Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 5 t; <br /> Planning Board Minutes <br /> July 20, 1981 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Cleary motioned approval of the subdivision with Class C road <br /> from Highway 54 to this lot. Kizer seconded. Motion carried <br /> unanimously. <br /> Agenda Item #7 Carl and dune Lowe Subdivision. <br /> Kirk gave a presentation on the Carl and June Lowe Subdivision. <br /> Mr. Lowe described the property including existing road and house, <br /> and spoke of his attempts to gain right of way from the Episcopal <br /> Diocese. <br /> Cleary cited the state statute requiring that landlOcked'parcels <br /> be given access. Lowe indicated he wanted legal access. Cleary <br /> felt it was a legal problem. Lowe indicated he wished only a <br /> recomendation from the Board and not a ruling. Alternatives were <br /> discussed. <br /> Cannity described the "Cartway" law and indicated that future <br /> subdivision of the Walker property would require a 60 foot right <br /> of way. <br /> General discussion followed. <br /> Lowe indicated he could not get his deed recorded without the marl <br /> maintenance agreement signed by all parties. Kirk cited a past <br /> subdivision where the Commissioners waived a right of way require- <br /> ment in approving a subdivision. Cannity cited that use of the <br /> "Cartway" law would not meet the Subdivision Regulations. <br /> Cleary motioned approval of the subdivision with the road as <br /> presented, where the required right of way could be acquired <br /> lacking the section crossing the Episcopal Diocese property, but <br /> that negotiations would continue to be pursued for such purpose <br /> as to acquire said right of way, and with the recommendation that <br /> the Commissioners grant exception to the proposed right of way so <br /> that the plat could be recorded. Kizer seconded the motion. The <br /> motion carried. Opposed: Gordon. Gordon asked that the minutes <br /> reflect that by law no further subdivision of the Walker property <br /> could occur without a 60 foot right of way as discussed by the <br /> Board. <br /> Agenda Item #8 Discussion of 2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> The Board identified changes in this section from the original. <br /> These included changing the minimum representation from two to <br /> one and deleting "County's Planning Jurisdiction". <br /> Gordon moved to restore the requirement for residence in the <br /> County's jurisdiction. Irvin seconded the motion. <br /> Lansford expressed concern for representation of residence in the <br /> extra-ter-ritorial areas. Cleary also cited this concern for the <br />