Agenda - 05-02-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1" 3 2. �� .. " ~ 3. 4° 4. WILKERSON ACRES Mr.5, Mr Rick Cannity of the Planning Staff reviewed this requested 6, subdivision for the Board (see Minutes of April 5, 1983, for background) . 7, The Planning Board has denied approval of the final plat citing the 8, road approved by the Board of Commissioners in the preliminary plat. 9, Planning Board feels that a high traffic generator may locate on one 10° of the lots at the end of the subdivision and the gravel road wouTd be 11. insufficient (ex. dust,°noise) . Mr. Logan Irvin, Planning Board Chair, 12° confirmed the Planning Board 's cited reason of the Class A Private 13. Road which the Commissioners approved as being the reason the Planning 14° Board denied the subdivision request. Dr. Irvin said the problem lay I5~ m ore in the future than in the present; i .e. , if the l'ots were sold, 16° as they could be once divided, and if Mr. Wilkerson no longer had any 17, interest in the properties, the question of maintenance arose and the I8° question of paving. Board members said they felt it highly unlikely Iq° that a high traffic generator would locate there, that the only off 20, site impact would occur to the south and the adjoining property owners 21° had offered no objections. Furthermore, it appears to the Board that 22° the adverse impact, if any, would be borne by the owners of those lots 23. and the businesses located there. The County Attorney said the main- 24° tenance agreement would be conveyed with the pieces of property and 25. therefore potential buyers would be aware of their responsibility. 26° Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to 27. approve the final plat of the Wilkerson Subdivision, Section IV-B, 28. with the Class A Private Road. Vote: Ayes , 5; noes , O. 29, S. WATERSHED PROTECTION Ms. Susan Smith, Planning Staff, told the Board that Recommend- 3D, ^ , , utiun # 12 of the Water Resources Task Force Report had called for 3I, ]2° a minimum lot size of 2 and 6 acres in the watersheds in the County; however, when the Board adopted the Recommendations of the WRTF, it J3° _ __" _� deleted specific minimum lot sizes.The Planning Board had, in its 35°meeting on April 25, 1983, passed a Resolution requesting the Board of 36° Cnmmissinners to reconsider this Recommendation (that Resolution is 37. on page of this book) . 38° Dr. Irvin said that Planning Board reasoning was that the County 39.