Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-01-1993 - VIII-C 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 1, 1993 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - FEBRUARY 22 , 1993 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Legal Notice - Planning Director X2592 Separate Enclosure Proposed Public Hearing Items PHONE NUMBERS: Attached - Items #1 and #4 Hillsborough 732-8181 Separate - Items #2 and #3 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion at the quarterly public hearing scheduled for February 22 , 1993. BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for February 22, 1993. The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals to be considered at public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. Items to be considered at the February 22, 1993 public hearing include the following: 1. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance a. Section V.B. - Requirements for Inclusion in A Voluntary Agricultural District Under the proposal, small tracts or lots surrounded by or adjacent to certified qualifying farmland could be added to an existing or proposed voluntary agricultural district. 2. Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendments a. CP-1-93 Economic Development Activity Node Land Use Plan Category If adopted, the proposed amendments would create and apply a new Land Use Plan Category - Economic Development Activity Node - in four targeted locations : ( 1) I-85/Buckhorn (2 ) I-40/0ld NC 86 (3) I-85/US 70 Int (4 ) NC 54 West/Mor Cross . Specific sections of the Comprehensi change include the Section 3 .3 - Land Section 3.4 - Loca Section 3.5 - Land Poli Section 3.8 - Chee Section 3 .9 - Hill Section 3. 10- Eno Section 3. 11- Bing Section 3 . 12- Chap Section 4 . 1 - Over Stra 3 . Zoning Atlas (Map) Amen a. Z-1-93 Economic De If adopted, the pr amendments would r ED - Economic Deve classification. Th consideration are above. 4 . Zoning Ordinance Text A Specific sections of the proposed for change inclu a. Article 4.2. 19 - Dis Intent/Application Development Distr . b. Article 4 .3 - Perm c. Article 5. 1.2 - Es Dimensional Requi Non-Residential D d. Article 6.29 - Dev Economic Developn e. Article 7.20 - PD- Economic Developer f. Article 22 - Defin Development Activ The proposed amendments intent statement and ap list of permitted uses, and approval processes. 7.7717. the amendments is project proposals would obtain necessary approvals from the Planning Staff, provided compliance with all applicable development standards was assured. If a proposal failed to comply, approval could only be obtained through the Planned Development process (public hearing and Board of Commissioners approval) . 5 . Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments a. Section IV-B-3-d-1 - Private Road Justification Criteria Under the proposal, the private road justification criteria would be amended to eliminate the current prohibition against subdivision of lots with access to private roads. Standards would also be added to permit private roads where: ( 1) A site was already developed to at least 90 percent of its capacity, and the subdivision corrected or improved some nonconforming aspect(s) of the existing use(s) ; or (2) The proposed road was no more than 350 feet in length and the maximum grade was no more than nine percent. Approval of the notice will permit advertisement on February 10 and 17, 1993 as required the N.C. General Statutes. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas will require notification of individual property owners. The notices must be mailed on or before February 5, 1993 . The Planning Board considered the proposed ordinance text amendments at its January 25, 1993 meeting and recommended that they be presented at the February 22, 1993 public hearing for citizen comment. Some technical modifications to the proposals (Items #2 and #3) considered by the Planning Board have been made by the Planning Director. However, the overall intent remains unchanged. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Notice of Public Hearing for February 22, 1993 . 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance REFERENCE: Section V.B. 1. ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1993 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow small tracts or lots, when surrounded by or adjacent to certified qualifying farms, may be included in a voluntary agricultural district. IMPACTS/ISSUES: When the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance was enacted in March, the minimum size of an agricultural district was set at: 1. At least 155 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or 2 . At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 155 acres. On September 22 , 1992, the ordinance was amended to reduce the minimum size of an agricultural district to 80 acres. During the course of administering the ordinance, it was discovered that small tracts or lots were being surrounded by larger farms designated as voluntary agricultural districts. An example of this situation is the Walters/ farms located in Cedar Grove Township (see attached map] . To address the concern of creating "holes" in agricultural districts and permit the "squaring up" of district boundaries, a member of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board asked staff to check if inclusion of such lots was possible under the existing ordinance. Discussions between the Planning Director and County Attorney confirmed that an ordinance amendment was necessary for small lots and tracts to be included as part of a voluntary agricultural district. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. An agricultural district shall initially consist of: P -,93 5 a. At least 80 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or b. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 80 acres. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. An agricultural district shall initially consist of: a. At least 80 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or b. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 80 acres. In addition, small tracts or lots, when surrounded by or adjacent to certified qualifying farms, may be added to and thereby included in an existing or proposed voluntary agricultural district. *********************************** AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW: 1/20/93 - The Agricultural Districts Advisory Board recommended that the proposed ordinance amendment be presented at the February 22, 1993 public hearing. The underlined wording above was added to that considered by the Advisory Board following consultation with the County Attorney. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REVIEW: PUBLIC HEARING: AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION: 1 '.I M Il''" \(...._.. .... (.' • '71.t.C."12-:12•••••t,-ei C.c.- - 4.,- • ' / x9:7 .t\ Ft, 5 , . . .........„.„,,........„,..,...,..„....: „.....„,... .:,...!..,.:„...,, . , 40, ®r. ...J '^Y'J.-.Y .. • 1. :ti I- �'C.'1'.ty... 0 y ( i 43 'du II II \, ■ 114 ' Q i. • r".. .......1 (..---\ ,. ..,i ,■ •SN , ...., ...- Id ' ' c• I _.......Al . .....9..... i:::1 ..„.., .., irii,„, a Q.K. .• .7. 4..! ..., '� III a,at c� •.c cr _... _ i 'f.• ..., ..mss'-�' Y I n�.ce II a`'1.6 �_ .� J ' \... —— J. Jr .•.6,...5* - —I c+n.['--`•T n" rn•„e,. I. - III •,."...;',1,. _ ` - •l , wA.L.-reis 0 1 :,...37 'r� ' IRIII)Y.0 \ —LZ:-.0661 ',.... / f vJ�C I i *ow G o YyIQ / I.Ya< .by •KO NSIK • r.... aa.= // • o x�. 2 IC OI.a. I ;: ' ®\ ;• iel I j 'n �` t• • Q. 03..,,w 041116 t� ...I, "' .O- ..If „(,., , —,_,o '^ G nK ,f/ ,za K. ..- a.lm ,`.e Lc `fc,. ..0.11-.'.,'t.a ac �• • ,- J ■ ••'\\\ rt ...a •'�/ _, ?,.•c Y 1(J , F• ZJ4 d • 4 ,woa.�•fI oal lc. I •O• , 0 ■ �. I i -" a e - 1 f•. I • • ,.. I.co 64. -V 0 ..... ,,,,,,...,,'it).. ---.-\--."C-A,',.. \ . a 6-,-,,, „.. , l{1 ---•,/�/ / . \ ,t ' / / a6[C�t[a RM,wFS3I,Rl-aJ4., __ ..\ —...- \ ,,,,,,_,)i. . ,,,f,:-- 6 \\\I ■ f 1yi ` ��fr Wc�cLS"»�i-.,a _ ,I::w - .I i«ipsu�W PLOT REFERENCES ._ I - 1•N • - IASI,m :•••- -- i 0':.T II.um c„-..a.rn Isr, ... 1.. LEGEND _• I •I,.r_:_cua _1�..•i _-'::�_ Y•'�-=.1. 7-•_^�.>;s _ I„ „ W .^---'.L-� _ _ __ _ T.:::�', 41 OR1D1Gr'CDUNTY"_-M.11L,:,y5T_r...•'i:• ,.,�~ i.1 J� M.N.w .I.>_,. 1-'..'.;'�. ..? i_ re'•' _- :e.- .11':,.'-•1T•r•;e:•-t -.2.. rho-47.-tie^"-54LO •"y• ^ i!' .,.m. ,. , il. ... _ w,F?'y?z'_._777,...:.....•. j'�'=-- s t,t1.1in4 nr+ 7 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION IV-B-3-d-1 - ROADS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff x Planning Board x BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1993 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: The Orange County Subdivision Regulations presume that all newly- created lots will be served by public roads. Private roads may be allowed only if justified according to specific criteria set forth in Section IV-B-d-3-1. The burden of proof to show that a private road is justified according to these criteria lies with the subdivider. The adequacy of the existing private road justification criteria has been questioned in recent months by both the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board. This questioning was prompted in large part by the Featherwood and White Cross Subdivisions. However, both were approved with public roads because the current private road justification criteria did not address the particular factors found to be important in those subdivisions. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the approval of private roads in situations which may not have been anticipated when the current standards were developed, but for which private road access is deemed appropriate. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Public roads are constructed to higher standards than private roads, and are considered superior. The most fundamental. differences between public and private roads are the durability of the road base, and the surface material. Public roads are paved, and are built upon a more substantial base which can withstand higher traffic volumes and weight loads. Private roads are built upon a base which is suitable for automobiles and small trucks, but will deteriorate more quickly under heavier traffic. Also, private roads are generally surfaced with gravel rather 8 than pavement. Private roads are maintained by the homeowners which use the road, rather than by the NC Department of Transportation. Construction Cost Private roads are considerably less expensive to construct. As a rule of thumb, it costs about $50 per linear foot to construct a subdivision road to public standards, and $15 per linear for construction to private standards. The cost for half-width of construction for a 130 ' length of road (the minimum lot with required in the Subdivision Regulations) is thus $3250 for a public road, and $975 for a private road. Thus, one could expect that a lots with 130 ' of road frontage in a public road subdivision would cost at least $2275 more than a comparable lot in a private road subdivision, all other factors being equal. Assuming a lot depth of roughly two times lot width, a two-acre lot would have about 200 feet of road frontage. This translates to $5000 for public road construction compared to $1500 for private road construction, a difference of $3500. Maintenance Cost There are no private maintenance costs associated with roads once they are taken over by NCDOT. It is the public responsibility of the developer to maintain roads dedicated to the public until there are enough occupied residences to meet standards for acceptance into the State secondary road system. When density standards are met, the property owners may petition NCDOT to assume maintenance responsibility. State maintenance does not begin until NCDOT agrees to accept that responsibility. Private roads, on the other hand, must be maintained by the homeowners. The ongoing maintenance cost to the homeowner is one of the disadvantages of a private road when compared to a public road. The cost of maintenance varies greatly, depending on a number of factors. Factors which can influence long-term maintenance costs include the overall length and amount of use, the quality of initial construction, and condition of the underlying soil at the time of construction. Also important is the steepness of the road. The rate of deterioration, and the cost and difficulty of maintenance increases where the grade is steep for a long distance. Run-off erodes the ditches more quickly and creates gullies and the "washboard" effect on the road itself. The grade by NCDOT to be relatively steep at grades of9% l or more. The cost of maintaining a private road during any given be considerable less than the initial construction cost.year will According to a local grading contractor, gravel roads should be bladed at least once per year, at an estimated cost of about $500 per mile. Two inches of fresh gravel is generally recommended at 5-year intervals, at a cost of about $14, 000 per mile. In the ✓j 3 solve 9 interim, small amounts of gravel may be placed as needed to control potholes. Impacts of Traffic Long-term maintenance of private roads is the responsibility of the individual homeowners. Maintenance is assured through private agreements, which property owners along the road are generally subject to. These agreements are enforced by the property owners themselves, rather than by local government. If one or more parties to the agreement do not contribute their share for maintenance, then the other parties may file suit. The lack of proper maintenance can create safety problems through erosion of ditches, shoulders and the road bed. Generation of dust can also be a problem. The width of the travelway is less, requiring more caution where there is 2-way traffic. This concern is generally offset however due to slower driving speeds. Concerns of this nature are raised during the annual public hearing held by the Board of Commissioners on the NCDOT Secondary Road Paving Schedule. Citizen comments regarding twelve of these roads were received during the past three Paving Schedule public hearings. Residents look to the State to pave roads as soon as possible so as to relieve inequities in contributions to maintenance costs, particularly where roads are used by the general public. There are also problems encountered when one or more property owners along the road refuse to grant the necessary right-of-way, or refuse to pay their share of the maintenance cost as may be required by a road maintenace agreement. NCDOT will not pave or maintain a gravel public road unless the appropriate right-of-way is obtained for its entire length. Because of these problems, private roads are generally discouraged, to avoid the future potential of property owners seeking relief from maintenance responsibility through NCDOT. Counties in North Carolina are not involved in road maintenance. Balancing Costs and Impacts Despite the general superiority of public roads over private roads, Orange County has recognized that private roads are appropriate in some circumstances, as evidenced by the private road justification criteria. Through application of these criteria, private roads are, in very general terms, allowed only where they would enhance or be in keeping with the existing rural nature of the area being subdivided, or where sensitive resources would be better protected. Monetary cost is not an explicit concern or criteria. It is an issue frequently raised by the developers and subdividers, however, due to the difference in up-front construction costs. 10 This is to be expected, since the cost of road improvements tends to be the single most costly item for developments in Orange County. Also to be expected is a continuation of requests for private roads in situations where they are not adequately justified, regardless of any changes to the justification criteria which may be approved. Nonetheless, recognition of cost and other issues which have arisen in recent months prompts a revisiting of the existing criteria. The subdivisions in which road issues are especially problematic tend to be relatively small, and the roads relatively short. Based on the historical lack of any known problems with the maintenance or negative impacts of private roads in such subdivisions, the potential for future problems with maintenance is considered by the planning staff to be negligible. The "developer" in many cases is the property owner, who typically has fewer resources at hand to apply to the development of the property, and the cost difference between a public and private road is great enough to prohibit subdividing altogether. The proposed amendment seeks to expand the private road justification criteria where the potential present and future physical impacts of a private road remain within acceptable limits. Cost issues are recognized as an underlying concern, but it is not recommended that private roads be allowed strictly on the basis of affordability of lots, as is sometimes suggested. Even if affordability could be guaranteed through contracts or other means, such a criteria would have the overall effect of providing a lower quality of development for lower-income home- buyers, with little connection to the physical impacts of the road itself. Restriction of Further Subdivision Another problematic aspect of the current regulations is the prohibition against further subdivision of lots approved with private road access. Of the 100 minor subdivisions approved in 1992, 91 were submitted by "citizen" subdividers as opposed to "developers". Some of these subdivisions included large lots which cannot be further subdivided based on this restriction, even when further subdivision could occur which would very clearly meet private road justification criteria. In fact, the "no further subdivision" restriction does not allow for these lots to be further subdivided, even if a public road is constructed, without the approval of all of the lot owners within the original subdivision. This is because the subdivision restriction is put on record, and can only be changed with approval of those who bought lots with that understanding. This effect seems contrary to the desire to encourage public roads, in that the creation of additional lots, if allowed, may require an upgrade to public standards. Another effect of this provision is that it places a greater emphasis on timing and process than on final result. 11 11 Attached are examples of minor subdivisions which illustrate some of the situations encountered in implementing the existing regulations. Proposed Changes The proposed amendment would eliminate the outright prohibition against further subdivision, but would require that buyers be put on notice that further subdivision may require upgrading of the road at their expense. Each new subdivision in which private roads were proposed would be evaluated for conformance with the justification criteria. Also proposed are two additional criteria which could be used to justify a private road. The first relates to the length of the road. It is proposed that any road less than 350 ' in length, may be private, provide that the average lot size is at least 40, 000 square feet and the grade does not exceed 12%. As an example, this would allow a maximum of four lots with a minimum frontage of 150" in the AR zoning district, and possibly three lots to access the bulb at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown in the sketch below. A road of this length would serve only the development, and would not attract outside traffic. The criteria would not apply in the case of a short cul-de-sac within a larger development which otherwise requires public roads. -t93- -t50 The second criteria relates to the degree to which the tract being subdivided is already developed. It is proposed that private roads be allowed where the property is already developed to at least 90% of its capacity, and the subdivision would lessen or correct a non-conforming aspect of the existing use, particularly multiple residences on a single lot. In such cases, buildout of the subdivision would result in little or no change to the existing use of the property, and little or no change in traffic or other impacts of development. For example, the area included in the White Cross Subdivision, at NC 54 and White Cross Road, contained 7 existing residences. The only reason a subdivision was being requested was to allow the individual residences, constructed prior to zoning regulations, 12 to be sold. No additional residences can be built. Although one lot will contain 3 residences, the remaining four will be located on individual lots, each with its own area for wastewater disposal/ . Previous problems with wastewater disposal were corrected during the course of the subdivision approval. The result was an improved situation. However, upgrading the existing gravel road to State standards, as currently required, is not feasible in the view of the owner. Thus the subdivision has not been recorded, and the residences are not available for purchase by the tenants. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV-B-3-d-1. Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it is found that: 1. The subdivision roads would be accepted by the State for maintenance if: a. They are built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State design and construction criteria for subdivision roads; and b. They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State maintenance system, including, but not limited to, the general density standard of at least two occupied residences for each one-tenth of a mile of subdivision road. If, upon review of a subdivision plat, it is determined that the general density standard is met, but a design standard is not, a re-design will be required where possible. For example, if the number of lots proposed along a subdivision road would clearly satisfy the density standard, but the road design was such that the centerline radius did not meet the minimum standard of 230 feet for level land, a new road design would be required. Another example is a situation where a landscaped island or entrance median prevents acceptance of the road for maintenance. The above criteria and standards are identified in a publication, Subdivision Roads-Minimum Construction Standards, prepared by and available from the N.C. Department of Transportation; or UMW 13 2 . The subdivision roads extend existing roads which are public; or 3 . The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 4 . A proposed road is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 5. The subdivision roads are part of a non- residential development consisting of office, retail, industrial, and similar businesses, each located on a separate lot. This provision shall only apply to that portion of a subdivision being developed for non-residential purposes. However, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision with respect to other development and the Comprehensive Plan are such that a private road is justified. In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the following design features will be considered: 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by ordinance provisions. Compliance with this standard is assured in University Lake Watershed where a subdivision is required to provide a minimum required lot size of five acres. Where the minimum required lot size is less than five acres, compliance is assured when each lot in the subdivision contains at least twice the minimum required lot size. For example, if the minimum required lot size is two acres, and each lot contains at least four acres, compliance is assured; and/or b. The retention and/or provision of 14 landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites. 2 . The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. 3 . Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts significantly greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication. 4 . Significantly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. Topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased run-off of stormwater and siltation. 6. TN::>is ;: :<: : s:::; 1?1= 44 '.:.:<:>± ;v 0 .0. •::::<; ... .. >>:: :: ::::::i. ;: non-conforming<.:<as a s:::;?o 040x st: n.:: ve o rt ::«; ntb#;:o ::>:::s te:::;< t$01g*A :<:>1e::>: t e me r >< o form n «:< s::::<: ::>:resul: :><;:o ::»the»::: ro•osed ...th int�'.���.:.::s:i::•�::z: ::::.:�•:s:::;s;•:;: :::';.::: x>,:i> :: :<:;�;::::<:r•i:;;�:::.�:<::;;s:::;::>:>;>;:r,::<s::>;::::;::;<r:.:.�� ..::2.:::I�ngt�;.:��.;;>��:�.::�c�az�:.>:dcss.>:<.���.:;:;sx���d 15 ..... ......... . ............... ::. Restrictive covenanto which prevent further oubdivioion of the property ohall be made a condition of approval of a private road. e< Dee °a i c n of< 3 "merit; es tr: c ons: re. u re>:>:tha >:: a r? ad:;I>bs:<:»>n :4railed :tt :>:a standards,»»and: t a .>::> Cost o ::>U raze :<Will '.i:::'::1i:i•iiip:iii:!i::i:!;.•::•;^!i"•:.'•::i;^:i•:2i•i:i::T:'::'.:.::^::?ii:vyii•iii::i•Y^i}i}}};}}:•:::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::: �`::.::.::::.::�:..::;.::.i•;.ii:.i::.>::.:::.>:.::.;«::; ........................... ;..i... ::}:::::i Fi":iL:i::i::i:i:i: .:.::::: .::n:;•:::.::v: .:::::.... .::. ::.:.:::v:....,..,...... :i t n Whe her::<a private::r':;;::d <<i is < >:: i t It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for subdivision approval to supply a written statement justifying the reasons for private roads in the proposed subdivision. Compliance with one or more of the above standards does not insure approval of either a public or private road within a proposed subdivision. IV-B-3-d-2 . A private road shall be required to meet standards set by Orange County as described in Appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations. Satisfactory proof that the standards are met will be required by the County Manager or his appointed agents. If a subdivision is to contain private roads, the subdivider shall have an instrument recorded contemporaneously with the final plat substantially in the form of the County's Standard Road Maintenance Agreement entitled, "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS FOR PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE", guarantee (a) a right of access to any private road in the subdivision by all lots served by the road and by law enforcement and emergency vehicles, (b) right of access for the proposed private road to a State or municipally maintained road by way of direct access or other private roads, (c) perpetual maintenance of any private road serving the subdivision at the standards set for approval, and (d) provide record notice of the probability that future development dependent on the private roads for access will require upgrading of the roads to a higher private 16 road standard or public dedication and upgrading of the road to North Carolina Department of Transportation standards. See Section V-D-6-b(2) for additional requirements. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 19, 1993 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: N .. P4-r c):e—i—q3 r s- � (r) O O 1 EF'LAND- CEDAR GROVE ROAD D 3 .f8,98.10 5 3 .88,85.10 S - 3 ,f8,981C S t $9•01f 00'001 ,cL•98Z u-k trA tln 0n �2 O_� _-N V ru r. -. N � 3> 1.-- rn -- \ n r, CD m a 0� ' 262.69' 4. a (4 iON 71 t.M. -,',' --• )--, O a`Z U- -1=a O v D 0T z n n� D o 'il n a N _ . ,.O O �c 0\ S sue, w a ti YI u, "o W D n N Lot 4 cannot be further subdivided ° without agreement from the owners 2882o' of Lots 1, 2 and 3 , even if the road were upgraded to public standards. • 2 This subdivision is also an example . . of the use of a private road less C than 350 ' in length, for which it -" is proposed that the road be allowed to remain private even if 1 ac further subdivision occured. uz F 3 ua Z le > > - T:-_ -"c r..ar Y - 'r.-1,'WETS r"i r-1-1,rig i VI..rI N I l MCI CURVE DATA TADtE E20 t NADIV Ll r.'GM CN[wD fi 01. 701.f9 JA0.70 __7!9.79 S jJ_0'IE•C �.1,I( 'CI ]OI i,69 A69.rf .lC.17 `\�s'o SfLl.flO�(-- Tf 4 R PRO°fFTY ro:E DATA 1_�o,rsoc- Y/\ iI 5057vi I'n __ \\,^ ♦ �� (.__5 OG_ii ll`x .9 ij� IV APMNA3 AfYrwx .q l S NO Iq A.. Cr"r. L5---- ('f.?ii'— ia,°.c.^���..JJI Oq IRO.—AMSCRF'R --- ----- vR0'•r FrY K 115rtD Ir rll M'fR 'R!IERCNCf�' MC PI IPA-'"'01 SuFKTD AR( \O r •` , •tip \\ r.,c.nDO n. ICV7(A/IT D IS CIf A4 ` II101CA7fO vTCl A+OrvROI•, n RATIO AS C � A r THIS .\ 11RD,T,CC wM GS 1\_ -3D,AS A.CNDED. G.G7 ,� W,?,., 5 VY ORIO/N,( n -a Oi c I\� D�i':> S('-PtR C PE A TTlSH r,vurfa AND 5(.I n°s '•.'Y" rs If1N DAY DI rfBRVARr I 997 � \• Cl ^\�( r""�� TfG.'S 1f AfC L�r,C$IIRKYCw Pf•: r. NORM CAFO(,NA,O ANT{CLYIN!Y le•IY ^� 1.5 A 6C• [ A NOTARY ruP(IC nr M!C,"', AIORFSAID, CCRRIr MA+Alas CA((£u,•: 1,10 sURK rCAR, 'IRS-,,I r rD f-•� •,� A'rf,RED Pf'ORC 4C rv:5 A!FRfY ,^,AY AND ACKNOxLfOw'D P/D/]9 1•[C ErfcunM O' D •$80LU i,' .��al ODINO Ms DtVVCNf O M4 MC 'SS.1 HAI IO AND CAIsr,O OR ALUSON LAME � S .nl J DAY Or £LBFVARY F'ROPOSCD 66'rOtVAli OIM1F 28.94 Ac. REMAINING N No„Rr 1 PLIC �D7I ��,�� arr Cfx,u•cgOr,.CrnwfS uAY )c. ,° 6jellfn DP 330\173 3 _ 4E N$IDN$ n f, _. Cr ACCF - 0x 1: S ACOPM PO.1°_A CR+"f� NC The 28-acre tract cannot be further subdivided without agreement from SCALE r _ 200 ;co' o zco' he owners of Lots 1 and 2 . - - --- - - FREU',11NARY rl_AT —�.— [r' w(°I.=i C• nom•rAn°-�---.,.,.,cam•,....,-.__ �_,.._. .'.... .-.. _° - c•r, ::.g:.:-•<..-,.-- - -- c(n:.: Av.I ufw T rr 1 .II a'T=ITN-(R_ r,A' C(Y/ ':RIL' .•,rA'"c: — .. REGISTERED LAND 5 F-+ '7 Iot^ 1 Ao ...:CI ir,T v[r;AAT5"AFC(_: _. _._..._ FF,OPEPI Y SUFI.r 1'!P i, 00 D�tALnt. .,. � I MAR VIN ALLISON _ r SCr rIAT-^.ra-rRfp ,SY Z.r,M vAI,In,AfUSnu'Fr CAELEM YN -A'r ,•^;::r•:1„ can,r,c­p. ALf':S CA4'rlttl,IIPRIUS'Y:{, 1RAA ,..fL.rRr.. I r., nFnM iI a C; (.u7.; SURVEY'- FEFE11A1F” Ic 1042 swlK S'Pik E—L.) 2 11.49 Ac. x. C4 Za2 Ar- 79) COMRUW J%4TA UN. C"D R CI 12 010• RI]/ PROPiNff LWE a4TA PI C.nlx 25 ac Wav 6.79 Ar- A (5.01 Ac acddiaq (/1W) Av- RAW-CF-WAY DATA R3 I LfWW I C�" ACARW4 rj -1. 1. as M 47 M. ])5.00' ij a- p--;- NNOTES:. I. r—hIP Una a-Apd f° Tax Atop. D -.M L-3-7-yW' 2. A-by­dka. Pe 3. 15� MINCEY 52 A Preliminary Plat has been - F7m41. PLAT- VICINITY MAP submitted for the further division MINCEY FARM of Lots A and E, which were created GROVE and UTMR RIVER nWS,, ~CE CO-, NOKW C4RO'JM through this Minor Subdivision. OCTOBER 15, 1992 rASLE J--100 100 The Preliminary Plat requires that 100 0 200 the private road be upgraded to S. public standards. However, the C h-—StUo..-S.1 A&M—d-I PC owners of lots B, C and D must agree to the subdivision. CALVIN M N/F CALVIN MELLOTT r LEGEND O EXISTING IPON N/F C EILDTT O IRON PIN sl JR. N/F D.B.308-649 0 Po IER POLE A coMPVI Eo POIN j \0$784-976 LENOIR WILSON CONTROL OTREE s, I D•8.319-175 \ 60.1PRWATEI R/w CORNER ��• DAMASCUS CHURCH v°�. 0.13.377-192 E __ At D.B. 96-52 o " '°3512-E 10935 7oT. 1 W� m CEMETARY o A WET FLOC. sEi BACK GVM`Rf E ROCK WALL LOCATION MAP N88°33 5T•,E O cOR11fR / 23800 N88°38.5fi E , m O I'UF } 3 = JAMES a JERILYN 1 �`"���� WILSON D.8.816-107 •r` 8 5.00 AC.GROSS wl x63°39 I2 E (EXISTING LOT PB 561321 Z i m 0.47 AC_ R/W ) I 4.53 AC NET ` Str6 / MEADOWWOODS Pte- le. / P.8.36 SD /BO ^N _ SPRING ROAD / C °n1 Bw7er f 3/D 3 0 { o � 8.50 AG.NET / o 4 )LINA �_ / LYNWOOD ACRES S/D :ST S/D so6.31' �G s reACl P.B.35-198 24-173 u, 70 1 1 tD QSo PRIVATE R/W 0I3°19;39"w 3.6 r.11; N67 51 b w- £ yy 2q 37.06_ 3 0 C 3Y�38J� 3381 ANNE COLE WILSON S/D R Nl9 L, 1 w o \ AREA. 1 1N1I7OB° 9� 589°��r�� IN 6 660• L N .33•w 1368; - SF - M N:3:19 3 03:39 w 2903. -' S N N3°3901 E 2!592 N07E1THtS SURVEY CREATES A SUBDIVISION OF %AgP_0J @_W&Tn•+n•ene me;nl.nonC. - LAND WITHIN 7HE AREA OF A COUNTY d Ini•D°II•r and n•Euileln3°1•Level°r•+ The 6-acre and 8 . 5-acre lots cannot T,{AT HAS AN ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES IMn•n N n•b lcld our•°onl 1•s•cf fan Iv-B6-E the PARCELS OF LAND •1 1n•o.•nt.c•vnh s°neldd•n R•3°Im'wn,. be further subdivided due o prohibition against further PB 56-142 I PIN 9167-44-1051 subdivilson. Additional lots could TAX MAP 7-118--16B F.ulknwr, c.rtl3y that thl. P:at .•.. be created- which would meet other +txia: 17o .r. .c tua! cur " a d.,,yyDder ay FINAL PLAT 161 1tr.•C drncrlptlon r.�o-drda,.1'"boot .,.zs_. Pr7" private r2�ad justification .3t the Gound.rlr. no[ ■urtiryr+d .re clear lv " SUBDIVISION OF L0T2 aT. dr.u+r frT.c lnro-wsclan er nt•t6dt tt.ut tlW r[clr criteria. ANNIE COLE WILSON SUBD. c ca.culat►i is lr z��,p! th.t tht, F{:I. •.e^. - fry wl[h B.£. f'%-3O aP ewndoC.. Y£tnaa¢ r•- !"!-t. nal r1Qn.turr, rerlstretl on nlu Y-r wnd ►oci thn.- CHAPEL-HILL TWP. ORANGE CO fr •,�, NORTH CAROLINA Ir 2o.op AUGUST 16.1992. SCALE:1%100 !t t;t`: - ^lorl rTt,T>>>er• .tz�/ - F •...... :�. Loo so 0 10o zoo �. rr.u` -- OWNER- MARTHA WOMBLE (1 07 2) North Carolln.. O County- DAMASCUS CHURCH N C. N 11.611c ci ter Ca. and B!ar ./urw.a Ed, I;� 914-929-9130 0 :. • , rnit I.nnl.• ..- ... „I r• ,..fir;" \ V1 --... I hl' :tl�.. 11'..5: R'�Ir I:.S! 1;-i!-1..r1.• _. ,.,_!r-' a-:yo-I�:,• k-�> ,-u Final Plot of "piI'. 1' ;S:.G rl ._••"! Suryey for : S ! 4.•_ e all-SW - ,.,:. ' . f-1••L•it.• :.CEDAR VALLEY FARMS Cedar Grove Twp.,Orange Co..N.C. I December.1991 Scale 1'.10(y � r E.B,Wbod,Land Surveying,P.C.,Roxboro,N.C. 4 Lots 4 and 5 cannot be further 500 M. subdivided due to the prohibition of further subdivision. (Although further subdivision in this case is # unlikely due to soil limitations, --- it would be possible to create - perhaps 2 addional lots from this ~� 3 design and still meet private raod p ZOO oc. justification criteria. 9.39 oc. f § a 2 ti \ ' •°' 2.00 oc. S r ran,a- ••� \`,\ D e S.e.0 S r o r 'r` ..•. .«,... 777 .lino, '34- _Ccr:nty •1 ncwtr•i a sul. lvie lon of IaM C� � r:Minty. Ici tnc"m/nen3 en7 L,_ day ct ,jam•-y 19J�. ',; ,a I '•1 tea Scnryor r. ' J ( _ 2-00 cc4 5' r :.... r r C%•e::,'rL\, CGL=17 CT_G.- .• 1 I� _L•a��'':L. ccrtlly V.1- L•:1! , /'-' ti L 't r\ i 1 ;d.a cno^c cy tcper+lslon Iron ea .. n,�� 'D��� • a� yp` 1 � :cy ro,'-c»nder my sar^ -lsltn_I dcc; •. <� Pi ' \ l 4•., a \r i re<orJC� In ls:�A51L• ��e i_• " - � ' - ' !-'•ica:c3°a do n•-:, Iccn Ir.:C:-.,:5: ; '� .•�� _ O \ lr.r.� 1 tl:at Lhn ry S' ._•r not r.e'lt th!:i_dad t- .7Ciy ur. Sco'e , _ sue_ - _ _�- 22 '') Lot 1 cannot be further subdivided \ without agreement from the owners of Lots 2 and 3 , even if the road were upgraded to public standards. This subdivision is also an example of the use of a private road less than 350 ' in length, for which it co N rRoL is proposed that the road be allowed to remain private even if further subdivision occured. 1t "_ — — y-43 0 zi. , S 7/os 01 ` _ _ — Z �Z E CO ' � 011 I i — - _ _`7L`'/.9y.._ _ _ _ - �t1 2.939 A�cLUOING RDS. , , — — tn Z .`t I3 AC, EXCLUDING RDS, zo zo'1 --o � 15, ?-46S-EMAX. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I N • O \ I O . I WI Z \., 11 N„ I— }I I ( 0 dt N So I' aD 19.7_3 z �`N, a i ZI 5",o74Ac.1NCLU ING RDS. l ` �sk� � � I 4.73 Ac, E XCLUDI KIG RD?' 'L "� I I 7_-`F, 82-9 S.F. MAX. I IdPER VIOUS SURFACE t . i I_ N \ , Y $ \1, oL6Aa; lJJ JF I 1 CO . t 165SF. fit! 1 3. o7_ Ac. INcL4DIrtG R.DS -r-.. N \` S 3 — t Z. 656 Ac, EXCLUDING UT y 1 70. �•1 SuRFAce=13,939 I .dD I GU 3,939 S.F. 1 �. A SZS 4+ I 3o. E t g3 1 I as zs` I S7 S S37°. t Iyo` '.o 1 I �- W 9g.67 I } a __BLDG. SE713AcK LJNES 1 0- rc I . i- - - - - - - - — - - - -' Z t— 5'1-1 ° Z6'0 _ ".t ,0 79 . 601 1" 32-8.68 ' I , ',5641 I. 3o.34) N 31°3310 7,.W C3o.0043 N 81°33'07"W -,9, (3577') ° CoNTRoL 7S - O Illi_ ARTHUR M1NNtS •• RD. • (S.R . 11 ).5") (EXISTING (>0 PuBLlc R/w) _ . J ._ •- _ 'V4iy . L . bte HA AJ Pill--- a-f_93 • 42 .. 11E3 E 11 --C--- 23 • s �:` The 20-acre lot could not be 5- further divided, even if access . - were provided from Bowman Road, due ' ',4'�q ! to the restriction of further Z '93o subdivision. f GQ4� 4� P Y' V f 1 -C 1 r. 1 y �� ' . C, NEESE o H/LL 1 roc '�e4C'e b) C.I.P. 1 1 tl- .. r / 1 v , 1 BOWMAN 1; 0 .I P � - / r o a 22.58 ACRES! •• 5ACRESt . ! - Z 2 26 :•.\. ,2 ._, . 2.0 AG, . . . ._ ._ ., ... _ :f /` S PY __\ . C� .. S8`e ZZ.Za^w• 7�9 65' N� .- _ - '+'t �� r �eE5r 1 m 1 �• p 5!0•<!�D"E Z N =—sates' m ,I)1 G f ` !. . kl a , N ■ s O N NI I? ., Sj 26 2�PGRESi 3 - i •4 1005 AC!.- - 1 1 P !9 s -RK41IT-OF-WAY WTA - VICINITY k41P NOTE" 9u11diny Set—k- G 'F ENGTH_�GA74a`_�T�daRINC DRIA__ 40'Front . R2 1 7e DJ• 7a.2a�F—i�yzroz'_f 1se0'Jf• . 20'SkN., Rea! I7y Qy7' S3 p0,_5.71A2'0' F 15'50.71 . .m' -leLJ7 D9pP S__w4 W Is1'S 1'7 SEE; Plat'Properd of JESSIE DIXOtr PO 40 YO I53 :.1 lS.JI' !� .-'—N IYSS'11'W 6!'IOTIY T SSL'N!N ST1t7t_ W JT- Ana by c—dk)at* corrtp"Wo a. a 7. N 7k'IS'0?`M—-�T70 rJ } !!M' H 74'4 �- S30'JI' fi CS;� .RI .lITJ 1 - Jl7.e1' '1 r u6 o!• �'• to NI IRanrJ.Ah.. ( .•y y , aw..& �.. I R' R2 �L tLr y Aa .� cRS - Ch oI I I n NOTE C/[ of slack 41 I II 7.94 Ac. ""' I N b Pf"4 line CIt! (7.OJ Aa wrckrdMY R/W) I Z c I b12' Pe w jcs5iE MOW G1 Y I e°t 6 pq 153 - CREIX[LITA � . c ate ou' o IWE I wntC I v I g i �� MpNt�ood w s isiJ 45 eT CAJI S 91 to- . y .N i.Til--7-'--M'T—IJP.d7' T A-w 135 ----------- CRY Ar 7 Y b J6' TM PoW DMY.r.an P oe tas 011 506 / NOTE: tAe+ of krltd irRlrri�lu o fkwdwry b I,s.»�.v„na.r.L-x7us. nay IM ud.pml- aubstaouaw r"tr�d+r the �tC^ t unly - Aro.n Irom m lud MW u� pd.—Ae u aw Flood Dann" PrweeorfUm OrdbyGr" d—Uan Mb d D KId nnl. u 1.10.0a) qno rol­Y" PI-RA I—IN.r>lamwa Mla Up pp.pane M pcco,earo..Rh GS 47-30.a I„1. rvry cn.ot,.o 0,-,. . ngWp4un Jwl,echian pl Man D.County „lm...my pAq�rol.Ignalun,rpuw0on num PROPERTY OF The 7 .9-acre tract cannot be JESSIE DIXON �,a Nmory PuLlm oI tn.cw,ntr ana stm.a.. - further subdivided without p>rpnWly ppP.urw len rm>Ini.ao u.nom-,. agreement from the owners of Lot CHm's Tw. OR4E Co-, NOwH a-wo"A w....a�ian aI In.nnvW q In.l m:, 1"� .56 NOxnn BD? u ,990 „an...mY npna a ..al Sc'ALE T" 100 teDx. 100 0 100 200 ----o-- kwLolne Sat clone Lan. Sef b- Lafhanat/n01 Pf. N 3.w-- 5 /� ENT ow•' 'e.,l. Dlxan X12�PN!Il=!.(N t(XJI 6, box 780 - - r' '.«71r .y'irrr•cu. UPP�b)p' .