Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> On August 22, the proposed amendment was presented for <br /> public hearing. Due to concerns raised at the <br /> hearing, a committee was formed consisting of <br /> representatives from several county departments, the <br /> Orange County Bar Association and the Society of <br /> Surveyors. <br /> The Committee met twice to discuss the amendments and <br /> a revised draft was presented for public hearing on <br /> November 28. <br /> The changes to the draft included the following: <br /> Recordation of certain information via separate <br /> documents to reduce the amount of information <br /> shown on the face of the plat. <br /> Incorporation of a new definition of "minor <br /> subdivision" . <br /> Development of a procedure by which the County <br /> would be involved in recordation of plats and <br /> other documents. <br /> Modification of time limits between final plats <br /> for phased projects. <br /> Miscellaneous changes to clarify intent of <br /> specific provisions. <br /> It was also proposed that administrative procedures be <br /> changed to provide a comprehensive checklist of all <br /> items necessary for Final Plat approval. The list <br /> would inform the applicant of all requirements <br /> necessary to secure plat approval and would provide a <br /> means of keeping track of all requirements which had <br /> been met. <br /> At the public hearing on November 28, concern was <br /> expressed by the Board of Commissioners that the <br /> change in definition of minor subdivisions (to allow <br /> the creation of up to four new lots within a two-year <br /> period) would result in piecemeal subdivision. Of the <br /> 64 one-to-three lot major subdivisions approved since <br /> 1981, 36 had state road frontage, 12 fronted on an <br /> existing private road, and 16 resulted in creation of <br /> a new private road. Also, 39% of the subdivision were <br /> divisions of previously approved major subdivisions, <br /> and 61% were divisions of residual parcels (see <br /> attached 12/12/88 Crudup memorandum) . <br /> An issue was also raised regarding the necessity of <br /> the Planning Department receiving copies of recorded <br />