Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
43 <br />development, and road, not being built. She stated this <br />proposed revision to the ordinance had a lot of implications <br />and questioned the wisdom of including it. She felt it shou <br />be removed from consideration and dealt with in more detail <br />Phase II. Collins stated that he concurred with Joyner in <br />removing the proposed amendment from further consideration. <br />He stated that the current wording of was too encompassing i <br />terms of how it could be applied. <br />Best asked Collins if he (Collins) thought access to <br />landlocked parcels was adequately addressed in existing <br />ordinance provisions. Collins said he thought this was the <br />case. He also indicated that in his discussions with the <br />County Attorney, the attorney said the County shouldn't be <br />concerned with landlocked parcels and require stubouts for <br />that purpose, but rather should be concerned with the order13 <br />extension of the road network. Collins stated that in the <br />past the staff had looked at proposed roads from the <br />standpoint of providing access to landlocked parcels, but the <br />in keeping with the County Attorney's comments, this was no <br />longer done. Collins stated that landlocked parcels and the <br />orderly extension of the road network could not automaticall; <br />be tied together. Best asked Collins if it would still be <br />possible to address the problem of upgrading an existing <br />private road to a higher private class or public status if t] <br />proposed amendment were dropped. Collins stated that one of <br />the first private road revision drafts prepared by the TAS hi <br />wording to this effect included and that it was removed due <br />comments by the County Attorney. Collins said he thought <br />rewording to the effect that upgrading of a private road wou, <br />be required if it were extended would be appropriate. Best <br />asked for suggestions on the rewording. Swank said he thoug'. <br />these points were already addressed. For example, if a persi <br />wanted to extend a private road to serve more than 25 lots, <br />the standards were explicit in that it would have to be a <br />public road and that it would have to be paved. <br />Discussion shifted to the issue of requiring stubouts and thi <br />consensus seemed to be that if stubouts were required, then , <br />public road should be required in the front -end since a <br />stubout implied future extension of the road. Best gave an <br />example stating that if. a proposed development utilizing a <br />private road abutted a 150 acre landlocked tract and the <br />Planning Department required a stubout, the wording in <br />proposed amendment 5 would require that the road be paved. <br />Joyner expressed the opinion that the proposed wording was n <br />needed if the County already had the right to require <br />stubouts. Collins referred to a general statement in the <br />Subdivision Regulations which refers to a logical coordinate <br />street pattern and the Planning Department has exercised tha <br />very general "right" if it looks like it's going to be a <br />logical coordinated street pattern by extending that road to <br />require a stubout. He stated that there was no specific <br />provision anywhere that addressed this. Joyner asked if thi <br />N. <br />14 <br />e <br />d <br />0 <br />d <br />n <br />