Agenda - 02-01-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• [ 1 5 u 9 Collins noted that there seemed to be three groupings of roads; one group that clearly need NCDOT maintenance standards, another group which with larger lot sizes, restrictive convenants and other factors is clearly a private road subdivision and another group in which the density meets NCDOT requirements but may be in a protected watershed where unpaved roads would be preferred. Jacobs asked if there was any provision in the current ordinance to address the concern of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force In which a subdivision was obviously for lower income families. Collins responded no. Jacobs continued that it seemed there would be a future need to work toward an intermediate road class- ification in order to address this concern. Yuhasz stated that he felt that the category of significant design features could adress the concern of the Task Force. Jacobs reminded the Board that the County Attorney had stated that economic considerations should not be a category considered. Yuhasz expressed the concern that his interpre- tation of 1 b of the resolution indicated the only circumstance under which one could have a private road was not meeting NCDOT density standards. He was also concerned with Jacobs revision to 1 c with the use of the word "adherance". He noted that restrictive covenants could be required of a developer but that the purchasers of the lots could not be required to adhere to those covenants. Jacobs replaced the word "adherance" with " inclusion". MOTION: Best moved approval of the draft reso- lution with those changes recommended by Jacobs and replacing the word "adherance" with " inclusion". Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz - felt that the entire Public/Private Road section of the ordinance should be revised to address some of the specific economic consequences. )