Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 100814
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2014
>
OCPB agenda 100814
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2018 3:30:12 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 3:26:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/8/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 100814
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
D R A F T <br />5 <br /> 216 <br />Michael Harvey: Someone coming in and trying to subdivide any of those existing lots. There are two dual issues 217 <br />here. We have an addressing ordinance that is enforced by Orange County Land of Records via the attorney’s office 218 <br />that spells out road serving x number of lots or certain size has to be name. That is part of the ordinance. County 219 <br />subdivision regulations have been adopted over the years. We didn’t get private road standards until 1998-2000 so 220 <br />the County has a history of subdivision development some of which have been done under different standards. We 221 <br />also have several properties in the County that have exercised their right under the general statute to develop their 222 <br />property or subdivide their property through the exempt subdivision process. By state law, we have no review 223 <br />authority and cannot hold them to any specific requirements identified in our subdivision standards. 224 <br /> 225 <br />Abigaile Pittman: The standard we are recommending to address those exempt subdivisions is to develop a 226 <br />requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road, public or private, for emergency responders. 227 <br /> 228 <br />Tony Blake: I do want to have this discussion around water supply at some point. 229 <br /> 230 <br />Lisa Stuckey: I do think it would be a good idea to say that if you have a gate we can’t get through, there should not 231 <br />be any discussion about who owes what for whom. 232 <br /> 233 <br />Craig Benedict: It is important how we differentiate what would go in the UDO and what needs to be handled by 234 <br />other ordinances. 235 <br /> 236 <br />Paul Guthrie: In the emergency access to trails systems, there are two sides to it, one is providing the access points 237 <br />but the trails may not be able to accommodate the size vehicles we have. We may need smaller vehicles. 238 <br /> 239 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: I like the three lots on the driveway. 240 <br /> 241 <br />Craig Benedict: You will probably need a road name. 242 <br /> 243 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: We have a few roads in Efland we cannot get the fire trucks down. With the pullovers, anyone who 244 <br />had to go through a 1700 foot road would appreciate those pullovers. 245 <br /> 246 <br /> 247 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 248 <br />a. Board of Adjustment 249 <br /> 250 <br />Michael Harvey: There were two meetings in August. The first was a regular meeting reviewing an application for 251 <br />Chestnut Ridge United Method Church for a daycare which requires a Class B Special Use permit which was issued. 252 <br />There was special hearing on August 27 to review an application to allow for PSNC natural gas line to be installed in 253 <br />the county. The permit was issued and we will see what will come from that. I always expect litigation. 254 <br />Unfortunately, I believe there is no issue that anyone can argue to overturn the decision because PSNC, at the onset 255 <br />of the meeting filed their formal objection that North Carolina state law regulations actually preempts local approval of 256 <br />utility lines. A majority of the issues at the hearing involved a perception by local residents that PSNC was less than 257 <br />forth coming with information, they were rude and refused to provide required information and they are not being 258 <br />adequately compensated for these new lines. There were also arguments there have been gas lines explosions as 259 <br />such the County cannot issue the permit. There were also arguments that this would have a negative impact on 260 <br />adjacent property value. 261 <br /> 262 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: What is the size of the line? 263 <br /> 264 <br />Michael Harvey: A 16 inch line from Mebane Oaks to the existing Regulator Station in the Town of Carrboro planning 265 <br />jurisdiction on NC Highway 86. The reason for this permit was because it went through private property 266 <br /> 267 <br />Paul Guthrie: Do you have any information as to whether this large pipeline that was announced from West Virginia 268 <br />to Eastern North Carolina will run near Orange County? 269 <br />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.