Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
E <br />. <br />suggested by Collins. In closing, Best added that the goal <br />was to keep the ordinance as flexible as possible. Joyner <br />stated that the ordinance still implied that all five <br />conditions had to be satisfied to justify a private road. <br />Best suggested (as in Collins' memo) a period after each <br />standard and leaving the last sentence as currently worded to <br />address this concern. This met with TAS approval. <br />Section IV- B -3 -d -1 of the Subdivision Regulations <br />(Restrictive Covenants) - Joyner stated that the TAS did not <br />intend for the last sentence in IV- B -3 -d -1 to limit the first <br />sentence. She said it was meant to help explain, "...what is <br />residential, what is agricultural, what is open space..." <br />From the concerns expressed by Collins, she assumed the intent <br />was not clear and that the choice of wording was poor. Joyner <br />asked if #6 as proposed by Collins were added as a reason for <br />having a public road, would that mean that private roads would <br />not be allowed in residential development surrounding the <br />non - residential development? Collins stated that this was not <br />the intent and cited the Latta -Woody subdivision between I -85 <br />and US 70 near the Durham County line as an example of the <br />type of development that #6 was proposed to address. In <br />residential areas, he stated he was interpreting the <br />restrictive covenants to mean restricted to residential, <br />agricultural, or open space only. If you wanted to allow more <br />than that such as home occupations, churches, recreation <br />centers, etc. then there had to be some amendment to the <br />proposed wording to more accurately reflect that. Best said <br />he saw the home occupation question as being more of an issue <br />than churches and recreation centers. Bell said he recalled <br />previous discussion of home occupations when the County <br />Attorney met with the TAS and the suggestion then being to <br />specify in the Road Maintenance Agreement if (and what type) <br />home occupations were to be allowed on the private road. <br />A fairly lengthy discussion on restrictive covenants and the <br />conditions under which a developer could /might change them <br />ensued. Collins stated that the Planning Department should be <br />reviewing applications for building permits to ensure there <br />aren't restrictive covenants which would be violated if a <br />permit were issued. Joyner said she didn't think covenants <br />were an area in which the.Planning Department should be <br />involved. Collins stated that the department should be <br />involved if the restrictive covenants were required by a <br />county ordinance. Likewise, he said if covenants were <br />required and a developer went back and changed them the next <br />day, the developer would be in violation of ordinance <br />requirements. Joyner stated that there were ways to deal with <br />violators of covenant provisions and that the County should <br />stay out of it. She further stated that she didn't think <br />covenants prohibiting further subdivision of lots were <br />appropriate. Collins said they were legitimate since a <br />private road was being granted because of the large lot, low <br />density nature of the subdivision and such covenants were a <br />8 <br />