Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT PBM MINUTES PAGE 6 <br /> Yuhasz noted considerable expense is involved in <br /> parallel roads. <br /> Best continued to express concern with the number of <br /> driveways noting again that he felt joint driveways <br /> would be a way to handle this problem. <br /> Yuhasz indicated that he felt a requirement for join <br /> driveways should require an ordinance amendment wit <br /> proper procedures for such an amendment. <br /> Best felt a policy statement could be made to handl <br /> such a situation. Yuhasz responded he felt the Boar <br /> should not be revising the ordinance through policy <br /> statements. <br /> Kramer inquired of Collins how other jurisdictions <br /> address joint driveways. Collins responded that most <br /> of them take a harder line than joint driveways. They <br /> limit access to principal roads such as collectors and <br /> arterials, but on a minor road such as Pearson Road <br /> driveway access would be allowed without the require- <br /> ment of a joint driveway. Collins continued that he <br /> felt joint driveways were not warranted on a road such <br /> as Pearson Road. <br /> Jacobs noted that the Ordinance Review Committee is in <br /> the process of working on the issue of driveways hoping <br /> to bring a policy forward to the May public hearing. <br /> Alois Callemym. Surveyor for the applicant, noted he <br /> felt he could convince his client to install joint <br /> driveways if he had Board consensus. <br /> Jacobs asked that the Board vote on the motion and then <br /> discuss the suggestion by Mr. Callemyn. <br /> Pilkey noted that she felt joint driveways were not <br /> warranted for this particular project but continued <br /> that she did desire the use of parallel roads in those <br /> projects which would access onto a major road. <br /> Eddleman stated that if the Board made such a policy <br /> statment regarding joint drivewayst it could be <br /> challenged since it is not a requirement of the <br /> ordinance. <br /> Jacobs noted that this was a friendly offer on the part <br /> of the surveyor and this has nothing to do with a <br /> policy statement. <br /> VOTE: 9 in favor. <br /> 1 opposed (Best - prefers joint driveways) <br />