Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
O <br />:brp <br />~ ~ <br />~~o , <br />~ 1( <br />~. ~`~ Goodwin asked about the size and value ofthe homes. Kirk said that the lots would cost between $60- <br />75,000 and the homes would cost between $300-350,000. - -- <br />$0 5 Strayhorn asked Tom ?? how he felt about the joint driveways. Tom ?? said that he would rather not <br />6 have them. <br />7 <br />8 Woods said that in some cases shared driveways are a good idea, but not in this case, He said that in this <br />9 subdivision and in Gregory Woods, it is implied that the improvements that the staff is asking far are <br />10 directly connected to the price ofthe lots. He said that the high prices ofthe lots are blamed on the cost <br />11 of unprovements that the County is requiring. <br />12 <br />13 Goodwin asked how strongly the Planning staff felt about the shared driveways. <br />14 <br />1S Benedict said that the intent was to limit access along the roads that will interconnect to subdivisions. He <br />16 agrees with Woods in that. shared driveways are not critical for this subdivision. <br />17 <br />18 MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval ofthe concept plan for Rose Haven subdivision with <br />19 ~ the deletion of recommendation #3 and the addition ofthe temporary turn around <br />20 on Rose Haven Drive. Seconded by McAdams. <br />21 <br />22 VOTE: Unanimous. <br />23 <br />24 AGENDA ITEM #9: ITEMS HEARD AT PiTSLIC HEARING 2/29/2000 <br />2s <br />26 a. Subdivision Tezt Amendments regarding Concept Plan procedures <br />27 <br />28 Presentation by Robert Davis. <br />29 <br />3o Davis said that one ofthe first things that was discussed at the public hearing was the changing ofthe <br />31 review period of subdivisions. At this time, if there is a five-lot subdivision, every two years another five <br />32 lots can be added. Under this procedure, a potentially major subdivision could be approved under the <br />33 minor subdivision requirements. It is proposed that the five-lot provision would increase to 10 years so <br />34 that any cumulative subdivision over five lots would be considered a major subdivision. <br />3S <br />36 The second item that was discussed at the public hearing was.the review ofthe concept plans. Based on <br />37 comments from the Planning Board members and the County Commissioners at the public hearing, the <br />38 staff is proposing that a policy board be involved in reviewing concept plans. There is now a proposed <br />39 binding .provision for the specific plan -conventional or flexible -that is to be followed. In the event that <br />40 there is a tie vote fvr the plans, the application shall be forwarded to the County Commissioners and <br />41 handled as specified in the appeal procedures. This only applies outside the rural buffer, because there is <br />42 only one plan for the rural buffer. <br />43 <br />44 The staff is also proposing to keep three copies ofthe approved option. Two copies would be kept in the <br />45 files and the developer ofthe subdivision would receive a copy. A copy ofthe unapproved option would <br />46 also be kept in the files. <br />47 <br />48 There were also some changes proposed in the subdivision definition section. One ofthe proposed <br />49 changes is to have no increase in the number of access points to a public street over the number currently <br />SO existing. <br />S1 <br />S2 Barrows asked about someone who wanted to subdivide and needed another access point on a public <br />53 street. Davis.said that it could still be processed as a major or minor subdivision. <br />