Agenda - 10-21-2008 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 following four options related to access for the proposed subdivision: Option 1: Relocate the proposed joint driveway to the common boundary line of Tracts 1 and 2 and record a joint driveway agreement. Ms. Chappell may create a joint driveway at the centerline of the new lot and the lot upon which her residence is located, and then close her current residence's driveway with this option. This is probably the least attractive of the options due to clearing of woods and re-landscaping of the current driveway location that would be required. Option 2: Leave the existing driveway within Lot 29B intact and enlarge it to create a 50-ft. easement that extends into Tract 2, ending in a cul-de-sac or T-turnaround. This option will require a road maintenance agreement. Access will be provided to Ms. Chappell's new lot via an existing driveway that serves Ms. Chappell's current residence with this option. This option would require the creation of a 50-foot right-of-way, with a road maintenance agreement, but there would be no requirement to construct the driveway connection to the new lot until the issuance of a building permit for the new lot. The number of access points to Whitfield Road would not change with this option, and therefore the subdivision regulations would be met. Option 3: Obtain access from Tract 1 when it is developed and provide a no vehicular access strip along Tract 2 at Whitfield Road. This will require Tract 2 to become party to the road maintenance agreement created for the access provided for the development of Tract 1. Ms. Chappell's lot is to use an internal access private street that will be built for the remainder of this 19.62± acre tract with this option. Option 4: Appeal the Planning Department's decision to the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Section III-C-S of the Subdivision Regulations and request that the driveway restriction of the regulations be waived for this case. After receipt of the February 11th letter, Ms. Chappell decided to file an appeal to the Board. Ms. Chappell filed her appeal via email directly to the individual Board members and the Clerk to the Board on February 21, 2008. The email was forwarded to the Planning Staff on the 22"d of February (See attachment 3). The Planning Department decision on this subdivision application, as recommended by DAC, was based on the fact that the minor subdivision application met all of the requirements for approval except for Subdivision Regulations Section IV-B-3-c-8 Access Restrictions as set forth below: Where a subdivision adjoins a heavily traveled street classified as arterial or collector in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, in the interest of highway safety, the subdivider shall be required to provide a common driveway, a marginal access street parallel to the arterial or collector, or reverse frontage on a smaller street when the only access to the subdivision will be from an arterial or collector street. Where access is available to any internal subdivision street, whether by reverse frontage of other lot arrangement, private driveways shall not have access to the arterial or collector. It is the intent of this section to minimize the number of points of egress and regress to main Roads within Orange County.