board discussed minimum lot standards for the <br /> district. <br /> The Board asked staff to comment on the paving <br /> schedule. Smith informed the Board that <br /> condition of paving had been attached to t;;e <br /> approval of the previous subdivision of the lot a; d <br /> that the applicants had negotiated directly r' i -� h <br /> NCDOT and had paid NCDOT for a share of the con- <br /> struction costs . Upon receipt of a letter from <br /> NCDOT indicating receipt of those funds, the letter <br /> of credit held for the road improvements had been <br /> released . Harry Wilson, developer, indicated that <br /> NCDOT had scheduled paving of the road for September <br /> and October . <br /> Best inquired about the housing unit types. Wilson <br /> responded the private covenants have restricted the <br /> housing type to stick-built units . He commented <br /> that mobile homes were placed on lots in an earlier <br /> phase by a previous developer . <br /> Kramer expressed concern with the consistency of the <br /> application of a Joint driveway standards. Smith <br /> commented that neither Board has supported a Joint . <br /> driveway provision in previous staff requests for <br /> policy approval . She also commented that the <br /> appilcant1s lot provided little room for design <br /> flexibility . <br />