Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
r-lr <br /> Int Pk 7 <br /> r‘. <br /> private roads even in minor subdivisions. <br /> Eddleman asked who the applicants typically are <br /> who desire such subdivisions. Crudup responded <br /> that such subdivisions are usually requested by <br /> families desiring to give lots to their children <br /> or other family members. <br /> Yuhasz noted that his experience as a surveyor <br /> indicated to him that a developer would not <br /> choose such a method of subdivision because it is <br /> too time consuming and not economically feasible <br /> for a developer. He noted that the cost <br /> difference for individuals is much more than just <br /> the Planning Department fees. <br /> MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval as recommended by the <br /> Planning Staff (4 + 1 within a two-year time <br /> frame) . Seconded by Eddleman. <br /> VOTE: 8 in favor. <br /> 2 opposed (Best - felt this was not compatible <br /> with Long Range planning goals; Jacobs - felt <br /> that 3 +1 and two-year time frame is sufficient) . <br /> • e. Flood Prevention Ordinance Amendments <br /> (1) Article 2 - Definitions ( "Lowest Floor" ) <br /> and Article 4 - Provisions for Flood <br /> Hazard Reduction (Equipment Design & <br /> Location) <br /> f. Erosion Control Ordinance Amendments <br /> (1) Erosion Control Manual <br /> (2) Sections 5, 6, 17, 18, and 22 <br /> (Incorporation of design standards and <br /> specifications, administrative <br /> procedures and notification procedures, <br /> - - and changes in enabling legislation)' - - <br /> MOTION: Best moved approval of Agenda Items 10e and 10f. <br /> Seconded by Pilkey. . _ <br /> - - - <br /> VOTE - Unanimous. - - <br /> . _ <br />