Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
42 <br />public streets irregardless. Collins posed the question of <br />what happens if you put a collector road on a map and a person <br />comes in and he is amenable to providing a 100 foot right -of- <br />way, but only wants to do eight lots initially and doesn't <br />want to pave it at this time. Collins said his thoughts on <br />the matter were take what you can get (the 100 foot right -of- <br />way), let him do a private road initially with the realization <br />that if it develops more in the future, that is the point <br />where you require an upgrading from private to public. <br />Joyner stated that if all the planned connectors were put on a <br />map and substantial up -front analysis were not done then it <br />would be difficult to know best where the proposed roads <br />should be from the standpoint of topography and soils. She <br />emphasized that such analysis would require considerable <br />effort and expense, probably more than could /would be done by <br />staff or the TAS anytime soon. In the absence of such an <br />analysis, she felt the appropriate place and timing for <br />proposed connections across superblocks should be addressed on <br />a development -by- development basis using topo and other data <br />submitted by the developer as input to the decision. Best <br />said he felt this was the way the TAS had originally looked at <br />it, i.e., when the development came in, it was in the right <br />spot and then you look at the number of units and the <br />topography, etc., then maybe that's where the road should go <br />through. However, after meeting with Collins Best said he had <br />the impression that maybe you are not allowed to just wait <br />until the development comes in, but need to have it designated <br />on a map beforehand. Collins said this was one of the County <br />Attorney's concerns and that he (Collins) shared it. <br />Olson questioned the legal standing of a written policy on <br />where new public roads should be built over requiring that <br />they be depicted on a map. Joyner stated that there needed to <br />be clarification between public roads and thoroughfares, i.e., <br />a public road could be a cul -de -sac and what we are discussing <br />are roads that cross a substantial area of undeveloped land to <br />connect existing roads. Collins said he understood Olson's <br />position on policy versus map, but that the County Attorney <br />had a concern because state statutes governing thoroughfare <br />planning refer to official highway corridor maps so it was not <br />a matter of-a property owner /developer having to guess if the <br />policy applied to him if he wanted to develop his property. <br />Olson asked if a proposed road on a map could depict a <br />corridor and not the exact location. Collins said that this <br />was basically the case, that a line on a map was a general <br />representation. Joyner questioned how detailed a map (tax map <br />versus Land Use Plan Map) you put the proposed road on. <br />Collins stated that regardless of the scale, more detailed <br />studies of soils and topo as referenced earlier by Joyner <br />would be required. Joyner agreed, but stated that when a <br />developer saw a a map with a proposed road crossing his <br />property, the expense of constructing a paved public road to <br />serve a development of 8 to 25 lots would result in the <br />