HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-03-1993 - III-C 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 3, 1993
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION IV-B-3-d-1 - Private Road Justification Criteria
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis
Extension 2583
Proposed Amendment
2/22/93 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
(Draft) Hillsborough - 732-8181
3/15/93 Planning Board Minutes Durham - 688-7331
(Draft) Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider 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
subdivided is already developed. It was proposed at the
public hearing that private roads be allowed where the
property is already developed to at least 90% of its
capacity, and the subdivision
non-conforming aspect of the E
multiple residences on a sing]
amendment eliminates the outrj
further subdivision of lots c/
access.
The proposed amendment was pre
February 22 , 1993 . There were
public. There were comments z
Gordon regarding the provisior
use of private roads on proper
developed to 90% of its capac:
of Staff that the concerns ra:
subdivision of undeveloped lot
In some cases, the creation ol
a requirement to upgrade the i
subdivision may be prohibitive
is long. This issue is in adc
the proposed amendment, and wz
of Public Hearing. Staff rec(
by Commissioner Gordon be rev:
further amendments be develop(
amendment.
The Planning Staff proposes ti
to road length to be expanded
minimum average lot size crit(
and to a limit of one (1) sub(
development. This change is
Proposed Amendment.
The Planning Board considered
March 15, 1993 and recommender
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends
amendment, with the following
1. Expansion and clarification
criteria related to road le
average lot size criteria o
to a limit of one (1) subdi
development, as recommend(
the Planning Board; and
2. Revision of the criteria
which the tract is alread
property which completely
than 90% built out. Thi
recommended for purposes
3 . Clarification that in jus
the lot being subdivided
subdivision, the term "pr
subdivisions approved aft
which private road standa
Orange County.
3
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
4
than pavement. Private roads are maintained by the homeowners
wh' ch use the road, rather than by the NC Department of
Transportation .
-,c-
Private roads are considerably :ess expensive to construct. As a
ru:e of thumb, ft costs about S50 per linear foot to construct a
tv =ion road to p'-' ' - standards , a
.--,: and S15 per linear for
construct4cn to private standards . The cost for half-width of
construction for a 130 length cf road (the minimum lot with
re-u' re,4 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 S2275 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 S5000 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.
ractors which can influence long-term maintenance costs include
the overall length and amount of use, the auality of initial
construction, and condition of the underlying soil at the time of
construction. Also imnortant is the steepness of the road. The
rate of deterioration, and the cost and di 'Ficulty 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 C.7DOT 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 yea,-, 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 $ 4 , 000 per mile. In the
5
------7=-- -interiar'-small- amounts of gravel may be placed as needed to
control potholes.
: acts of Traffic
Tonc-tern maintenance of private roads is the responsibility of
the individual homeowners. Maintenance is assured through
private agreements , which property owners along the road are
aenerally subject to. These agreements are enforced by the
property owners themselves , rather than by local government. If
one or more parties to the acreement 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.
Balancinc Costs and Tnnac+'s
•
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
private roads are, in very general terms, allowed only
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.
6
Thisis to be _ erpected, since the cost of road ilaprovements tends
to be the single most costly item for developments in Orance
County . klso to be expected is a continuation of requests for
orHvate roads in situations where tney are not adequately
7usti'ied, regardless of any chances to the 'Iustification
a which may be approved .
Nonetheless , recognition of cost and other issues which have
ar' sen in recent months prompts a rev' = "" n7 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 lac): of any known problems with
the maintenance or negative impacts of private roads in such
subd' visions , 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
cm the basis of affordability of lots , as is sometimes sugoested.
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 .
Cf the 100 minor subdivisions approved in 1992 , 91 were
submitted by "citizen" subdividers as opposed to "developers" .
Some of these subdivisions included larce 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
ti •.pproval of all of the lot owners within the original
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 , it 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.
7
exaxples of sinor subdivisions which illustrate some
of the situations encountered in implementing the existing
-etulations .
Prr,n^sed Chances
The proposed amendment would eliminate the outright prohibition
acainst further subdivision, but would require that buyers be put
on notice that further subdivisich 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 250 ' in length, may be private, provide that
the average lot size is at least 40 , 000 square feet and the grade
does not exceed % . 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.
• •
• ;
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
sases : buildout of the subdivision would result in little or no
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,
ce.n be built. klthouah one
lot will contain 3 residences , the remaining four will be located
on indvidual 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 anaimproved situation . However , upgrading the
e):isting gravel road to State standards , as currently reguired ,
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 AID PROPOSED ORDIN:kNCE 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 'tcr 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
'7,aintenance.
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
•
a
••an - •• •• • •
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
desicnated as 3rban or Transition on the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan ; or
4 . I-. proposed road is designated as an arterial
or collector on an approved Thoroughfare Pan
for a municipality or in the Oranoe 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 reauired 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
/4>
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 sits is already developed to 100% of the
capacity which could be achieved after
-
*iii4iPiithOM#hgg04 -.40t1M*PAMPPgM§tiAg
ggiftglikg4tqAgk44#00g04W0gW4#4#1:
40V416&44t05.iintliNegti#M4130*4440*Ptg
0•P44§#4#040MPM&OA44#KOtagWPKRR9W;T____
i040100b.W4040414N44$ 4.4441:*4*P4104:
the development will remain conforming..
is
11
exceed
#iibiiV046tragliOt*PtitlOCte4MtOMPirrj*ttaf
• .,•-
ahbthtMt4b4#00rGr0g4lrdMt!aal: g*00 by
V :
iiiiii461iiaCagOil*041#1064Mt4*8-0*r44Wkl
size within the bdivision s at least
404000 -41.1*tmt*
Restrictive covenants which prevent further
condition of approval of a private road.
TWOOMAWAM0804944*RWWWW0411
th
46044ttAtiliakt4g01*45**101*#Mk#114Imt-41.01:40,1W
PtOt00#11t#414;7#4g#MOUM* APPMPPRAPPP#18t#4
i:iiiiiii.440444X0.008#44404.40).*041:4r4404M#q0.4„,
**54*Taa00g4044BqX4Ott* g *PPIii§t4qMPW44410
O100**7:04m**400*Rtifi;#200AN $g* *Nti,P4tga4N.t.,
•
P*Sttgq1V44*:41*PrMOgMt4: 60.0144gg
Where a parcel being subdivided was created by a
iiiiitaiRIA*4111148.4156041114dikagglii611:14:#42
##gong#ompixAm4i944gkog0441W04aggavouggggw
aggow*0
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/her 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
12
notice of the probability that future development
dependent on the private roads for access will
require upgrading of the roads to a higher private
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:
rebruary 22 , 1 002
• Public wear inc "minutes
1 ?
1 also like to be fully informed as to the suggestions and comments of the Board
2 of Commissioners before beginning the process again.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Fillhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon,
5 to schedule a Board of Commissioner Work Session and invite the Planning Board,
6 and the Economic Development Commission to participate.
7 VOTE: U'NANIMOU'S
8
9 5. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments
10 a. Section IV-B-3-d-1 - Private Road Justification Criteria
11 This item was chaired by Planning Board Vice-Chair Betty Eidenier and
12 presented by Mary Willis. In summary, this amendment to the Subdivision
13 Ordinance Text Amendments was presented to receive citizen comment on an
14 amendment to provide for the approval of private roads in situations which may
15 not have been anticipated when the current standards were developed, but for
16 which private road access is deemed appropriate.
17
18 Commissioner Gordon questioned if the criteria which requires that the
19 subdivision be at least 90% developed and therefore little or no change to the
20 existing use of the property would occur. Ms. Willis indicated that they had
21 begun with a criteria of 75% developed but determined that in an extremely large
22 development problems could arise.
23
24 Commissioner Gordon suggested "stepping" this percentages in some way. She
26 s ad
1
27 This needs to be corrected.
28 seconded by Commissioner Insko, to
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit,
30 refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of
31 Commissioners no sooner than April 20th.
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33 was adjourned. The
34 There being no further items to consider the meeting
35 next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on March 8, 1992
36 in Bingham Township at the White Cross School at 7: 30 p.m.
37
38 8 Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
39
40 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
•
•
•
Planning Board 3/ 15/93 Minutes 14
The Preliminary Plat shows a recreation/open
space dedication 42% larger than the minimum
required.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Whitfield' s Glen Subdivision
11 with conditions contained in the Resolution of
Approval . (A copy of this resolution is an
attachment to these minutes on pages . )
MOTION: Scott moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff . Seconded by Burklin.
Eidenier asked why the Recreation and Parks
Department wanted a greenway strip on the north
side of Whitfield Road. Cameron responded that
it would be a biking/pedestrian trail that is
also a part of the New Hope Corridor Master Plan.
She noted that it is very important that is the
only connection across 1-40 in Chapel Hill.
Hoecke asked if there is a provision for
continuation of that greenway. Cameron responded
(seeEMILY)
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #9 : MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (2/22/93)
a. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment
( 1 ) Private Road Justification Criteria
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This agenda item is to consider 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.
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 4 private road is justified
according to these criteria lies with the
subdivider.
The adequacy of the existing private road
15
justification criteria has been questioned in
V 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 because the current
private road justification 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 in the proposed
amendment. The first relates to the length of
the road. It is proposed that any road less than
350 ' in length, may be private, provided 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 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 .
The proposed amendment was presented at public
hearing on February 22 , 1993 . There were no
comments from the public. There were comments
and questions by Commissioner Gordon regarding
the provision which would allow continued use of
private roads on property which was already
• developed to 90% of its capacity. It is the
understanding of Staff that the concerns raised
related to the subdivision of undeveloped lots on
existing private roads. In some cases, the
creation of a single lot will result in a
requirement to upgrade the road. The cost of the
• subdivision may be prohibitive, particularly if
the road is long. This issue . is in addition to
those addressed in the proposed amendment, and
was not included in the Notice of Public Hearing.
Staff recommends that the issue raised by
Commissioner Gordon concerning the creation of
lots along an existing private road be reviewed
by Staff and any further amendments be re-
advertised for public hearing in May.
The Planning Staff proposes that the new criteria
related to road length to be expanded and
clarified to include an average lot size criteria
16
of 40, 000 square feet, and to a limit of one ( I ,
subdivision road within the development. This
change is included in the proposed amendment
(a copy of which is an attachment to these
E] 17 5? minutes on page ) .
1.1 Willis noted that there were no citizen comments
or Planning Board comments at the public hearing.
Willis noted one change being proposed to the
item as it was presented at public hearing which
is more for clarification purposes. Item W7
under design features was changed to read:
There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its
length does not exceed 350 ' , its grade does not
exceed 9%, and the land being subdivided is not
connected to or part of another subdivision
required to be served by public roads. In
addition, the average lot size within the
subdivision would not be less than 40, 000 sq. ft.
With that clarification, the Planning Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
Eidenier noted that a Commissioner had asked
her after the February Public Hearing why the
Planning Staff continued to present amendments
regarding private roads; why could there not be
some simple criteria by which private roads could
be determined. Willis responded that as long as
road construction is so costly, the issue will
continue to come up unless private roads are
allowed in just about any situation. She noted
that when lots are more than twice the minimum
lot size, that gives another avenue where private
roads can be approved. By adding this criteria,
she felt that a lot of the situations that the
Board of Commissioners had seen recently would be
addressed. She noted that no matter what
criteria is chosen, the issue of private roads
will come up again.
_
EAmilton noted that another problem with private
roads is maintenance and citizens sometimes
complain to Commissioners about this . Even with
a Road Maintenance Agreement, enforcement
sometimes becomes a problem. Potential problems
are greater with longer roads.
MOTION: Burklin moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ME MCp,ANDUM
Irl' Mary Vi1111S J '—cz- t-s"�V.1 ( oz.
from: Alice Crdon ;}U-
Subject: Private Road►JustificetionCriteria • 1-tk�Sir C6 c-E-ri,`44' CA.,- 41)KEScGD,
hate. March 29, 1993
Thank you for sharing the mete iels concerning the private road sterxdards. 1 have now
looked them over and can offer the fullowm comments end sug Irons i eiso apprec+et.eci your
telephone call on the subjmt.
AO NDA ABSTRACT - peoe 2.second oraar eoh lest santernce,'
I would appreciate it if the abstract would reflect the staff intent to address my
concerns at the May public hearing, es stated on pixE E of the Planning Bnerrfc 311S/9.3
MinUtw:
"Staff recommends that the issue raised by Commissioner Oa,^don corning the
creation of latz eking en roc doting privutc rood be reviewed by eleff and any further amendments
be re-advertised Icr public he rig i r May."
The ouestion that I raised at the hearing is a narrower than you suwest,share it is
limited to smell subdivisions, as are the proposed amendments. Because of this limited scope I
believe the issue 1 raisol could and should be addressed in May. To summarize, my question is
whether any further subdivision can take place in the following situation:
Existing subdivision created before the current private road standards of 1988
Only one road in the subdivisionn
Access say ving the subdivision is classified as a Class B or Class C rid arcing to the
Orange County Private Road Standards.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS - paves 10 and 1 1
(a) I would suggest that section 7 on pacn 10 be changed by adding (underlined) text es
fol lows.
7. There is only one subdivision road proposed and it is classified as either a Class F or
Class C rod etzordi nu to the 0ranrn County Private Road Standards. 1 is length dcm not exceed...
1 his change would actress the questions I discussed in our telephone conversation about the
number of lots and/or type of road. (I picked up the warding from the partial width right of way
section of the subdivision regulations.)
(b) On page 1 1 , the third ctmnged paragraph (beginning "Where s pa ci being
subdivided ") raises questions about when one starts counting the creation of subdivisions. It
appears one needs some starting point, such as a date, in this paragraph to make that clear.
(c)On page 1 1 , in the last paragraph, fourth line, the second sentence should be
changed to make it gender neutral:
"Satisfactory proof will be required by the County Manager or his/her agents."
NOTE: At some point the Subdivision Regulations should be chid so that the tot is gender r e6.t r,t
e ( fl t
yeti (h!s "-f7 ch. r .L�6�� ?
4 4 r c�S ►.... w h � .5 ¢. � 6� I 7� lL�cs�'`�� W e►t
bo. ar�x� cc>,
TOTAL P.02
rmuPi ul_miJuk ILJ
MEMORANDUM
To: 60CC
From: Alice Gordon PkV
Subject: Private Road Justification Criteria
Date: May 2, 1993
There are some thoughts about agenda item III-C for May 3 that
I would like to share with you. The proposed subdivision amendments make
three changes.
A. The following two changes are straightforward and should be approved,
in my opinion:
(1) allow private roads In subdivisions that are 100% built out and
in which the existing development would be made less non-conforming.
This change is accomplished by adding section 6 on page 10 of your packet.
(2) eliminate the prohibition of further subdivision (unless all
owners concur). This change is accomplished by deleting a sentence on
page 11 of your packet.
B. The third change is more problematic because, as I understand it, the
amendment will lead to the inequity explained below_
If section 7 on page 11 of your packet is adopted, subdivisions with
private roads 350 feet long or less (and meeting certain other criteria) can
be approved. According to text and diagram on page 7 of the packet, that
could allow a subdivision of up to 7 lots to be created.
The inequity will occur because owners of lots on private roads
(longer than 350 feet) in existing subdivisions will still not be allowed to
subdivide using a private road unless they can meet one of the criteria
listed on pages 9, 10, 11 of your packet. The Inequity can be illustrated
using the following drawing which is similar to the one on page 7 but
assumes that most of the lots are 1-1/2 acres, with one lot of 3 acres. In a
one-acre zoning district, the 3 acre -Lot X" in this existing subdivision
cannot be subdivided into two lots as a matter of right.
' •
• P
I riv r ti-y rd1/424-1.-.
IMF t4''f-i•---4SiT) 1
t )11.-{ lit 4' A
• 1141117 SN44., c4iViVi DP.
3s o ee4 ( -Lt44#.7c
4„:14,r,xv 4
• _ 4
Private Road Justification Criteria Page 2
There are two solutions which I can propose to address this inequity.
Solution A
1. Add to section 7 on page lithe stipulation that "the number of lots in
the subdivision does not exceed four." AND
2. Stipulate that a public hearing will be held in May or August to address
the question of the subdivision of undeveloped lots on existing private
roads. I would suggest that this question be limited to cases where the
impact is small, as for example existing subdivisions with Class C ( 3 or
fewer lots) or Class 13 private roads (4 to 9 lots).
Rationale: This solution will not eliminate the inequity but it will
decrease its magnitude.
Solution B
1. Delay the approval of section 7 on pages 10 and 11 AND
2. Hold a public hearing in May or August to consider section 7 along with
the question of the subdivision of undeveloped lots on existing private
roads.
Rationale: This solution is cleaner in that all changes allowing private
roads when the impact is small will be considered at the same time.
Copy: County Manager
Planning Department - Mary Willis
TOTAL P.03