Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
y 0 i] 1 If 10? <br /> Jacobs asked what changes would be required by the <br /> developer to require a public, state-maintained road <br /> rather than private. Kirk responded that the develop- <br /> ment would stay the same and the road would change <br /> from a Class B Private Road which is a 12-foot wide <br /> gravel road to a public road, state-maintained 20-foot <br /> wide . <br /> MOTION : Best moved approval modifying condition #3 to require <br /> a state-maintained road . Seconded by Pilkey. <br /> Kramer noted that County Attorney, Geof Gledhill , has <br /> advised the Board to require public roads. <br /> Szymik reported on a telephone coversation with Mike <br /> Mills today stating that under certain conditions DOT <br /> will approve public roads in subdivisions which do not <br /> meet the density requirement of NCDOT. They would <br /> tend to approve public roads in subdivisions with <br /> large lots or when the new road would connect to <br /> branch roads which are public roads. Szymik continued <br /> noting that he was not sure just what criteria NCDOT <br /> is operating under for accepting roads as public. <br /> Jacobs stated that the burden of proof of reasons for <br /> a private road rather than a public road should be on <br /> the developer rather than planning staff . <br /> Szymik noted that the only "hard criteria" at this <br /> point in time from DOT is the one of less than four <br /> houses. <br /> Lisa Packenham, developer, asked if it is possible to <br /> have input from citizens and developers before the <br /> requirement for all roads to be public roads is <br /> implemented. <br /> Jacobs noted that the County Attorney had concern with <br /> consistency of the ordinance in practice . It has <br /> seemed that the legislative intent in Orange County is <br /> a prejudice toward public roads unless a compelling <br /> argument was made to the contrary by a private <br /> interest. <br /> Packenham continued that there were times when a <br /> private road served the community much better than a <br /> public road. She felt the citizens should be heard as <br /> to whether they desired a paved road. She noted that <br /> to keep an area rural would not call for a public <br /> road. She felt a public hearing should be held for <br /> discussions of private vs. public roads. She <br /> expressed concern that the paving of roads would do <br /> away with the "reasonable cost of the subdivision" as <br /> the cost of paving would be passed on to the <br /> individual lot owners whose preference may very well <br /> be a private gravel road . <br /> Jacobs noted again that in reviewing the statements <br /> made by the County Attorney, the burden of proof for a <br />