Agenda - 02-01-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

144 27 right-of-way concerns and lots of problems created by private roads in the situation where the DOT density standards would ultimately be met. Jacobs responded that the Board seemed to see more where the density standard is not met. Gledhill noted that then there was no reason under the present scheme of things to require public roads in that instance . He continued that he felt it was unlikely that the General Assembly will ever put counties in control of roads to the degree that cities are in control of roads. The recent legislative session was an indication that there is more of an entrenchment of the way we have things than before . The cities who want their roads paved or upgraded are willing to offer money for matching funds. The State is more willing to go with those projects with matching funds because that enables them to build more roads which is the ultimate goal of the State . This results in the wealthier municipalities getting all the State Road money. Thus the General Assembly is limiting the ability of those larger areas in acquiring State Road monies . It is possible for the State to change its maintenance requirements to allow for state maintenance of roads where the density requirements are different. That Is a matter of policy established by the Board of Transportation. Practice with respect to roads ought to parallel or follow or predict what DOT is doing with respect to maintenance . Lewis expressed concern with the cost of public roads. He asked if there is a ` country lane , type road for such subdivisions that would be accepted by the State for maintenance . Gledhill responded that the State would not require curb and gutter but would require right-of-way, shoulder requirements, erosion control and design standards. Lewis continued that there should be some middle ground that could be reached to allow for less expensive yet good roads for a good subdivision. Pilkey expressed concern that many times a nine lot subdivision was developed and adjoining property was either developed In lots of 10+ acres or developed at a much later date which did not allow the Planning Board or Staff to be able TO require public roads. Gledhill responded that the County critically needs a Transportation Plan and within that plan all the roads need to be public roads . Without such a plan, it is a matter of choices. The choices are ultimately those of the County Commissioners. He expressed the concern that the choices that have been made in the past are not being followed . The process has eroded the concept. The whole private road