Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
68 <br />aspects of the lots are created. <br />The Planning Staff recommends that the <br />proposed amendment be advertised for public <br />hearing on May 29, 1990. <br />There were no Board questions or comments. <br />(b) Section II Major /Minor Subdivision <br />Presentation by Mary Scearbo. <br />(A copy of the abstract an attachment to <br />these minutes on pages .) <br />Scearbo noted that a review of the <br />subdivisions approved 1986 --89 indicated there <br />was a high percentage of those subdivisions <br />containing less than 10 lots that received <br />final approval from the Board of <br />Commissioners without any significant change <br />from that of the Planning Staff's <br />recommendation. <br />Scearbo noted that the Ordinance Review <br />Committee had discussed nine lots being the <br />cutoff for minor subdivisions specifically to <br />correspond with the transition from a Class A <br />to a Class B road. <br />The Ordinance Review Committee was concerned <br />that a nine lot subdivision could be created <br />and in two years time one of those lots could <br />be subdivided to create nine more lots. <br />There was concern with the possibility of <br />development occurring that rapidly. <br />Eidenier suggested that there were two points <br />to consider. One, that you trust the <br />Planning Department to review the <br />subdivisions and the other, that you are <br />speeding the process for the developer. One <br />way to slow development is to slow down the <br />process. <br />Best expressed concern with the possibility <br />of a ten -lot subdivision with a private road. <br />Scearbo responded that the number of lots <br />does not designate a public road. Best <br />continued, expressing concern that he felt <br />there had been considerable differences with <br />the Planning Staff's and Planning Board's <br />recommendations. Scearbo responded that in <br />doing the analysis she had compared the <br />