Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 some of the staff comments. He said that he wanted to work with the staff and the neighbors, He thinks <br />2 this subdivision was put on the back burner. <br />28 <br />4 Kirk respondedthat-the staff did not receive the large maps showing open space on the conventional plan. <br />6 David Barnes, a resident of La Mesa, said that he was concerned about La Mesa Lane. He said that no <br />7 effort was made to upgrade the road to NCDOT standazds. He said that the subdivision was very <br />8 disorganized and the residents would not like the subdivision to proceed without the upgrade of the road. <br />9 <br />10 Benedict clarified that La Mesa Lane was a public dedication and was not maintained by NCDOT. <br />11 • <br />12 MOTION: Barrows moved to extend the meeting to finish the business. Seconded <br />13 by Woods. <br />14 <br />15 VOTE: Ayes, 7; No, 1 <br />16 <br />17 Holly Stanley, a resident of La Mesa, said that there was a big problem with the road. She said that a <br />18, special needs child lived at the end of the road, and the road was covered with ice and snow for three <br />19 weeks after the snowstorm. This child could not get to the bus. She said that there was no pazk space far <br />20 the children in the subdivision. <br />21 <br />22 Cathy Murray, a resident of La Mesa, said that she was under the impression that the road would be state <br />23 maintained. She said that the road has been broken apart, She said that the residents were promised that <br />24 .this road would be state maintained. <br />25 <br />26 Pecaut said that there was no promise to make the road a state maintained road. He said that it was built <br />27 to state standards. He said that 70% of the home sites had to be built and lived in by homeowners before <br />28 NCDOT would look at the road. He said that he had been working with NCDO.T on the road. <br />29 <br />30 Discussion ensued about the lists from NCDOT sent to the developer. <br />31 <br />32 Dick Stanley, a resident of La Mesa, said that he had lived in the subdivision for approximately three <br />33 years and was not under the impression that. he had to wait for.the other azea to be developed before La <br />34 Mesa Lane was state maintained. Pecaut said that there was no connection between the two. <br />35 <br />36 Benedict said that the staff would check with NCDOT. He said that the density requirement for NCDOT <br />37 to maintain a road was four houses. He was not familiar with the 7p%, <br />38 <br />39 MOTION: - McAdams moved to table this item until the next Planning Board <br />40 meeting. Seconded by Gooding-Ray. <br />41 <br />42 Woods recommended that the applicant and the Planning staff get together with NCDOT and resolve the <br />43 road issue. <br />44 <br />45 VOTE: Unanimous <br />46 <br />47 b. Freliminary Plans <br />48 (1) Highridge <br />49 (Cheeks Township - 22 Lots -Conventional) . <br />50 <br />51 PiTRPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plat for Highridge Subdivision <br />5? <br />53 <br />