Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />indicates that they want to have as little to do with the <br />County as possible. One of the reasons we all agreed to goin <br />to engineers and surveyors was to remove one bureaucratic <br />notch out of the process. Faircloth stated that he wasn't <br />sure that reducing the bureaucracy was one of the main goals. <br />He stated that the surveyor would be involved up front and <br />inspection and certification of the private road would be one <br />of the series of steps leading to recordation of a final plat <br />He stated that one reason surveyors were included along with <br />engineers was because, in most cases, a surveyor would <br />probably be less expensive than an engineer. They would <br />also be able to spend more time on-site than the County and <br />could provide supervision of the road construction process if <br />needed. Best asked if cost concerns could be addressed by <br />saying that for Class C roads, the County would inspect and <br />engineers and surveyors would be required for Class A and B <br />roads. Olson stated that the exception for Class C roads on <br />page 88 could probably be factored into Best's proposal. <br />Best stated that a question had been raised about the proposa <br />to lower from three to two the number of lots served by a <br />Class C road less than 500 feet long and not requiring <br />inspection. He asked Bell to give some background on the <br />proposal. Bell stated that currently a Class C private road <br />(which can serve up to three lots) less than 500 feet in <br />length is not required to be inspected. The proposal which <br />went to public hearing called for reducing this to two lots. <br />This was the suggestion of the County Attorney and his <br />rationale was to treat situations like this as a joint <br />driveway. Bell stated that if the TAS recommended going with <br />this proposal, it would reduce even more, the flexibility <br />the small developer /family subdivider currently has. Best <br />said that he felt we needed to maintain flexibility at the lc <br />end of the scale and asked for comments. <br />Eidenier asked Faircloth what was workable from his <br />perspective. Faircloth stated that his division had time to <br />do a minimal amount of inspection, basically measuring the <br />width of the travelway; depth of the stone, making sure the <br />road is properly drained, and the turnarounds ana signs are a <br />required. Ideally, he would like to have an inspector there <br />during construction to make sure pipes are installed correctl <br />and that good fill is.put.in properly, but this could recuire <br />being on -site for perhaps days at a time during construction. <br />Best stated that a potential problem with both the County anc <br />an engineer and /or surveyor inspecting private roads is that <br />requirements for both would have to be the same. Eidenier <br />asked if it could be worded.such that a private road has to r <br />inspected by an engineer or surveyor, which could include the <br />County and include a list of roads the County does and does <br />not do. She asked if, perhaps, workload could dete=ine how <br />involved the County would become. Faircloth felt this was tc <br />subjective and would rather see the County inspecting (or no; <br />inspecting) roads.based on class. Best suggested leaving in <br />3 <br />