Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
i <br />i <br />J <br />I Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissic <br />2 Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommenc <br />3 to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August E <br />4 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 3. PRIVATE ROADS <br />8 a. Section IV and V Orange County Subdivision Regulations <br />9 b. Orange county Private Rgad Standards <br />10 These proposed amendments to the Orange Count y Subdivision <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 ... <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />Regulations and the Orange County Private Road Standards relate tc <br />private roads policy and standards. Major features of the proposE <br />revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standarc <br />include: <br />1) coordination of private roads with the public road system; <br />2) clarification as to where public roads will be required; <br />3) clarification as to where private roads are appropriate; <br />4) additional certification on final plats regarding access, <br />development, and disclosure to prospective purchasers; <br />5) a cap on the number of lots /dwellings that can be served b <br />Class <br />A private road; <br />6) transfer of inspection and certification responsibility fr <br />County to professional engineers and /or registered land <br />surveyors; and <br />7) a reduction in the maximum grade allowed on a private road <br />7 <br />page <br />ation <br />the <br />i <br />uturE <br />a <br />m the <br />ALICE GORDON referred to the implication of "existing road" in the <br />ordinance and in particular. as this would apply to a person who has a -- <br />two acre lot and wants to divide it into two.One acre lots. She feels <br />this would be a burden on that landowner to upgrade the road. <br />a. ZARAGOZA referred to the 12t grade and sees this as excess <br />restrictive. He referred to the road maintenance agreement and s <br />that while it is possible to get twenty -five people to agree to <br />something it is another thing to get them to do what they have ag <br />do. <br />Mr., Meisner stated that the purpose was to look at the new pri <br />roads as well as the existing ones to be sure there is not a smal <br />private road that is twelve feet wide where additional developmen <br />create more traffic. The assumption would be that the road would <br />improved to at least the minimum standard that would be required <br />number of units. <br />vely <br />ated <br />eed <br />ate <br />COL'. <br />be <br />w thi <br />William Waddell asked about the existing roads that do not meet thi. <br />criteria and asked if another road would need to be built if addi icnz. <br />development takes place. Mr. Meisner stated this will be taken into <br />account when considering the final recommendation. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Co=nissi ner <br />Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recomnen atio <br />