Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
C,V <br />means of ensuring the conditions under which the private road <br />was approved. Collins said the point he was trying to make <br />was that the original statement only addressed no further <br />subdivision and what was introduced here was limitation(s) on <br />the use of the property. Upon first reading he thought it was <br />a good idea. However, upon further analysis he felt it was <br />too cut - and -dried to limit it only to residential, <br />agricultural, and open space. No latitude was allowed for any <br />other use that may be permitted in a residential district. <br />Best asked if it might be more appropriate to put Collins' <br />proposed #6 into the provisions for a public road. Joyner <br />stated she still had problems with the proposed #6 citing the <br />example of a development that might have a mixture of <br />residential and non - residential land uses. It was her concern <br />that all of the roads in such a situation might have to be <br />public. Collins suggested adding another sentence which dealt <br />with mixed -use developments: <br />This provision shall only apply to that portion of <br />a subdivision being developed for non - residential <br />purposes. <br />Olson asked where these proposed changes were to be in the <br />subdivision regulations. Best stated that they would be <br />#6 under the list of public road requirements. <br />Olson expressed concern about the potential impacts of home <br />occupations which may be allowed on private roads. Collins <br />stated that for the zoned townships, such concerns needed to <br />be addressed in the context of amendments to the home <br />occupation provisions of the zoning ordinance. In unzoned <br />townships, he stated another method would have to be devised <br />to avoid charges of indirectly putting in zoning through the <br />subdivision regulations. <br />Best asked Collins if the concerns expressed in his memo had <br />been addressed by the TAS. Collins responded affirmatively <br />and Best stated that the matters would be referred to the <br />Planning Board. <br />Proposed Private Roads Preamble -- Joyner asked Collins his <br />opinion -of the preamble.. He stated he liked it; he thought it <br />conveyed the intent of Orange County, that being private roads <br />are a privilege and not a right. Joyner stated she had <br />problems with the basic assumption that all roads should be <br />public roads. She said she didn't mind a developer having to <br />justify private roads in his /her subdivision, but felt the <br />County was off -base stating that the strong preference was <br />that all subdivision roads be public. Best asked if there <br />were any other comments. Olson and Eidenier stated they had <br />no problem deleting the word "strong." Collins suggested that <br />"...where the developer provides much larger than average size <br />lots..." be changed to "...the developer provides <br />significantly larger lots..." Joyner suggested replacing <br />E <br />