HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-22-1993 - C-5-a 165
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 22 , 1993
Action Agenda
Item jOC'�—tee
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION IV-B-3-d-1 - Private Road Justification Criteria
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis
Extension 2583
Proposed Amendment
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031 -
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on an amendment 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. In both cases, the Board of
Commissioners appeared to favor private rather than public
roads. 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.
Two additional criteria which could be used to justify a
private road are proposed in the attached amendment. 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 9%. The second
criteria relates to the degree to which the tract being
166
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. Also, the proposed amendment
eliminates the outright prohibition against further
subdivision of lots created with private road access.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendment.
167
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.
In both cases, the Board of Commissioners appeared to favor
private rather than public roads. 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
168
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 public
roads once they are taken over by NCDOT. It is the
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 is considered
by NCDOT to be relatively steep at grades of 9% or more.
The cost of maintaining a private road during any given year will
be considerable less than the initial construction cost.
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
V V
169
.--interim, mmal3 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.
170
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.
171
t- 4-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.
"Go_ -150-
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,
172
to` beisold: iTo-additionilrrasidences 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 'tor 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
173
:,: _ 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
174
- 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. The site is already deve rop #0841 east 9 %
of the :capacity which could be achieved fter
approval of the subdi1v s an a d there are
:..f...ormiiiiiasped#:»;of;::::10404.:
development can the;<;site which w l < e' tiade
more: conforming as a result of t e>€:"':ro osed
aub 'v si>QU:�:::?<::and::::-$>..:,<>:::.. -.::::....._i•_.: :•. :..`:.,:::<:
:...,;;;f �.�::::: ar�fcrminc� aspects: c
•
the level pment.:..w ll re a z.:::cot or..m:in.. .
The total length of the road, does>;n st exceed
1r r,
5)
—. - - '4'; by > a)aoc.� a i � a � �ai•' 03`«' ::a • .
- :.v<: i :is.?•'':i <ii::�i::i:•:::: {Ci................ .... .. ........: i•ih;......;i,- r : ::j : i::i is ; :::::in::::'•:
���>::. < a of a <s :bd iStOn<> e: :fired>�::t*>>:;
served.:by.::;pub l is :roads «>
Restrictive covcnanto which prevent further
3ubdivicioe of the pr-eperty 3ha11 be made a
condition of approval of a private road.
The- Declaration of''Devslopment restrictions,
004 bar the Pl nnirg S f and ecarded
concurrently with the Final Plat, shall znclude _a
•
s :atemen' that urther subdiv riot of an o the
kits mar require that the road be upgraded. to s
higher pri^vat�c read classification, or to publ5.c
standards, and that the•cost of th:e upgrade wall
be iiii a responsibilty....o isi' e.'•,sul ivider:.>:s
is ;>: :..::,, :<::<: : ,, ><�:; b ::;:::a
a-r pa;rcel being. sabdi'vded oar oreattd y .::
recto s subdivision then the
spbd is .on a's we l as t ;> propr se subd i i n
:}iY-\i:.:C•.::;y''":i:::ii:'.; �.1'J.:.:::.�::r:�.::..:::..:...:....:�. is is i.::::::v.:...r.�.:..:v..:�.•.:i... ..:.......,: ..:i:L::"., ........•
w :>>be::<icor ss der4:i n:::::de : : g :: hither:<::::a
3>:?isi2"£;Yi::;;:i;•yv:r..:N•:::ti::i{:'>:i:�:i��::i:tiii:::::::i:::�'':: i YiY:�•::yt•'.4�.ao&�s.., u•
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
•
1 '
��` � � -T 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:
_ ~' ' -t _ - - _ mot" _4 i.• ,.
ink,C�1'i��li.�tfy�, �.s'N�-r'r v�- c�.,_,�y� r . —� _ __ • � — . - _ '�3'F = SG,., + -
.,,, :- a a.., _ ..... ..,.�
,`
EFLAND- CEDAR GR 0 VE ROAD
: 3 ,tS,9S.10 S
-------- S ,cc.9S-IC S
a
Dn c")r) O
<ti T V n,
N N
�O 1-� o
On
< t=S ° ' D o
D n
n, _
a
ro 2 QN z 262.69'
O _ <
,\`� „t..,...y ~
�2 -p ! 0
a 4 D ON 2
o �� n D DJ o
n N o
•• co- o
L
co a
N u
0.N U
Lo V
(A)
D
n
i
�zm >
N
Lot 4 cannot be further subdivided
without agreement from the owners 288,20'
of Lots 1, 2 and 3 , even if the
road were upgraded to public
standards.
This subdivision is also an example P
.4 of the use of a private road less O •
Iiiii”' than 350 ' in length, for which it `"
is proposed that the road be
allowed to remain private even if n ` m;
m further subdivision occured.
r L.3 ��
iiiL
Z _ a
. (q (0
.
• Mkt b
ii :LS .EL 1 i` r '= i. .= 1..-.c o I i Z C
1 ^t iz�*t)Z- v ..t in (L i L.
1 I S I t p M }
., Q t=..�c.rn ... 1.Na• w f i :r2c Ir {o- W _ - `I R`-' J
a cneof-`=`uc< = I.. I $• c,¢°so¢_, CC y i o ' I _I C
.-.,-,•‘;‘,;,•v,� �2'<..Zvi.. • I C o-� i c� I n I c I •• - - s U
v U 4 G
II
1
I I I.:
PI as 1fi.I 777_ 1 -
c i
4
c
L > r,. U I __
�
+ 1
_r"-� K E ti 1 2 &:
�3>
_ >ihi- lE L J 1 s
yJ �: �, 1!II 4
L.'. I t' Ir r�,is!.Isr■
C`2:-"-A::o a �Ik IC•r�.l., , I I V k "1�.
`;`,„1„;�„;„i 1 Q O ct I�IOS'71111 e”
z y,a r
7 Vc I, n: 1
C1 1 I / J f /l.. .v_. x.rG.1' J �
u
H�L. le.�rr... yrl r ,TJVIJ I • IBC f r_`W �iL' r/r
ill fill � I /7' / « ., . , P w0
:�I� a
I a•
III / / ” 4 O
// ww
�� � / ANN•/ t;y1 . U g
vtiti r . ` ;}, C 0 N A
< % / `y
�s�.>' /.`�_ / -;,•
. .• 0 0 0
A / cs as .0a
�/ / ' / `o N 0 c`,
/.cam n N ,,-i 0 I _
N rA N c _ ,
r HlA � I, � _
i
e
�z__
it
i
179
•
.� F..�.�..,�c.gaWi T'._y► -"�=:'"R:�,.--...-wrr,..
"s i / \ -,,_111 .1 ' _.�
', 1hl
1 iS^ ,,; /.? ., r' '-=3 ' '`I ' --t
r. . :1, , �/ j .
;t h 1
.tom �" /' 7 -.?�\r S ■ ,�„I
(222 \
���� 1
Y A�'
�rP 'C
I :s n x
/ �,va nun a •i
-I / •d*L301/9/At= 8 "74 -Nt
11411 a .
1 -[ i&I
Z
1 / / _ = 88 3l'is 1= .
�d3ua •
rs/4 .•s r I 9 a Y 4- _ vi- L Ti .o Cr�
x _ ,/y I ,� oo 2m ` !II I I 1 1 I �G_�
yes- — o hot 11 I S
o br, ` ••oo4
. a.0 1 " / r-3 E. _ 8� 1 a i'Y �Y
a
' Y'4 1 I: / �I:,.r:r-�: &
. ..� a.>r
/ 8a�a':1E'Na
cb
/9° I Q/ YM1kM�Mk
�/ Car:
I :Iry`.�,.Ial3i:1AN I�j E o 0 0 It
, / .,
i3_I' I I�,:,i_ , a f�r . a N U • 4 O N
I / ; 1`�a^I° '�i`e1;4 s Iu a NI 4 U O UI -)Ts 0
I .N..kY.• ..,,I. V=_is_ ,�;;:� __1I_� 1 a Z b CD N )i 0 ' 0
1 �::i jd' ao 1 11,I.-^I ; O .r-I •1'4 'II
1 i4ikibhh! 1511911,36.14:14.1 i i —1,11t•. . I. 1'I I i 4 CO P 3 ? Z a
lalaialah,ala _ '� O
I, J(YfI ` Q o ri-'I i I iisia 1.i I ; !-ia;R - _L—:_i_ >u m .IJ .fin 3 Z •r�
i :I I� :;� gI�I�!�I�I� I� ro s� U o cc .�
° , ala — ,� 1�1 •,•�1 cn ^, x
o� R a i i I ! t k.,. ..1c� 4-1 4 to W U
Oa�I- !"ISlela tia, 1 I eI kI 3 0 -;'�O
O u _: :IA' 1 ry1tm IRI 1 I 1 ( 11 r—I 0 0 O (/• GQ 10
n a y I LIM1!M11 I I_! I I I al W •■"i '>r MI 'O
`N I 1 1111111 Z W 0 -•1 U) U)
'
:$'�i I*:; ,ga1 e E 11 A>4 ••1 17-11 al 1 fd
•
. j : 111 J i ! 1 Iii .i J 'PA 'Q 4 4-) •r•i (a 4-1
O� 1 1.s., i5.7, i 1
-il ° _ I Q) r•1 ' M 0 0
' ' s1Zj w::r :% _,1.. � I •.-, 4. m .r-1 Q) •r1 +�
-I ! I _ ;-- -- I O -r•+ o a ¢' v 0)I gi. _a11 1 ' � a 5� w a) a) 4 Z P
X4.144 3 01
■ ._ - °-)"- - — `11;1r�.5-
s `. i s
U) 0 H J 571 0 b
- - - N , •
N ]6'?S• r i...
k:
. 1.8 0
N
W
G : p O
z Y •
8 CU C 1IN
z.
t _ .0 ...1 i j Z
N
O O O
N t W
N O
<_ ° 3 1,
-J _, � i� m c
j F Y,p , 7 ,1- ';-, E V = a E HT O Z `e
3 O m ,n:'W r m S ; ' W W : ,Hi , v A.,
Z¢ o�M to -�1-El ,or c = z uI ¢- Z
Oo . C m n < v z c �1 OO = o m L.
Uu - E 4 w c
j ¢ c
n w
`may/ OM c
i .
3m
ti r /
Za
F4 Jr., J
n-
C F,
II ,N EI it ,
t It
y I .or
O li/ n , h l ,''1;,o i U
co
1 .,,.52• --_ 1 III, _ o a4w = -
_� Q) .� 03 0
I ,, I OOH a) 'CS � e
*0,9 U T) 4-+ 0 I-I U
/ ` F,Y ��
I TS � -4-i oW
co•
iWI !o CO 4
I -.w • \ ., w � MS,.
Z I za c I Lm cu -,-1 N �' •
r�Or c w U 4 1)+ri '}'? rd
rr z rd -N • •I •r•I rd N -,I
r w 3 ti I //^'fir z I i•.1 ,- > O + 'r
1 z Q'� 1 cI•O)'39'F - `-_(I a ∎ r/ •ri -,,-1 U CO CV W
OKJ 196,24 •4.0256 W V V U
W R1 = B:G:�.ET6g� If
J C I . , .fir ^ a }-1 ).-I iti
J m _ olrr •
qa 1 r .C ��" i 8 10 1 I I / ..,..:,..,i......:. '•.
J h o2 I OC
:Z 0 _ , • : CC :•.1 1:5 /1
C\ W N ! r ;-Y2 I .oz.�nc o.r..�
^2 I� Q Q < j F- .�'' J 9:i i.,•rv9 sn►.•,;...,t.;..;,. •c e = •
U �- - OOti ro - I. r
N .. O V IL7 I i.`_' +,nn r$ re' G yam .
Qn Ip z 6 O I u�
ii .1-.1.,:,...,........:,...,.:°` �! : `•■
I� `i xsw s Yzzznzzz ._ Y
�"n m , io aoaC..o.1,.: s ix • L • 1.'i g✓\,: .
m • • C iG I W 1 9 V- '� ' a
O0d x I z 1 }'_ 9 • • I I ,1
£ _ • ,i y I c ,
- I • • F.. c�c o -
E i e >Y P.C
c
W S v .'t r c
.Z F 6 ^
,.i G:
iii ps£ i D ^' ' SR.19 W.
W ° R a £�•� r ,, „,rs+'O• r 1 R/w • 7 y_ '. N
$c.5 ot£1 60 lPUB LIC ..------ r u ,. = 'xi
O u'
a x+ 6 . u u.r s
3.....a u� D
7 ` ,1$ CNUR— W a
a - a o o
. a o o O rc•,y, GUS z-e_ u
------ „ M0.5
+ o t ■l SCI S
• 1 C.17
til
., •-: _-•-- - -.. .. . .
"-,-4 - - •••- 4 trt . tt) 0 -
-\
-. :: ..,,,. ;•-•-- 1 0 0,) Ul -F-1 it _
-:•-■ ---4,. ...r...:; - -- 7 :----.--- . _ • --
- - - -. - -- --,: - - -1 4J .4 . • -
• .••--- -,--. - - - -- W --1 4-.) w -,-4 4-) 0.) -
4.4 . _ • _
-,
Z 0 4 -,--1 C...) 4-1 •.-1 ,./..'.
• (1-4 4-)
• a, . -,--1 0 (I) 0-1 • ..-„.. i 1
• (-2 j W C C 1--1 4-) 4-) 11:3 ,,.- .- - .
N., •
!—
0 -r-I 0 0 .0 ■—I E 4-) , /'-/' . ,
. .
. .
' ';'' .. • .
. • •-",. , ....
• C 4.3 •,-I Ul (1) Z f-I ,' .
• •
,..)
ri 71 -,""1 0 U) 0 I—I r..) / . • / ,l-,
g -., c`. a) ..Q > -) 0 - i •,-4 ,-- f i'
o c- C -.-1 014'7) 4-) C .. ' 1 ...' • , i...,
.-. , >
/c i / - .
' , \
I ,_*, --I • a, . J, ms z '0 ,Q '0 4-4 ‘. E C ,- ,,
WW (1) CV C n'.1 7 : Cs.■L, ,,,,,'/-' /.../1
c..) ix
L.-,., E ). 1--, -r-i 4..i ...1 ri r-i LI) •r-I
' r ,.
r ..,.
"7 a6 tn TS 4-1 4-) •■-■ 4 •,-1 -P ', ,e'o' - ,4•-•0''',. ,C4
4J .Q ).4 f--4 S.4 ff) U') .,. .- •)° -
14 (.17 0 4-1 C -H 0.11:5 •r-, . . .
.• ,
. . • 4-
I .f....
o i
- . ,.. .
. . • . 0;.,
...e,... •...
-.■ t• ." ,, "i,.-..',°'::`,Vr'
41:• = .,.. c CV .-L., ,;4.........--S,,.,.,,,. .e '
s•i ••,,„-:,,,.
. I.
_ ..
. -
-.- '
4..,....
. .
• ,---.---,
.: t . . .....,.. ,.
. •P'-','.., .
- ••. - . .
. : i . e . . - .,.•z
- 4:.-/c? ir• . Tz
• ?..,:,..:- . ,.....1 ! ,
.-,
. .. .,
,>...... • „0,,,,,,,... ';'''',":":'4......:1) -
t :, - 4.....•;.`' 0 • ,.7; "
.'o. Li •
... .." o '
... L. ''''.•\.1 ..„ .7 i,... ...:...:,..... ..i.....,
. < ,
• •
,- i •, • ..- .
... .,.
:... •• ,_
. ' • • ' :L.: -
,'.P..
.. If
't•.0 4.7 ; .
.. 0 •
.0 In al
'7' ., 7:,,,,.„:••-•,:',. „„ ....17!
, :::::..:'::.:.:....j.,::: Cr', i*, .. .....; ii ..•■':;.• .. '10:.,
. . . . . . . . . . r. :. .c..0 o -r •
'"" i•.' ;'"':.:. • ' .':- '4'21 .1 %, V.*1 ':1..7:V . :d'.:, •!;"
.444:4,..3.....:.:.:.L 1.• :1, ' :.'.s i Ls." 4 ...t.::'e.„3:. ,:..`" i .::•:. '
.-.. W:..71 .5.."...•"!,-..•":..f2:,''.L..-."...:.."...7:":7'.-'..7•.,
t* - \.-c c;c 1'':'■■.:.°..'•,
•
\:,.'..r. . ,c•.,.
' ' '.... "=' :'-1::'i4:••.. -t.'..',.j-'.;'L".,17-S.0 7“`;_..:-.
::r c'7:f.‘1,'.).,....,.'P--'e6..'.-”•7 1 1 I,s,.-,.0.,.":1•r.-i_P%,.72.'..''.Lr,,'.6.i4''„:..-',"1,,'..*.1=‘.E*,4!•'.",.t,iIt•i',I-2.c S.,°5,?.:.—....711'.,.c,L.1.12":.-,e-.,...-,.'■;.L,,',.-.-7'.''1'.1.71.':.2'':,&-.-,.::',,..J1:_-''c t4,-c'!J.722;,....::-1t-,4.,.5--:..','.FI1.7-,1•.,...''.•;.•'::1).:,!L_.:p,7Z„'".:;'..:.-.-..:Eu.::';7..--..,..-....'..'.2t-":'.‘.''.-''.,;...,,f!-:i,,;..I 1 1 .N
.•-,-_,,•1 l.0 I 1,I'.1 s;.,_i_-,7-‘'.-r•,-
I . • ---- ,
. —
. .
.. .
. •
. • . _... .
'• - ' ,
..____ ---..---- —.--. - -........---...---.____,,„,__„,._ -—....'. . - . • _ ...---- ___ ._ _-_-
fir-- 1 l.. ',
jig(+ - -. _ . _-
T - ,.. -L:--' .1.'5 . '-'14 7 z H''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
coNrROL is proposed that the road be
allowed to remain private even if
_ 0 further subdivision occured.
O �
0 — — __
—
3 cQ i CD i — _
= . 1 Z .939 Ac. INCLUDING RDS. I — _
ni a .`113 AC. EXCLUDING RDS, zo zeI
-I) L JS1 ZSF.
4(, MAX. IMRERVIOL'S SURFACE
N • .
O . 1 I
O I WI /
I
7
rL _ h
I
o . I N
54I°/o`z6"w
41 zol . • I ° 'ti
O 19.2.3'
�`r0 cp, . Z .7, o74-Ac.INCLU ING RDS,
l ��'�a 9� 1-.73 Ac, EXCLUDING RDr
N 'L N i I 2.`t, 82.9 S.F. MAX. I IMF ER vious SURFACE
N
N. N ' .
1,((02.6.+., lu /.
1 0 �,1�655,f• W
- I 3, o2.$ Ac. INCLVD/NC R.ps .-4, \\
Z 6 S 31
. 56 C
A . EXCLUDI+JG RDS
VI MAX. IMPERVIOUS 1 I 70'
SURFACE=13,9395.E ` } );3 I • CL) S7
�,1 ` \ N �I 30, 8
� 3
\1
ZS as' I� 42i S 37°3
yd' W , 1 9 8.67'
t - } 0 BLDG. SET Act; LiNE5
1 0' CC I -
1 - - - - - - - - - -' Z t— - S'+I ° 2.61cl
- - o -1 , 0 79 . 60 '
37-8.4, 8 i I . Z56.4R1-
30.34) N 31°3310 7"W C3o.00') N B(°33'67"W _o (3s.77')
CoNraoL 14 , ri
. o
. . ci
41__ ARTHUR MINNtS. RD. • CS.R . i115)
(EXISTING 6a' PusL1c Riw) •- -
. . -
-.
} Way A . L . LeRAAJAU fi
_ 5. 42 .. 1 8 - - .•
�—:-r:°.F'6'!�« e.Vn�.•..,s,r,.— �'.i%�r ._s .�T.-,••..yell�3:... e.?.:a�r_:�,.s.:�.a- '_
Sz The 20-acre lot could not be
,/,,5- further divided, even if access
were provided from Bowman Road, due
1,� ' ^/�. I to the restriction of further
J7
3 subdivision.
9-'7`n
V ` •
f \ tj i
D C. NEESE , xc • 11V/,_L
o " ROADJ
■._ WES
1 .I 141C ..,.,
BOWMAN - o
• • b,
I / . o
J ✓ t.
,
' 22.56 ACRES • 1
z •
C .
.Z.' IP ),„.0 etc, .
_
n .".;.'.:',..;/-
lIILLL
p
--7..---c E= � G ;::♦ •' fry
N
� r—ss-gr m
H
•
.
J r NI -
11 . N c 26.26 ACRES,
r-
3 t
L5= 26 2BARES`•
•
GI
I • -:
.1 IOOSAC^ -:,
ai*
18 ' _ =a '-
s s
E' jf �
:3 #
I gg a
p . R r „F I
Z f j ) *
r:
s: sp33 -7 gS l'-a": o F �.0
$ .'•a35[ IA . oi' 3
— L�I;'a:a1i.:1:.,pi
1 ��, 11i Ii
.. ... n. .-.. J / 'GI 1 ,
_.*,.„�r .. > I.j'ji ..1•I•1 is
1 1 1 I � 1
1..�1 212131313 U t O (� 1.NIvgtf-t"i2 •
�'VI.�''of • u ° i d_ I 1
ar�io°sh'�;z1 ie,^,^i^' -e e 53 T
Jn vt HI212 i1= I nInl:i R _ 4 9 +
hf.p.1.1.la � � f! 1. 1
,:sIonln:.�iwn.Z -
aj`
.. 1
,1 • . ' NT) z
IaIRR aea:
i` 7'. f t ,': :...; •, . 1 • • . ii:14.4,. ::,,., . .00)3: „ •°,2.'
. 1 . '..: to• — -,:._....... ... 4 ."../'," :il 4...]'•...'.-• . '. ''''' a a * ii iz
* :al*.•41. . f::::, ,„ ...7. Ida _ -0 ,
.. `'il.'-.....R11 [2-I `.rr t: .',.. • 'T.' -t W !ay I �(�
ink' g d r e 5 6 6 e Q
1Z. 1.-.;•.•. ,,s5....s . • .. .r,2i
1 to
I
o. z;¢ I
g l s "\ O
4$ n a
v s .A 0 cu 4-1
$ ii' + ' '- o o
s T 1 ,~ 4v
zi «: I _ � •1 3
1 o 3 O
L. _:_. 4 IO 'CS
=• .
a ... - .m so- • •'•I 0
0 O 4 Q --- /.MI---- .sW'Ol G �0.Lr- N `' 4-.1
H
1 . (srt t ids) avvb s073&1210ol9 C.)
aa 2 N of
0 CK;
4
I h W r -°J 2
• • 0
O