Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />The above criteria and standards are <br />identified in a publication, Subdivision <br />Roads - Minimum Construction Standards, <br />prepared by and available from the N.C. <br />Department of Transportation. <br />The proposed re- wording met with unanimous TAS approval. <br />Section IV- B- 3 -d -1.4 of the Subdivision Regulations - Best <br />stated that the proposed revision here was deletion of the <br />term "connector" since there is no road classification of tha <br />name in the proposed County - specific road classification <br />system. He asked Collins to elaborate on his comment <br />regarding the need "to review all street definitions in the <br />Zoning /Sub- division Regulations..." Collins referred to a <br />previous conversation with Bell regarding the need to take to <br />public hearing the required ordinances /amendments needed to <br />implement the Transportation Plan. The outcome of that <br />conversation was to get approval of the plan designations and <br />then come to a subsequent hearing to present implementing <br />ordinances /ordinance changes. <br />Section IV-B- 3 -d -1.5 of the Subdivision Regulations - Best <br />stated that no alternatives to this section had been <br />formulated. Collins stated that he had some questions about <br />this section based upon what had been discussed at the <br />Planning Board meeting. He said he wasn't entirely sure of <br />the Board's intent, especially regarding super blocks, and wi <br />reluctant to put something down for fear it would be far <br />astray of the Board's discussion. Best referred to comments <br />by Kimley -Horn concerning the purpose of the proposed <br />amendment being, "to provide access to landlocked parcels an( <br />large undeveloped tracts without access to a public road." <br />regard to superblocks, Best said he hoped this could be <br />addressed after discussion on IV- B- 3 -d -1.5 unless the TAS <br />thought it necessary to discuss the two items together. He <br />asked if staff could provide some kind of direction as to wh <br />kind of specificity was needed for implementation of the <br />collector /subcollector system (assuming it is passed by the <br />County Commissioners), e.g., this development is in this <br />superblock and'we would require a road. In other words, do <br />need to have something on a map, and if so, that's how numbe <br />5 would tie into it. Collins stated this was one possible <br />way. The other was if you looked at the Kimley -Horn <br />collector /subcollector system and their discussion of the <br />idea, they had implementation guidelines and their wording i <br />"if more than an additional 100 dwelling units are anticipat <br />within one of the superblocks described above or in any area <br />with greater than two miles between arterial, collector, or <br />major local roads consideration should be given to <br />construction of new public roads or the extension of existin <br />major local roads to further divide the block." Collins stat <br />there was an inconsistency here because if you have a <br />subdivision of 100 lots or more you are going to be looking <br />4 <br />