Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br /> area within new lots be contiguous, and not <br /> separated by a road right-of-way or by another <br /> lot. The application of this restriction to <br /> public roads avoids the creation by Land Records <br /> of parcels with separate Parcel Identification <br /> Numbers (PINs) when the subdivision is recorded. <br /> A parcel split by a public road cannot be <br /> included in a contiguous metes and bounds <br /> description because the ownership extends only to <br /> the edge of the right-of-way. This situation <br /> causes confusion in issuing and tracking permit <br /> approvals. <br /> The restriction applies to private roads as well <br /> as public roads. Although it is preferable to <br /> have all of the lot area on one side of a road to <br /> maximize suitability, lots split by private roads <br /> do not result in the creation of two separate PIN <br /> numbers because, unlike a dedicated public road, <br /> a private road easement is under the same <br /> ownership as the remainder of the lot. <br /> Occasionally, applying this requirement to <br /> private roads results in an awkward easement <br /> configuration and road location, particularly <br /> where the use of an existing driveway or road is <br /> proposed. Planning Staff recollects three <br /> instances in the past year when this issue was <br /> raised. One of those cases involved an inquiry <br /> prior to submittal of a subdivision application. <br /> The amendment is being proposed at this time in <br /> conjunction with two other amendments which <br /> relate to private roads. The other amendments <br /> pertain to the location of lot lines in relation <br /> to public and private road rights-of-way, and the <br /> curve radius for private roads. Situations <br /> encountered in reviewing subdivisions can involve <br /> issues addressed in one, two, or all three of the <br /> amendments. <br /> The proposed amendment was presented for public <br /> hearing on August 22 , 1994 . A letter in support <br /> of the proposal was submitted (an attachment to <br /> these minutes on pages ) . There were some <br /> comments from the Board of Commissioners <br /> questioning the necessity for the proposed <br /> amendment. <br /> The Planning Department recommends approval of <br /> the proposed amendment. <br /> MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of Planning Staff's <br /> recommendation. Seconded by Walters. <br />