Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br /> 4. JACK GATES SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN <br /> Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the <br /> Preliminary Plan for the Jack Gates Subdivision. The property is <br /> located in Chapel Hill township on Jack Gates Lane which is north of NC <br /> 54. Three lots are proposed out of 25.16 acres. The property is zoned <br /> and designated in the Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer. The Planning <br /> Board recommends approval with one condition. <br /> Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by <br /> Commissioner Carey to approve the Preliminary Plan for the Jack Gates <br /> Subdivision subject to the condition that payment-in-lieu of dedication <br /> of land for Recreation Area in the amount of $447. This is based on <br /> 4/35th x the assessed value per acre ($3,920) . <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br /> 5. ENO RIVER ESTATES <br /> Chair Marshall referenced a letter from the County Attorney about <br /> Eno River Estates and noted she requested that the County Manager <br /> prepare a new agenda abstract which will address some of the problems <br /> identified in the letter. <br /> Ken Thompson stated that the new abstract in essence endorses the <br /> Planning Board recommendation but requires additional conditions for <br /> approval. One added condition would require that the bridge and the <br /> road be brought up to DOT maintenance standards and that after <br /> construction the maintenance be ongoing. The developer would be <br /> responsible for providing some sort of certification to the Planning <br /> Department annually as to the maintenance undertaken. <br /> Another condition requires a notation on the plat and another <br /> addresses the safety consideration. DOT has certain standards which <br /> are minimal for loadbearing structures. Thompson recommends as a <br /> condition of approval that the bridge meet those minimal requirements <br /> which may mean upgrading the bridge. He further recommended that the <br /> dam site itself be safeguarded including fencing, and more signage. An <br /> engineers report could indicate more specifically how the spillway <br /> could be made safe for public access. <br /> Ken Thompson stated that the intent in replacing the bridge was to <br /> safeguard the public by requiring that the bridge meet the flow rate <br /> and the load bearing capacity as required by the State. A wooden <br /> structure would suffice. <br /> Chair Marshall reference a letter from Gledhill dated April 2 and <br /> the statement that he has serious questions as to whether or not this <br /> subdivision plan satisfies the subdivision regulation requirements for <br /> a private road. The Board needs to perform the analysis called for in <br /> the subdivision regulations before approving the subdivision as a <br /> private road subdivision. <br /> Greg Szymik noted the two basic criteria which determines when <br /> private roads may be allowed to exist. One is the nature and location <br /> of the subdivision including the topography of the surrounding area and <br /> the second criteria consists of 5 conditions and a private road may be <br /> permitted when one or more of those conditions exist. The bridge at <br /> the present time does not meet State standards and, therefore, could <br /> not be accepted to the State Maintained Road System. <br /> Discussion ensued on the ownership of the bridge which has not <br /> been determined. <br />