Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br />in the Subdivision Regulations - already refers to such a <br />street as a "connector" or "feeder" street. Related to this <br />is the need to review _a_U street definitions in the <br />Zoning /Subdivision Regulations and revise them as necessary <br />to be consistent with the new Zoad classi is tons system. _• <br />IV- B -3 -d -1 5. The road will foreseeably be extended to <br />provide access'to other parcels or to <br />provide the orderly extension of a <br />developing road. <br />This provision would allow private roads in subdivisions only <br />if a cul -de -sac were provided. If a stub -out were required to <br />allow for the future extension of the street, a public street <br />would be required. <br />This provision is related to IV -B -3 -b above in that it also <br />seeks to address the problem of upgrading a private road when <br />adjoining lands develop. If a private road, including stub - <br />out., exists, and the property beyond develops, the subdivider <br />of the new development must upgrade the pre -- existing private <br />road as well. The same issues of public vs. private road and <br />what class private road enter into the decision. The <br />provision eliminates the problem by requiring a public road <br />where future extension is warranted. <br />'Related to the extension issue is the lack of an official map <br />which delineates future road corridors. In the absence of <br />such a map, whether an.extension was warranted would be based <br />on a site -by -site analysis. Some recent court decisions give <br />reason to believe that such extensions must be based on an <br />overall plan rather than a case -by -case evaluation. <br />Some additional discussion is needed regarding the <br />intent of this provision, particularly as related to <br />the "super block" strategy proposed as part of the <br />Thoroughfare P1an._Alternate wording may then be developed. <br />IV- B- 3 -d -1, Ia. The provision of lot sixes and building <br />setbacks significantly greater than <br />required by ordinance provisions (five -acre <br />average lot size would be presumed to meet <br />the intent of this section). <br />"Significantly greater" is defined here in terms of the five - <br />acre standard. Why weren't similar standards provided on the <br />following pages for 43 (open space /recreation) and #4 (stream <br />buffers, etc.)? Why not setback lines? Why a five -acre <br />average lot size? Why not simply a situation where all lots <br />are at least twice the minimum lot size required by the <br />ordinance? A reduction in the permitted density of half seems <br />