Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
P <br /> DRAFT PBM MINUTES PAGE 5 <br /> the lot sizes are 1.39 acres, 1.40 acres, 1.26 acres. <br /> 1.22 acres, 1.18 acres, 1.15 acres (2 lots) and 1.14 <br /> acres excluding the rights-of-way. No zoning has been <br /> adopted in Little River Township. However. the <br /> Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-lA) require a <br /> minimum lot size of 40400 square feet where the lots <br /> are to be served. by on-site sewage disposal and water <br /> systems as is the case in this development. The Land <br /> Use Plan designation is Agricultural Residential. <br /> The Health Department has granted approval to all lot <br /> in the subdivision. Police protection would be, <br /> provided by the Orange County Sheriff' s Departmentr <br /> while fire protection would be provided by the Little <br /> River Fire District. <br /> Phase I was a three (3) lot minor subdivision approved <br /> on August 18, 1986. The tract sizes were 1.11 acres (2 <br /> lots) and 1.17 acres excluding the rights-of-way. All <br /> lots have direct access on Pearson Road (SR 1544) . <br /> This area is shown on the Preliminary Plan. <br /> Phase II was a 10 plus acre subdivision which consisted <br /> of eleven (11) lots (Phase III included as one lot) <br /> recorded on August 21, 1986. All lots have access on a <br /> private road off SR 1544 with the exception of the <br /> Phase III lot. <br /> The 1984 traffic count for Pearson Road (SR 1544) was <br /> 100 trips per day as determined from the intersection <br /> of NC 57. An additional 76 trips per day would be <br /> generated by the subdivision. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br /> Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following <br /> conditions: <br /> (1) A 10100 ' recorded sight distance at intersection <br /> of Kim' s Drive and SR 1544 (Note NCDOT's comment) ; and <br /> (2) Property lines stop at the edge of the right-of-way <br /> (NCDOT comment) . <br /> Jacobs asked about the spacing of driveways. Garrett <br /> responded there would be a driveway for each lot. The <br /> distance between them is not known. <br /> MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval. Seconded by Walters. <br /> Best expressed concern with the number of driveways <br /> with access to a main road. <br /> Pilkey expressed the desire for a parallel road rather <br /> than shared driveways. <br />