Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-01-1989
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1989
>
Agenda - 08-01-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2017 5:05:14 PM
Creation date
3/10/2017 4:35:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/1/1989
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
495
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, <br /> • BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE <br /> ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> 17 <br /> P.O. DRAWER 1529 <br /> 129 E. TRYON ST. <br /> HILLSBOROUGH. N.C. 27278 <br /> 919-732-2196 <br /> 915-942-8000 <br /> July 3, 1989 <br /> CHAPEL HILL OFFICE <br /> SUITE 300.THE CENTER <br /> 1506 E.FRANKLIN STREET <br /> CHAPEL HILL. N.C.27514 <br /> 014.9294151 <br /> ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR. <br /> STEVEN A. BERNHOL2 <br /> DONALD R.DICKERSON <br /> ROGER B.BERNHOL2 Mr. Eddie Kirk <br /> GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL Planner <br /> DOUGLAS HARGRAVE <br /> C.NICNOLAs HERmAN Orange County Planning Department <br /> KIM K.STEFFAN 306F Revere Road <br /> NATHANIEL E.CLEMENT <br /> MARILYN E.TOMEI Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 <br /> JOE L.WEBSTER <br /> TERRY C.HARR <br /> JANET B.DLTITON Re: Four Birches Subdivision <br /> Preliminary Plan <br /> Of Counsel <br /> BONNER D.SAWYER <br /> 11902.1972) Dear Eddie: <br /> We received and reviewed a preliminary plan of <br /> Four Birches Subdivision and we have the following <br /> comments to offer. First, your cover sheet indicates <br /> that the Planning Board approved the concept plan of <br /> this subdivision with private roads. We have not been <br /> provided with the private road justification for this <br /> subdivision and express no opinion as to the ap- <br /> propriateness of private roads in this subdivision. <br /> Both of the private roads appear to be less than 500 <br /> sfeet long and therefore neither must be constructed by <br /> the developer. We question whether this makes sense in <br /> a subdivision of this size with its likely impacts . <br /> The provision in the Subdivision Regulations which <br /> authorizes this practice (no construction of 500' or <br /> less private roads) was intended to provide relief to <br /> people providing essentially driveways to a new lot not <br /> to developments of this scale. If the roads need to be <br /> made public to insure their being built at the develop- <br /> ment stage and to the proper standards, perhaps public <br /> roads are more appropriate. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> Maril;n7Tomei <br /> MET/lsg <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.