HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 041614 AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
April 16, 2014
7:00 p.m.
You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them.
Conference Room 004 (Lower Floor) Orange County West Campus
131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
7:00 1. Call to Order and Roll Call
7:05
7:08
7:10
7:45
8:25
2.
3.
4.
5.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from February 19, 2014
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
Regular Agenda
a. Board discussion with NCDOT to include the following topics:
i. Issues with some bike and pedestrian projects within the county (e.g., the quality of
the two-foot widening on Dairyland, prioritizing the widening of Old NC 86 at
Calvander, and the destruction of road surfaces during the gas line construction on
Mt. Sinai and other connecting roads, and opportunities for improved coordination
with, or oversight of state contractors during project construction).
ii. The status of any state discussions/projects related to the feasibility of using existing
triangle region railway infrastructure for commuter rail purposes as part of a multi-
modal transportation system.
iii. Issues related to private street conversions for acceptance into the state maintained
system.
iv. Available resources for minor improvements at problem sites/intersections within the
county.
v. Pedestrian safety concerns on (new) Hwy 86/I-40 bridge overpass.
vi. Others topics as raised by the Board.
OUTBoard Action:Receive information and participate in discussion.
b. Review of selected private road and access standards from the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO)Section 7.8 Access and Roadways
OUTBoard Action:Review selected standards and recommend to the BOCC that
Planning staff review/revise and develop amendments.
Staff Update
a. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan
OUTBoard Action: Receive update
1
8:30
8:55
9:00
6.
7.
8.
Board Comments
a. Chair initiated comment session regarding Board members’ thoughts on the following
potential topics:
i. Critical transportation issues for Orange County, now and into the future.
ii. The role of the OUTBoard in examining the difficulties in transportation planning
brought about by the programmatic fragmentation of current transportation
planning and funding.
iii. Improved OUTBoard engagement of Orange County residents’ transportation
concerns.
iv. Improving OUTBoard advisory service to the Board of County Commissioners.
v. Agenda development.
vi. The role of each member of the Board.
vii. Meeting format, including presentations and member participation.
OUTBoard Action:Receive comments and participate in discussion.
Upcoming Agenda Items of Interest on Other Regional Transportation Related
Board Agendas
OUTBoard Action: Receive information
Adjournment – The OUTBoard’s next meeting will be May 21, 2014
2
D R A F T
MINUTES1
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD2
FEBRUARY 19,20143
4
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township;Alex Castro, Bingham Township; Donald Wollum, Eno 5
Township;Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Gary 6
Saunders, CFE Representative;Andrea Rohrbacher, Planning Board Representative;Brantley Wells, Hillsborough7
TownshipRepresentative; 8
9
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pedestrian Access& Safety Advocate - Vacant;Cheeks Township - Vacant;Economic 10
Development Advocate - Vacant11
12
13
STAFF PRESENT:Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land UsePlanner;Bret Martin, Transportation Planner;Tina 14
Love, Administrative Assistant II15
16
17
OTHERS PRESENT:Lance Hendrix, Mobility Manager, Orange County Departmenton Aging18
19
20
AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL21
22
23
AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 18,201324
25
Jeff Charles: I had a couple of minor grammatical word changes that I have given to Tina. They did not change the 26
meaning in any way.27
28
Paul Guthrie: On line 183, there is an “and includes curb cuts that were never put back in place”. I don’t remember 29
saying that.30
31
Tina Love:I will go back and check that.32
33
TheDecember 18, 2013OUTBoard Minutes were approvedwith correctionsby consensus.34
35
36
AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA37
38
Jeff Charles: I would like to give an update on the Chapel Hill Committees that advise the Town Council; they are 39
creating a much larger transportation board.40
41
Abigaile Pittman: Can we put that in the section of the upcoming agenda items on other regional transit?42
43
Jeff Charles: That will be fine.44
45
46
AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA47
Draft OPT System Goals Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program Recommendations48
OUTBoard Action:To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners 49
(BOCC) on the DraftOPT System Goals Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program 50
Recommendations51
52
Abigaile Pittman reviewed the background.53
54
3
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
Paul Guthrie: Could we put a footnote on those maps? I think it is important in the long run for your equitable 55
argument and that it is known that itexcludes areas inparts of the southwest and southeast county that are not being 56
addressed by Chapel Hill.57
58
Abigaile Pittman: When you have limited fundsyou have to choose which area you will start with.59
60
Paul Guthrie: Let’s not forget that those areas in the southwest and southeast are amajor county concernbut not 61
necessarily under the jurisdiction.62
63
Jeff Charles: How much moneyare they projecting to come in?Aren’t they spending $30 million dollars to do the 64
initial research for the light rail system and Orange County’s share of that is $5 to $8 million dollars?I want to 65
understand the cash flow over that period of time and how much is available for buses.66
67
Abigaile Pittman: We were going to work on the goals and then get into the program details. Continued 68
presentation.69
70
Sam Lasris: In myexperience with destinations and services that lots of people are taking public transit are using it 71
to get to other transportation systems.72
73
Jeff Charles: Have they considered the new development that issupposedly going to overwhelm Pittsboro? Allof 74
those people will come through Orange County. They are talking 60,000 people, whichis equivalentto what we have 75
in the county.76
77
Paul Guthrie: I think the short answer is that it is so far on the horizon it hasn’t really been calculated in. 78
79
Bret Martin: Continued presentation.80
81
DonWollum: Is there a mile limit?82
83
Bret Martin: Not with this. This is rural general public demand response service.There will be buses for 12 to 18 84
passengers. 85
86
Sam Lasris: The destinations are fixed. Where is there a pick-up to get to the RDU airport?87
88
Bret Martin: One of the connections is the US 70 mid-day route that will continue on to Durham. There will be other 89
routes that connect to where this is going.90
91
Amy Cole: Is there a route where theycan connect toa TTAroute?Why do you never include a stop on Eubanks 92
Road where people can connect toa TTAroute? 93
94
Bret Martin: Eubanks Road is served by Chapel Hill Transit.95
96
Amy Cole: My point is that people could connect tothe TTA.97
98
Paul Guthrie: Is there a way to build more on the interlinkedplaces to feed that abundance of transit that you 99
showed on the Chapel Hill-Carrboroplanning area?100
101
Bret Martin: If people are using transit on Eubanks Road, theirultimate destination is not going to beEubanks Road.102
103
Gary Saunders: The TTA at Eubanks Road is limited to the CRX and that runs in themorning and afternoon,so 104
there is no mid-dayservice on Eubanks Road.105
106
Bret Martin: We are going to a lot of the same destinations but they are not servingthe same origins. (Continued 107
presentation).108
109
4
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
LanceHendrix: Are these fixed stops or a door-to-doorservice?110
111
Bret Martin: The concept is for it to be curb-to-curb. My recommendation will be curb-to-curb.112
113
Alex Castro: These figures are just operatingcost?114
115
Bret Martin: Yes. Capital is not factored into this budget because Triangle Transit is handling it differently. I have 116
been working through the MPO, TARPO and NCDOT to get the necessary capitalto make this happen.117
118
Jeff Charles: What percentageof the sales tax that is being collected annually in 2015 is going to this bus service for 119
Orange County versus our share of the $6 million dollars for the studies necessary for light rail?120
121
Bret Martin: Of the amount being made available OPT is getting 12%. How much of thatis the total that is coming 122
in? I don’t have the budget, but I would estimate 15%.123
124
Paul Guthrie: You can get a good idea onthe first chart by the number of transit miles. I would suggest you send 125
that information via email.126
127
Jeff Charles: I am going back to the population chart without the students;there are more people in Orange County128
than Chapel Hill.129
130
Bret Martin: Part of the revenue is not even sales tax but vehicle registration fees. There is more vehicle registration 131
in unincorporatedOrange County thanthere is in Chapel Hill. 132
133
Ted Triebel: Does the fare-free idea come from the top down?134
135
Jeff Charles: They are paying for it with the half-centsales tax.136
137
Bret Martin: Also, the scale of service being provided costs more to managethan it is worth to collect fares. It also 138
slows down service. The BOCC has leaned in that directionbecause we are serving transit-dependentpopulations, 139
whichare typically lower income householdwithout vehicles.140
141
Jeff Charles: Are theexpansions limited by the amount of access the county has to the percentage of the half-cent142
sales tax? Would yoube adding more if you were given more money?143
144
Bret Martin: On Attachment4, in the far right column a certain amount of money availableis noted. In time, more 145
money will be made available.146
147
Jeff Charles: Because you are collecting more revenue,or the percentage of the revenue that is going to buses is 148
increasing? 149
150
Bret Martin: The latter.151
152
Jeff Charles: So we have to pay the $6 million dollar share on the chance that we get federal funding and if we don’t153
becausethe density is not there to support a light rail system, that $30 million dollars goes down the drain.154
155
Paul Guthrie: One of the problems with your analysis is that all transit at some in time needs advanced planning. 156
Under the analysis you just gave, you would not do that until you have the money in your hand ready to build the 157
whole system. Your point is well taken with regard to whether it isan appropriate sharingof funds, but I don’t think it 158
is a good idea to say we will never sharefunds if we have to front-end the cost.159
160
Jeff Charles: I am not saying that. 161
162
Alex Castro: I agree with Jeff. The money has to be expendedin order to get to the approval stage but if you look at 163
what has happened to Raleigh and Washington, the likelihood of the LRT, which has failed in the past,is a lot less 164
5
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
than it was when it previously failed. The state has changed their prioritizationofprojects for transportation money 165
with Strategic Transportation investments. It is a new strategic approach gearedto economic development, not what 166
the LRT would do. State money is not likely. If Federalmoney is also not likely, the projectisprobably a no-go. If 167
they are both not likely, which I think is going to be the case, thenit is definitely a no-go. We are going to throw this 168
money out and my perspective,coming from the senior population;we will not see a single rider until the whole 169
system is built out. 170
171
Bret Martin: There is a whole lot of upfront cost that goes into project development and planning beforeyou even 172
know if the project is going to get funded,so if it doesn’t get funded that was a waste and that is true.173
174
Jeff Charles: I want to see alight rail here eventually but I am wondering whether the timetable that has been 175
established,that front loads the $30million, if that could be made20 or 30 percent longer to free up additional funds 176
for what we really need now, which is this stuff (bus routes).177
178
Bret Martin: I am working with what I have got.179
180
Abigaile Pittman: We are a tied to this implementation agreement that was agreed to by all the parties. We have to 181
implement what is under the agreement. 182
183
Jeff Charles: We are being asked to approve a resolution.Does the plan you presented provide an equitable use of 184
the half-centsales tax mentioned two paragraphs above? And the seven-dollarregistration tax?185
186
Bret Martin: The OC BRIPis the financial plan per the law.187
188
Alex Castro: Is itstipulated that it has to be distributed according to the formula and TTA cannot apply them for 189
something else? 190
191
Jeff Charles: Theyhave already planned to fund the $6 million dollars over x number of years. One hundred percent 192
of excess funds accumulated should be passed through to the county for the bus system or other uses.193
194
Bret Martin: The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan is the overarchingpolicy guide for all this and this bus 195
expansion program is specific to OPT implementationdetails. It is true that the assumption was changed that the 196
revenue projectionswouldnot grow by 3.6% per year. It was revised upward to 4.4% per year, whichcreates 197
additional revenue beyond what was originally projected. That difference creates a total of $60 million extrafunds.198
On the other side the expenditures have changed. The plan originally called for the capital purchases of buses, 199
amenities, park and rides, etc. and for thereto be an 80% federal share and 10% state share. That was a dangerous 200
assumption. That figure has been revised to 30% federal and 5% state. The idea is that the additional revenue 201
would be soaked up by the fact that more local expenditures would be used to pay for the capital purchases. I 202
calculated the capital purchases will only cost (with the 30% federal 5% state shares) about $18 million dollars. 203
There is $42 million dollars unaccounted for by TTA. We need to know where the rest of the money will be spent.204
205
Jeff Charles: Don’t we need that information to talk about this resolution.206
207
Abigail Pittman: This is the initialyears with the initialmoney.208
209
Paul Guthrie: Why do you need this resolution now?210
211
Bret Martin: The BOCC will see this in March and will be asked to approve the program in April or early Mayand 212
they would like a recommendation.213
214
Paul Guthrie: I have many of the same questions about the resolution. On one hand, I think we could come to 215
agreement on the conceptof these routes. Whether that is an equitable distribution of the proceeds to TTA or not, I 216
am not sure we have enough information to know that and yet this resolution basically slams the door on that 217
discussion.218
219
6
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
Bret Martin: You are reading that in a recitalof the resolution?220
221
Abigaile Pittman: You need to read the rest of that sentence and the use of the word equitable as appliedto transit 222
dependent populations,not in the sense of the TTA funding and sales tax.223
224
Jeff Charles: I still think the outstanding issue is what percentage of that funding is going to OrangeCounty versus225
Chapel Hill. I am uncomfortable. Bret;I think you have done a wonderful job with the amount of the funding you 226
have been given. As an advisory committee we have to be careful what we are recommending. I am not 227
comfortable with this resolution at allas written.228
229
Bret Martin: My intent for being here is to get a recommendation on the program.230
231
Paul Guthrie: What would be the ability to put a simple resolution together that says something about this program 232
you have just described telling the BOCC what we think about it. It is a good thing we can support. And then put a 233
paragraph about the other issues that have come up that need further study and examination and then come back to 234
whatyou think is absolutelynecessaryto move this forward.235
236
Alex Castro: The point I am concerned about is the changed parameters.You told us the assumptions that were 237
made about Federal and State fundingpercentages have changed. I suggest to the Boardwe see if we have any 238
problems with what we have been briefed on and say we agree with this part but we feel that we need to point out the 239
changes and our concerns. 240
241
Bret Martin: This resolution is only working within what resources are being made available through OPT. This 242
resolution is not changing anythingat a policy level,at the OC BRIPlevel,as to what will happen with the money.243
244
Alex Castro: I think it is important that we show concerns about changes in the parameters on the Federal and State 245
level and to point out the parameters outlined in these new directions that come from Washingtonand Raleigh and 246
thatthe fundingthat comes from them will be allocated differently,and to point out to the BOCC that this needs to be 247
reviewed.248
249
Bret Martin: The BOCC is getting this because they are a party to the implementation plan. 250
251
Jeff Charles: We represent the community. The reason we are part of an advisory committee is because they want 252
to hear from their constituents and this is a focus group of that and we need to get that opinion across to them if the 253
majority feels that way.254
255
Paul Guthrie: What do you need from us tonight?256
257
Abigaile Pittman: I’d like to get adecisionfrom the Boardon the goals first and then you could vote on 258
recommended bus expansion program, either by considering each individualroute or by considering the whole 259
package. You don’t have to do anything with the resolution.260
261
Sam Lasris: We can resolve to support the goals but be skepticalof the funding. 262
263
AlexCastro: I would put it in the context that, whereas the federal government has implemented Map 21 and the 264
State of North Carolina has implemented Strategic Mobility Formula plan,and indicate the changes from the prior 265
assumed funding percentages, that thishas great implementations forthe county. We have concerns that what is 266
proposed will not get the allocations from the State or Federal government that were anticipated.267
268
Paul Guthrie: I am going to have to leaveso I am asking Jeff (Charles) to begin chairing. My suggestion is that we 269
don’t’ deal with the resolution as a whole but look at the goals and then get a strategy how we can get some of these 270
other issues to the front and center.271
272
Abigaile Pittman: I would like the Board to consider the goals first, then the proposed bus routes, and then you can 273
provide statement(s) on your other issues of concern.274
7
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
275
Bret Martin: (Continued presentation). 276
277
Alex Castro: The Advisory Board onAging has provided recommendations on bus serviceexpansion routes in a 278
written letter to the BOCC. 279
280
Bret Martin: (Continued presentation).281
282
Abigaile Pittman: I need to know if you support these goals and address the order because the order reflects priority.283
284
Amy Cole: I am in support of all the goals because they have come directly from the evidence ofthe surveys,285
indicatingwhat we are in need of. As far the order of the goals, I would like to know percentage-wise which would 286
serve the most people and then orderthese according to the greatest population being served.287
288
Ted Triebel: I am on the same track as Amy. I would suggest we swap number one and two. The number one 289
priority, when you look at page 17, this is where most of the people are being affected. We didn’t mention 290
environmental concerns. This is the greatest volume of people and that is why I would be in favor of Amy’s objective. 291
292
Motion made by Ted Triebel that the OUTBoard supports the four goals with prioritizationbeing goal #2 and then #1,293
then the remainder in the order theyare presented. Sam Lasris seconded.294
Vote: 9:1 (Gary Saunders) (Gary Saunders did not provide a reason for his votein opposition.)295
296
Amy Cole: I am suggesting that we serve the majority of the population that needs to be served first and working our 297
waydownthe list. 298
299
Abigaile Pittman: That comes in the next vote.300
301
Jeff Charles: Attachments 3, 4 and 5.302
303
Abigaile Pittman: Amy’s concern is that Later Senior Routes are being implemented too late.304
305
Amy Cole:I thought it should be higher on the list.306
307
Alex Castro: That service is not scheduled to come on until July,2016 andthe Department on Aging feels that it 308
should be brought into service much sooner.309
310
Abigaile Pittman: We are entering into the county’s budget discussion for the next fiscal year.There might also be a 311
discussion of additional funds to go toward something else but thatis unknown at this time.312
313
Bret Martin: Going through the budget process, the only thing changing is to get rid of $3 co pay for medical 314
appointments and to stop collectingfares on the 420route. 315
316
Jeff Charles: There is not a clear swap. For the first year, it is basically $56,000 so where will you get the funds to 317
swap it out to have it occur in 2016 instead of 2017?318
319
Bret Martin: What would naturally come out would be northern zone routes that could be implemented later. The US 320
70 route could possibly be pushed back because it will be sensitive to when Triangle Transit begins service.321
322
Alex Castro: The 420 route is a midday substitutionby OPT of what TTA runs rush hour morning and evening. TTA 323
charges for that route and are we saying we want OPT to run the same route but because they are doing it midday 324
we are not going tocharge? I don’t see the trade-off.325
326
Bret Martin: TriangleTransit is trying to focus on employment commuters.OPT service is primarily local.327
328
8
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
Jeff Charles: If you are concerned about seniors they are the least likely to be able to pay that feeso I think it would 329
be important to not charge.Could we go with a recommendation to bring it back to Bret and you reorganize it anddo 330
what Amy is suggesting?331
332
Bret Martin: I would move it earlier and keep everything else in the same order and it would be presented to the 333
BOCC as the OUTBoard’srecommendation.334
335
Ted Triebel: In the Attachments 3, 4 and 5, I don’t see any statement that we should be gathering dataon ridership 336
so that there will be a re-examinationof routes that should be made and not just this is the way it is. Shouldn’t there337
be something in there that after a certain period we should rearrange a route or two?That wouldbe a worthwhile 338
comment to make.339
340
Bret Martin: That will be in the program and we have already developed service standards. 341
342
Ted Triebel: I only like thisif at the one year mark, we will take a look at it and make sure we have what we need.343
344
Bret Martin: There will be service standards in the programthat will address that. 345
346
Jeff Charles: Can I get a motion to approve Attachments 3, 4 and 5 with the changes of the senior service getting a 347
higherpriorityand including a footnotecomment that Ted is suggesting?348
349
Motion made by Alex Castro to approve Attachments 3, 4 and 5 with changes that the senior services get higher 350
priority and include a footnote thatthat new bus routes be reviewed annually according to program service standards.351
Seconded by Don.352
Vote:Unanimous353
354
Abigaile Pittman: In March and April the program will be presented to the BOCC with your recommendation and 355
comments. In April and May they will approve some type of bus program for the first five years,and in May and June 356
there is a group looking at making revisions to the OC BRIP because facts have changed with regard to funding and 357
projecttiming. 358
359
Jeff Charles: We need one more motion with respect to the equitable use of funding.360
361
Alex Castro: Our concern is that prior transportation planning and allocation of funding has been adversely impacted 362
by the newly implemented Federal Map 21 program and the State Strategic Mobility Funding Plan,and that the 363
changes in WashingtonDCand Raleigh havechanged priorities and the allocation of funding.364
365
Bret Martin: Nothing changed in WashingtonDC. Triangle Transit changed the percentages because the 366
assumptions they made originally were not correct. 367
368
Alex Castro:There needs to be a correction to the planning allocations of funding made by Triangle Transit which 369
were not correct as to Federal funding, and then there needs to be an assessment of the impact of the new thrust 370
from Raleigh underthe Strategic Mobility Formula plan which has changed the methodology for the prioritization and 371
funding of projects.372
373
Jeff Charles:The OUTBoard is asking for additional information to assist them in understanding the procedure with 374
respect to changes to the OCbRIP (potentially, as Alex discussed), and also how the increased revenue is going to 375
be split. Tell the BOCC that If you want the OUTBoard to be able to continue to comment they need additional 376
information. The OUTBoard has concerns about its understanding of the revenue stream in light of the changing 377
landscape. 378
379
Ted Triebel: The OUTBoard does not have the appropriate data.380
381
Abigaile Pittman: Our BOCC also does not yet have clarity regarding the most current fundingprojections from 382
Triangle Transit. 383
9
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
384
Jeff Charles: Abigaile, could you draft the language for this commentand send it to Paul and Ifor approval? 385
386
Abigaile Pittman: Yes. I can refine what you have said and make sure it reflects what you have discussed. 387
(The comment appears in the Abstract for the April 15, 2014 BOCC meeting.)388
389
Alex Castro: I think we should institute that as a process.390
391
Abigaile Pittman: Due to the late hour, the remainder of the agenda will be deferred to the Board’s March 19th392
meeting. 393
394
395
AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES396
a.Work Group for Outlining Rural and Central Orange Public Transit Needs397
b.Status of State, RPO and MPO Project Prioritization398
c.DCHC MPO, BG MPO, and TARPO activities399
OUTBoard Action: Receive updates400
401
402
AGENDA ITEM VI: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 403
BOARD AGENDAS 404
OUTBoard Action:Receive information405
406
407
AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD COMMENTS408
OUTBoard Action:Receive comments409
410
411
AGENDA ITEM VIII: ADJOURNMENT412
413
The meeting was adjourned by consensus.414
10
ReturntoAgenda
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:April 16, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No.4b
SUBJECT:Review of selected private road and access standards from the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 7.8 Access and Roadways
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)N
ATTACHMENT(S):
1.Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
Goals
2.Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Goals
3.Section7.8 Access and Roadways,
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use
Planner, 245-2567
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 245-2579
Michael Harvey, Current Planning
Supervisor, 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2592
PURPOSE:To review selected private road and access standards from Section 7.8 of the
UDO and recommend to the BOCC that Planning staff review/revise.
BACKGROUND: In its approved 2014 WorkPlan, the following activitywas identified for the
OUTBoard:
Begin examination of UDO Section 7.8 Access and Roadways with respect to the goals
and objectives of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to determine
consistency, and seek BOCC authorization to develop recommendations of applicable
amendments to the UDO to take to the Planning Board.
This Work Plan activity relates to the following adopted goals and objectives:
x BOCC Goal 3, Priority 2: Implement Comprehensive Plan (a) Rewrite zoning and
subdivision regulations (Unified Development Ordinance);
x 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Goal 2, Objective T-2.3:Increase countywide
access for emergency vehicles, including ways to improve response times, both for
existing and newdevelopments; and
x 2030 Comprehensive Plan Services and Community Facilities Goal 7, Objective PS-T-3
Establish and maintain an appropriate level of service for law enforcement and
emergency services and ensure the provision of adequate public safety protection
standards for residential, commercial, and industrial development throughout the County.
11
ReturntoAgenda
Current UDO Regulations
The impetus for this work plan task stems primarily from issues relating to the County’s private
road regulations found in Sections7.8.4 and 7.8.5 of the UDO. Currently the UDO regulates
private roads as follows:
1.The standards and specifications for private roads apply to subdivision in the County
depending on the whether it is a Class A or B road:
TABLE 7.8.5.D BASIC STANDARDSAND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PRIVATE ROADS
CLASS A CLASS B
Max.Number ofLots12235
Right-of-WayWidth50ft.50ft.50ft.50ft.
Travel-WayWidth18ft.NoStandard12ft.12ft.
RoadMaintenance
AgreementRequired YesYesYesYes
Maintenance
Responsibility Property Owners Property
Owners Property Owners Property
Owners
Notes:
a. Class B private roads serve 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units; however,
subdivisions with two lots or dwelling units may be served by a shared driveway.
b. Class A private roads serve 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units.
c. Both Class A and Class B private roads may be graveled.
3. Public (state maintained) roads are required by the County forall subdivisions having 13
or more lots. For reference, NCDOT’s Minimum Construction Standards for Subdivision
Roads may be found at the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/SubdivisionManualJanuary2010.pdf
Issues with the Current Private Road Standards
TheCounty’s tiered approach to regulating private roads was intended to allow an affordable
development option for small subdivisions of no more than 5 lots. However, problems have
been reported by the County’s Emergency Services Department and the Volunteer Fire
Departments regarding the 12-foot travel-way width permitted by the Class B private road.
The narrow width of the Class B road has presented public safety issues because it does not
provide adequate access for emergency services vehicles, and thus impacts response times for
emergency services.
Additionally, long-term maintenance costs of private roads have led to many requests for
NCDOT to accept these roads into the State-maintained system. The construction standards
for NCDOT acceptance are higher than the County’s Class B private road standards, and are
typically prohibitively expensive to overcome. Subdivision roads with a right-of-way dedicated,
recorded, or that has preliminary approval from a county planning board dated after September
30, 1975 will not be added to the State system unless the road is built to the minimum
construction standards of the Division of Highways. The minimum State construction standard
is 18 feet of pavement within a 50-foot right-of-way.
12
ReturntoAgenda
Related Access Issue
North Carolina General Statutes exempt certain types of subdivisions from the County’s
subdivision review process:
1.The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots
if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed
the standards of the County, including private road justification standards, as detailed
within the UDO.
2.The division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres is no street right-of-way dedication
is involved.
3.The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening or opening streets.
4.The division of a tract in single ownership of the entire area of which is no greater than
two acres into not more than three lots, if no street right-of-way dedication is involved and
if the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as detailed within
the UDO.
These exempt subdivisions are still required to meet all applicable requirements for the granting
of zoning and for building permits. However, the UDO does have a requirement that all newly
created lotshave access to a complying road, including those in exempt subdivisions. Because
of the exempt nature of these subdivisions, County staff cannot guarantee viable access for
created lots. Like the situation with Class B private roads, the creation of land-locked properties
presents public safety issues with providing adequate access for emergency services vehicles.
Staff OptionsforRevisionsto the Private Road and Access Standardsof the UDO
To provide an appropriate level of service for emergency services vehicles and ensure the
provision of adequate public safety protection standards for development, staff believes the
following options shouldbe discussed:
1.Do away with the Class B private roads and allow only the Class A private roads, which
requires a minimum 18-foot travel-way.
2.Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road
(either private or public).
To continue to allow a reasonable and affordable development option for small subdivisions,
staff suggests consideration of the following UDO revision:
3.Allow subdivisions with threelots or dwelling units maybe served by a shared driveway,
subject to provision of a minimum driveway width, maximum driveway length, and a
turnaround area that can accommodate emergency services vehicles. (The UDO
currently allows two lots or dwelling units be served by a shared driveway.)
For the OUTBoard’s use in the review of the identified private road and access standards of
Section 7.8, staff has provided Attachment 1the adopted BOCC goals, Attachment 2the
adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Goals, and Attachment 3Section 7.8
Access and Roadways from the UDO.
13
ReturntoAgenda
RECOMMENDATIONS:The Staffrecommends the OUTBoard:
1.Review the selected private road and access standards of the UDO;
2.Review and discuss the described issues and staff optionsfor revisions to the UDO; and
3. Recommend to the BOCC that Planning staff review the private road and access
standards of the UDO and develop amendments supported by the OUTBoard. .
14
ReturntoAgenda
$33529('
25$1*(&2817<%2$5'2)&2817<&200,66,21(56
*2$/6$1'35,25,7,(6
)LVFDO<HDU
*RDO2QH (QVXUHDFRPPXQLW\QHWZRUNRIEDVLFKXPDQVHUYLFHVDQG
LQIUDVWUXFWXUHWKDWPDLQWDLQVSURWHFWVDQGSURPRWHVWKHZHOO
EHLQJRIDOO&RXQW\UHVLGHQWV
3ULRULW\ 5HYLHZVHUYLFHVWRLGHQWLI\DQGSURWHFWµVDIHW\QHW¶SURJUDPV
DQGVHUYLFHV
3ULRULW\ (QFRXUDJHIRUSURILWLQYHVWPHQWVLQDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJDQG
UHYLHZDYDLODEOHWRROV
*RDO7ZR 3URPRWHDQLQWHUDFWLYHDQGWUDQVSDUHQWV\VWHPRIJRYHUQDQFH
WKDWUHIOHFWVFRPPXQLW\YDOXHV
3ULRULW\ 'HYHORSSODQDQGWRROVWRLPSURYHKRZ&RXQW\DQGFLWL]HQV
FRPPXQLFDWHZLWKHDFKRWKHU IRVWHUWZRZD\H[FKDQJH
3ULRULW\ ,PSURYHLQWUDDQGLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOFRRUGLQDWLRQFRRSHUDWLRQ
DQGFROODERUDWLRQ D :RUNZLWK7RZQRI+LOOVERURXJKRQ
-RLQWODQGXVHSODQQLQJDSSURDFKHVSROLFLHVRUGLQDQFHVDQGDQQH[DWLRQ
DQG(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW'LVWULFWV E :RUNZLWK&LW\RI'XUKDPRQ
(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW'LVWULFWV
3ULRULW\ ([DPLQHDGYLVRU\ERDUGVDQGFRPPLVVLRQVWR D (QVXUHWKH\
DUHPHHWLQJWKHLUPLVVLRQV E 'HWHUPLQHKRZERDUGVUHODWHWRHDFKRWKHU
DQGKRZWKHLUZRUNFDQEHVWEHLQWHJUDWHGZLWKWKH%2&& F (QVXUH
VXVWDLQDELOLW\JRDOV G (QVXUHILWZLWKRYHUDOO&RXQW\YLVLRQ DQG H
5HFRJQL]H DQGEHVHQVLWLYHWR FRQVLVWHQFLHVUHSUHVHQWHGE\ERDUGV
FRPPLVVLRQVZKHQIUDPLQJWKLVUHYLHZ
3ULRULW\ &ODULI\DQGFRPPXQLFDWHWRSXEOLFKRZDQGZK\&RXQW\
IXQGLQJLVDOORFDWHGWKHZD\LWLV
*RDO7KUHH ,PSOHPHQWSODQQLQJDQGHFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWSROLFLHV
ZKLFKFUHDWHDEDODQFHGG\QDPLFORFDOHFRQRP\DQGZKLFK
SURPRWHGLYHUVLW\VXVWDLQDEOHJURZWKDQGHQKDQFHGUHYHQXH
ZKLOHHPEUDFLQJFRPPXQLW\YDOXHV
3ULRULW\ ,PSOHPHQW&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ D 5HZULWH]RQLQJDQG
VXEGLYLVLRQUHJXODWLRQV 8QLILHG'HYHORSPHQW2UGLQDQFH
3ULRULW\ 'HYHORSHFRQRPLFSODQVIRUWKUHH GLVWULFWV
15Attachment 1
ReturntoAgenda
3ULRULW\ 8SGDWHHFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWSODQIRU&RXQW\ D &ODULI\
HFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWSODQIRUHDFKGLVWULFW E ,GHQWLI\VSHFWUXPRIWRROV
F ,GHQWLI\RWKHUVWDNHKROGHUV DQG G ,GHQWLI\ZKDWWKH&RXQW\ZDQWVWR
VHHKDSSHQ
3ULRULW\ 'HYHORSDQHQHUJ\SODQWKDWLQFOXGHVHFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQW
VWUDWHJLHVWRDWWUDFWUHWDLQDQGJURZQµJUHHQ¶EXVLQHVV
3ULRULW\ %HDFWLYHO\LQYROYHGDQGLQIRUPHGDERXW81&&+GHFLVLRQV
DQGLQWHQWLRQV
3ULRULW\ 6XSSRUWWUDQVLWSHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVDQGRWKHU
DOWHUQDWLYHVWRWKHVLQJOHSDVVHQJHUDXWRPRELOH
3ULRULW\ $PHQG&RXQW\]RQLQJWRDGGUHVVDQGPRGHUQL]HDLUSRUWDQG
UHODWHGLVVXHV
*RDO)RXU ,QYHVWLQTXDOLW\&RXQW\IDFLOLWLHVDGLYHUVHZRUNIRUFHDQG
WHFKQRORJ\WRDFKLHYHDKLJKSHUIRUPLQJ&RXQW\JRYHUQPHQW
3ULRULW\ ,QYHVWLQWHFKQRORJ\WRLQFUHDVHZRUNHIILFLHQFLHV HJZHE
VWUHDPLQJSDSHUOHVVDJHQGDVLQWHJUDWHGWUDFNLQJV\VWHPVEHWZHHQILHOG
DQGRIILFH
3ULRULW\ 5HYLHZDQGXSGDWH&RXQW\SHUVRQQHODQGRSHUDWLRQDO
SROLFLHVDQGSURFHGXUHV
3ULRULW\ 'HVLJQDQGIXQGVSDFHIRU&RXQW\$WWRUQH\2IILFHV0DQDJHU
DQG%2&&WRGLVFXVVFRQFHSWDQGVWDIILQJ
*RDO)LYH &UHDWHSUHVHUYHDQGSURWHFWDQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWWKDW
LQFOXGHVFOHDQZDWHUFOHDQDLUZLOGOLIHLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDO
ODQGVDQGVXVWDLQDEOHHQHUJ\IRUSUHVHQWDQGIXWXUH
JHQHUDWLRQV
3ULRULW\ &RQVHUYHKLJKSULRULW\QDWXUDODUHDVZLOGOLIHKDELWDWDQGSULPH
IRUHVWV
3ULRULW\ ,PSOHPHQW&RXQW\¶V(QYLURQPHQWDO5HVSRQVLELOLW\JRDOV
3ULRULW\ &RPSOHWHVWHZDUGVKLSDQGPDQDJHPHQWSODQVIRU/DQGV
/HJDF\
3ULRULW\ 'HYHORSDQDFFRXQWLQJDQGDVVHVVPHQWV\VWHPRIZDWHUDQG
DLUSROOXWLRQ D ,QFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK,&/(, 6HWHPLVVLRQVUHGXFWLRQWDUJHW
16
ReturntoAgenda
IRU &RQGXFWSXEOLFHGXFDWLRQFDPSDLJQ DQG/LQNSXEOLFZLWK
RSSRUWXQLWLHVWRLPSURYHHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\DQGXVHVXVWDLQDEOHHQHUJ\
VRXUFHV E %HJLQPXOWL\HDULPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI2EVHUYDEOH:HOO1HWZRUN
3ULRULW\ 3ODQWRDFTXLUHODQGEDQNIRUIXWXUHSDUNGHYHORSPHQW
3ULRULW\ 'HYHORSDSROLF\XSGDWHFXUUHQWSODQDERXWKRZSDUNVZLOOEH
GHYHORSHGDSSURSULDWHUDWLRRISDUNVWRSRSXODWLRQOHQJWKRIWLPHWR
GHYHORSDQGLQFRUSRUDWLRQRIVXFKLQWRWKH&DSLWDO,QYHVWPHQW3ODQ &,3
*RDO6L[ (QVXUHDKLJKTXDOLW\RIOLIHDQGOLIHORQJOHDUQLQJWKDW
FKDPSLRQVGLYHUVLW\HGXFDWLRQDWDOOOHYHOVOLEUDULHVSDUNV
UHFUHDWLRQDQGDQLPDOZHOIDUH
3ULRULW\ 3ODQWRSURYLGHµHTXLWDEOH¶OLEUDU\VHUYLFHVIRU2UDQJH&RXQW\
UHVLGHQWV
3ULRULW\ )XOILOOUHPDLQGHURIERQGLVVXDQFHDSSURYHGE\YRWHUVLQ
IRUVRFFHUDQG7ZLQ&UHHNV
3ULRULW\ 5HYLHZWKH6FKRROVDQG$GHTXDWH3XEOLF)DFLOLWLHV
2UGLQDQFH D ,VLWGRLQJZKDWLWZDVRULJLQDOO\LQWHQGHGWRGR" E 'RHVLW
KDYHDSSOLFDWLRQIRU'XUKDPDQG0HEDQH"
3ULRULW\ $GGUHVVLQHTXLWLHVEHWZHHQROGDQGQHZVFKRROV2OGHU
VFKRROVDUHLQQHHGRIFDSLWDOLPSURYHPHQWV%XLOGLQJQHZVFKRROVKDV
EHHQWKHIXQGLQJSULRULW\
17
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Principles, Goals and Objectives
Principles Adopted by the BOCC for the Comprehensive Plan Update
There are eight (8) principles, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners
(BOCC) on October 21, 2004, for the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update 2006-
2008. Principle #3 was modified by the BOCC on April 24, 2007, and the revised principle
is given below. These principles are representative of the BOCC values and are as follows
(for clarification, staff has added one word as provided in italics):
1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services
2. Encouraging Sustainable Growth and Development
3. Encouraging Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption and the Use of Non-Polluting
Renewable Energy Resources While Promoting Both Air Quality Protection and the
Development of an Effective Transportation System
4. Natural Area Resource Preservation
5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Patterns
6. Water Resource Preservation
7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity
8. Preservation of Community Character
These eight principles should continue to guide the development of the goals and other
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan Update
18Attachment 2
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Principles, Goals and Objectives
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Goal 1: An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system
that protects the natural environment and community character.
Objective T-1.1:
Increase the occupancy of automobiles through ridesharing and other means; and expand the
use of public transit (including bus and rail), walking, and biking as primary modes of travel.
(See also Economic Development Objective ED-2.3.)
Objective T-1.2:
Facilitate the overall development and use of a transportation system that is more energy-
efficient, reduces carbon emissions, and reduces the use of fossil fuels while promoting the use
of local renewable and sustainable fuels.
Objective T-1.3:
Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or avoids negative
impacts on the natural environment, including air quality, water resources, biological resources,
and wildlife habitat.
Objective T-1.4:
Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or avoids negative
impacts on the community, including historical or cultural assets, existing neighborhoods,
schools and recreational facilities, and the overall rural character in Orange County.
Objective T-1.5:
Identify prime view sheds along major transportation corridors and protect these areas for their
scenic and natural resource values. (See also Parks and Recreation Objective PR-5.4.)
Objective T-1.6:
Expand the availability and use of public transportation (including bus and rail) throughout the
County to provide better connections between employment centers, shopping and service
locations, and other key points of interest in both urban and rural areas, particularly for the
County's senior and disabled populations and others without access to automobiles.
Transportation Goal 2: A multi-modal transportation system that is affordable,
available, and accessible to all users and that promotes public health and safety.
Objective T-2.1:
Increase the provision of bikeways and walkways, and also increase supportive facilities such as
bicycle parking zones.
Objective T-2.2:
Evaluate and serve special transportation needs of the senior population, youth, the
economically disadvantaged and the disabled, including both everyday needs and disaster
transit provision.
Objective T-2.3:
Increase countywide access for emergency vehicles, including ways to improve response times,
both for existing and new developments. (See also Services and Community Facilities
Objectives PST-2 and PST-5.)
19
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Principles, Goals and Objectives
Objective T-2.4:
Improve the provision of public transit facilities and services, and also increase supportive
facilities for transit, such as park and ride lots.
Objective T-2.5:
Improve public education and advertising of existing transit services.
Objective T-2.6:
Increase safety awareness between car drivers and bicycle riders, and increase safety for
pedestrians.
Objective T-2.7:
Construct bicycle facilities in Orange County that will make cycling safer, more convenient, and
more efficient.
Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that
serves existing development, supports future development, and is consistent with the
County’s land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment
and community character.
Objective T-3.1:
Improve the County’s transportation system by first enhancing existing facilities as opposed to
developing new facilities.
Objective T-3.2:
Create and implement an Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan that provides the
framework for a comprehensive and connected transportation system supporting a mix of all
transportation modes, including sidewalks and bicycle facilities, bus and rail transit facilities, and
highways. The plan should be coordinated with the goals and objectives of this Comprehensive
Plan and seek to maintain and enhance community character and the natural environment.
Objective T-3.3:
Determine the policies to guide connectivity within and between residential developments based
on their impact on neighborhood character.
Objective T-3.4:
Direct development to higher density mixed-use districts along transit corridors and make
necessary multi-modal transportation improvements to service lands that are slated for future
intense development, such as Economic Development Districts.
Objective T-3.5:
Use innovative techniques to increase mobility and reduce rush hour congestion.
Transportation Goal 4: A countywide and regionally-integrated, multi-modal
transportation planning process that is comprehensive, creative and effective.
Objective T-4.1:
Work with nearby jurisdictions to integrate the County's transportation plans with those of other
transportation planning agencies and service providers in Orange County and the Triangle
region. The resulting intermodal transportation system should reflect regional goals and
objectives to meet projected travel demand and to reduce congestion and reliance on single
occupancy vehicles.
Objective T-4.2:
20
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Principles, Goals and Objectives
Plan and integrate the County's multi-modal transportation routes and services with regional
transportation agencies and transit service providers, agencies and transit providers in
neighboring counties, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and the North
Carolina Railroad.
Objective T-4.3:
Revive rail transportation in Orange County and the Triangle region.
21
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(2)The proposed easement contains an existing road or driveway which is to be
used for access to new lots; OR the proposed easement if located along a
property line will have an irregular shape; and
(3)The minimum lot area requirement can be met on one side of the road easement
but not both sides.
(G)Those lots with land area divided by a public road right-of-way prior to October 3, 1988
shall not be further subdivided in a manner which creates any additional lots with divided
area.
SECTION 7.8:ACCESS AND ROADWAYS
7.8.1Streets – General Standards
(A)Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
(1)The provision of street rights-of-way shall conform to and meet the requirements
of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
(2)Reservation for or dedication of street rights-of-way for future transportation
facilities proposed in the adopted Comprehensive Planshall be required where
appropriate.
(3)A subdivider shall not be required to provide or dedicate right-of-way for a
proposed street to which access would be prohibited by any governmental
agency.
(B)Compliance with Approved Access Management Plans and Studies
(1)Subdivision of land abutting a roadway for which the Board of County
Commissioners has approved recommendations from a plan or corridor study is
subject to provisions of the approved corridor plan or study.
(a)In such cases, the subdivider shall provide any improvements or other
means to ensure construction recommended in such plan or corridor
study. Such improvements may include facilities for bicycles, sidewalks,
and public transportation.
(b)The subdivider, in cases where the recommendations addressaccess
management, shall use design elements recommended in the plan or
corridor study to reduce conflict points.
(2)Policies prescribed in Phase V of the Access Management Awareness Project
and Report, or other adopted studies of strategies, shall be considered during
subdivision and site plan review to assess access management and other
corridor design considerations.
(C)Coordinated Street System
(1)All subdivisions shall have a coordinated street system with public or private
streets that access a public municipal street or a public State maintained street in
accordance with the following:
(a)Public street rights-of-way shall abut adjacent properties as necessary to
provide connectivity to the countywide transportation network; and
(b)Lot access to streets serving thesubdivision shall be limited in the case
of streets that provide a link between two or more roads designated in
the Comprehensive Planas arterials or collectors.
(c)All subdivisions shall have at least one street that intersects with or joins
a public municipal street, or a public State maintained street.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-12
$WWDFKPHQW22
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
7.8.2Public Streets– Where Required
Public streets are generally required in all subdivisions and shall be required where it is found
that:
(A)The subdivision streets would be accepted by the State for maintenance if:
(1)They are built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State design and
construction criteria for subdivision streets; and
(2)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 street.
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 street would clearly satisfy
the density standard, but the street design was such that the centerline radius did not
meet the minimum standard of 230 feet for level land, a new street design would be
required. Another example is a situation where a landscaped island or entrance median
prevents acceptance of the street for maintenance.
The State’s criteriaand standards are identified in the following publications: Subdivision
Roads - Minimum Construction Standards and Traditional Neighborhood Development
(TND) Guidelines, prepared by and available from the N.C. Department of
Transportation; or
(B)The subdivision streets extend existing streets which are public; or
(C)The subdivision streets are part of a development which is located in an area designated
as Urban or Transition by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or
(D)Aproposed street is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved Thoroughfare
Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or
(E)The subdivision streets 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.
7.8.3Public Streets- Construction Standards
Public dedicated streets must meet the minimum construction standards as adopted by the N.C.
Department of Transportation for acceptance of streets as additions to the State Highway
System.
7.8.4Private Roads– WhenPermitted
(A)A private road shall be deemed justified for a minor residential subdivision resulting in no
more than three lots provided:
(1)No new lots have been created from the parent tract, through subdivision or other
manner exempted from subdivision regulations, since the more recent:
(a)Date of adoption of this provision (September 18, 2001); or
(b)Ten years from the date of recordation of the parent tract if the lot being
subdivided was created using the three-lot private road justification
provision.
The parent tract, for the purpose of this provision, is the lot or tract of land that is
being subdivided.
(2)All resulting lots meet the minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum
density requirements for the zoning district, including any overlay district, in
which the subdivision is located.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-13
23
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(B)A minor residential subdivision of three or fewer lots shall be encouraged to provide a
private access easement for one adjacent lot to access the private road in order to
reduce the number of access points on a public road.
(C)For all other subdivisions the Planning Boardand the Board of County Commissioners (in
the case of major subdivisions) and Planning staff (in the case of minor subdivisions)
shall consider the design features in this subsection (8.8.4) when determining whether to
permit private roads.
(D)There is no right to a private road in any subdivision containing more than three lots.
(E)At a minimum, a private road may be justified if the subdivision meets standards of (1)
below and at least two other design features (2 through 7) listed below.
(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 setbacks significantly greater than
those required by the zoning district in which the proposed subdivision is
located, including any overlay district requirements, in accordance with
the following standards:
(i)Lot Sizes – Conventional Subdivision
a.All lots in the subdivision must be at least 80,000square
feet if the minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit of
the zoning district is 40,000 square feet or less.
b.All lots must be at least 120,000 square feet (2.75 acres)
if the minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit of the
zoning district is 80,000 square feet.
c.All lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (three
acres) if the minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit of
the zoning district is 87,120 square feet (two acres).
d.All lots must be at least five acres for all other cases.
e.Minimum building setbacks for lots located on a private
road shall be twice those required.
(ii)Lot Sizes – Cluster Subdivision or Flexible Development without
Density Bonus
a.In zoning districts having a minimum lot size of 40,000
square feet:
i.All lots must be at least 80,000 square feet in
subdivisions providing 40% or less open space;
ii.All lots must be at least 70,000 square feet in
subdivisions providing 41% - 49% open space;
iii.All lots must be at least 60,000 square feet in
subdivisions providing 50% or greater open
space.
b.In zoning districts having a minimum lot size or area per
dwelling unit of 80,000 square feet or two acres (87,120
square feet):
i.All lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (3
acres) in subdivisions providing 40% or less
open space;
ii.All lots must beat least 90,000 square feet (2.07
acres) in subdivisions providing 41% - 49% open
space;
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-14
24
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
iii.iAll lots must be at least 60,000 square feet
(1.38 acres) in subdivisions providing 50% or
greater open space.
c.Minimum building setbacks for lots located on a private
road shall be twice those required.
(b)The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of
dwelling units to:
(i)Screen the view of the subdivision from public roads,
(ii)Maintain a wooded or forested character,
(iii)Maintain scenic views, or
(iv)Preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or
recreation sites; and/or
(c)The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or
unique cultural, historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of
the immediate area as referenced in:
(i)“An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational,
Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County” or,
(ii)For historic sites, if the site is deemed eligible by the State
Historic Preservation Office for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places.
(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 maintenancedue to density or other State requirements.
(3)At least 50% of the site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive
covenants and contains recreation and/or open space areas of significant
botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites asreferenced in “An
Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological
Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County.”
(4)In subdivisions proposed to be located in a Watershed ProtectionOverlay
District, as designated in Section 4.2 of this Ordinance, stream buffers are
increased by at least 25% above those required by Section 6.13 of this
Ordinance and the impervious surface allowed is decreased by at least 15% to
allow greater infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water
supply reservoirs.
(5)The site contains 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 developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved
after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non-conforming aspects
of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of
the proposed subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will
remain conforming.
(7)There is only one subdivision road proposed and:
(a)Its length does not exceed 350 feet,
(b)It serves no more than five lots,
(c)Its grade does not exceed 9%, and
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-15
25
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(d)The land being subdivided is not connected to, or part of, another
subdivision required to be served by public roads.
(F)The Declaration of Development Restrictions, prepared by the Planning Departmentand
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat, shall include a statement that further
subdivision of any of the lots may require that the road be upgraded to a higher private
road classification, or to public standards, and that the cost of the upgrade will be the
responsibility of the subdivider.
(G)Where a parcel being subdivided was created by a previous subdivision approved after
July 5, 1983, then the previous subdivision as well as the proposed subdivision will be
considered in determining whether a private road is still justified.
(H)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.
(I)Compliance with one or more of the standards in this subsection (8.8.4) does not insure
approval of either a public or private road within a proposed subdivision.
(J)A private road shall be required to meet standards set by Orange County as described in
Section 7.8.5. Satisfactory proof that the standards are met will be required by the
County Manager or his/her appointed agents.
(K)If a subdivision is to contain private roads, the subdivider shall have the County's
Standard Road Maintenance Agreement entitled, "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
AND PROVISIONS FOR PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE" prepared and processed in
accordance with Section 2.14 for minor subdivisions or Section 2.15 for major
subdivisions and shall conform to the requirements of Section 7.14.3(6)(b)(ii).
(L)The land within a private road easement shall be included within the lot boundaries of the
lot or lots which border the easement. The road maintenance agreement shall include a
provision that if the road is dedicated for public use at a later date, then the lot
boundaries will be revised to extend only to the edge of the right-of-way, in accordance
with NCDOT standards.
7.8.5Private RoadStandards
(A)Purpose and Intent
(1)In Orange County, the preference is to serve subdivisions with State-maintained
(NCDOT) public streets or municipal streets. The County recognizes, however,
that private roads may be beneficial in some cases where the developer provides
significantly larger lots, and where a private road graded to a narrower cross-
section saves valuable vistas, trees, or natural resources, and reduces cut-and-
fill and overall land disturbance. Where the developer clearly provides benefits
such as enhancing entrances or streetscapes off an adjoining public road, saving
trees, providing large lots, reducing disturbance, and "fitting" lots better into their
natural surroundings, the Planning Department, Planning Board, and Board of
County Commissioners may permit the use of private roads.
(2)The County is concerned about the logical and safe extension of public roads
throughout the County and notes that private roads cannot be served by school
buses and sometimes not by rescue squads and fire trucks. Private roads are
generally unpaved and property owners who use the road are solely responsible
for maintenance of the road.
(3)The County will approve only private roads where the "benefits" outweigh the
negative aspects.
(4)Private roads shall never be approved simply to save money.
(5)Private roads are a privilege, and not a right, and must be justified by the
particular lot arrangement and benefits provided by each development.
(B) General Requirements
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-16
26
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(1)Private Roads serve lots within subdivisions that do not have access to state-
maintained roads.
(2)Private Roads insure that all lots have documented legal right-of-way and provide
adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles.
(3)Private Roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the
Planning Boardand with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it
is found that the nature and location of the subdivision are such that a private
road is justified.
(a)In determining whether to permit Private Roads in subdivisions, the
design features contained in subsection (F)(5) of this Section shall be
considered.
(b)It is the responsibility of the subdivider to supply a written statement
justifying the reasons for Private Roads in the proposed subdivision.
(4)After approval of and initial construction of the Private Road, maintenance must
be provided by the property owners of lots located along the road. A Road
Maintenance Agreement or Declaration between the lot owners is required to
insure that the needed repairs are made (see subsection (F)(10)(i)).
(5)Since Private Roads are not constructed to North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards, they will not be added to the Secondary Road System
and will not be maintained by the State or Orange County.
(C)Classifications
(1)The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in
Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots
served by the road.
(a)A Class B road serves 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units.
(b)A Class A road serves 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units.
(2)All Private Roads in a major subdivision require the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners.
(3)Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Roadmust be
built and approved, or the applicant must post a security instrument with the
County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road.
(4)Class B Private Roads intended to serve two lots or dwelling units are not
required to be constructedto Orange County Standards or to be inspected before
recordation of the final plat.
(a)Orange County recommends that such Class B roads be built to these
standards in order to provide adequate access, especially for emergency
vehicles which require the clearances and turn areas shown on the
specifications.
(D)Construction Standards for Private Roads
The standards described herein are the minimum set forth by the County. Orange
County has not determined, and is not responsible for determining, that these standards
are adequate or appropriate for all uses by landowners. The standards also may not
meet NCDOT criteria. No road will be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT unless or
until NCDOT standards are met.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-17
27
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
T ABLE 7.8.5.DBASIC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PRIVATE ROADS
CLASS A CLASS B
Max. Number of Lots12235
Right-of-Way Width50 ft.50 ft.50 ft.50 ft.
Travel-Way Width18 ft.No Standard12 ft.12 ft.
Road Maintenance
Agreement Required YesYesYesYes
Maintenance
Responsibility Property Owners Property
Owners Property Owners Property
Owners
(1)Certificate of Construction
(a)A registered land surveyor must certify in writing to the Planning
Departmentthat the travelway of the Private Road, either existing,
upgraded or newly constructed, is within the platted right-of-way.
(b)A professional engineer must certify in writing to the Planning
Departmentthat a PrivateRoad, either existing, upgraded, or newly
constructed, meets the standards of the required class for the
subdivision, provided however, there is no requirement for written
certification by a professional engineer for a private road serving three or
fewer lots.
(c)The following must be inspected and certified:
(i)The proper material has been used in the travelway and it is built
to the required width and thickness;
(ii)The shoulders are the correct width and the typical cross section
is in place;
(iii)The road is on the proper grade;
(iv)Ditches are in place where necessary to provide adequate
drainage, in accordance with sound engineering practice;
(v)Necessary storm pipes of proper size, materials and construction
are in place and energy dissipaters installed, in accordance with
sound engineering practice;
(vi)All disturbed areas are properly stabilized;
(vii)The required road sign is in place;
(viii)An adequate turn-around is in place at the end of the road;
(ix)Required vertical and horizontal clearance is provided; and
(x)Sight distance and construction at the intersection with a public
road has been approved by NCDOT.
(2)Travelway
(a)The travelway must be surfaced and compacted with a material
acceptable to Orange County to the required width of the particular class
of road.
(b)A crown should be built into the travelway so that water will drain from
the road surface into the side ditch.
(c)The crown should not be so great as to cause vehicles to slide off the
travelway when ice or snow is on the road.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-18
28
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(d)Generally the road and shoulder should be crowned as shown in the
drawing below so that runoff will drain to the ditches on both sides of the
road.
Figure 7.8.5.D.2: Crowning of Roadway, NCDOT Typical Shoulder/Cross Section
(e)In some situations it may be desirable not to crown the road but to have
the travelway sloped to a single ditch as shown below. This is applicable
in four situations:
(i)Where it is necessary to cut down on the length of a ditch in
order to reduce the erosion potential by decreasing the volume
of runoff,
(ii)Where it is difficult to construct ditches due to rock,
(iii)To provide for super-elevation, or
(iv)In curves.
(f)The single slope described in (e) should always drain toward the inside
of a curve. The crown slope of the road and shoulder should be
approximately 1/2 to 1 inchper foot.
Figure 7.8.5.D.2.e/f: Crowning of Roadway, NCDOT Typical Shoulder/Cross Section Single Slope
(3)Surface Materials
(a)Acceptable material for surfacing the travelway is Aggregate Base
Course (commonly called "crusher run").
(b)Soil type base materials (commonly called "Chapel Hill Gravel" or
"Chapel Hill Grit") will be accepted under the following conditions:
(i)The material originates from a quarry approved by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation.
(ii)The grade of the road is less than 8%.
(iii)Where the grade is greater than 8% a layer of crusher run stone
will be placed over the Chapel Hill Gravel before compaction.
(iv)Sources of surface material shall be verified with the certifying
professional before placement.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-19
29
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(4)Fill Material
(a)Where filling is necessary to raise the roadbed, cross watercourses or fill
stump holes, it shall be done with suitable material that is free of roots or
other organic matter.
(b)The fill should be firmly compacted to reduce settlement that will cause
ruts or holes in the finished road.
(5)Traffic Flow
(a)Private Roads shall provide for two-way traffic in order to prevent conflict
of vehicles meeting head-on.
(b)Two-way traffic for Class B roads can be accomplished by widening the
travelway at prescribed locations toat least 16 feet to allow vehicles to
pass or to pull over and stop while another vehicle passes.
(c)Plans showing road and right-of-way location, ditches and culverts,
extent of clearing, and existing and finish contour lines shall be approved
by the Erosion Control Officer.
(6)Medians
(a)Medians may be permitted between travel lanes when it is demonstrated
that such design is desirable for the preservation of natural resources, or
that excessive cut and fill would be required to construct a roadway to
the standard width.
(b)Medians may be permitted only in accordance with the following:
(i)Each lane shall contain a minimum of 14 feet of vertical and
horizontal clearance.
(ii)Each lane shall contain a minimum travelway of eight feet, or 1/2
of the required width for the applicable road class, whichever is
greater.
(iii)No lots shall access directly onto any divided portion of the road
unless there is adequate cross-access provided through the
median, or some other acceptable means of access and
turnaround for emergency vehicles.
(iv)Both lanes shall be contained within a single easement.
(v)A standard travelway of required width for the road class shall be
constructed where the private road intersects with another
private or public road.
(vi)Signsindicating "One Way" and/or a split roadway shall be
provided where the lanes diverge.
(7)Grade
(a)The grade of the road should not exceed 12% because of the difficulty of
operating vehicles on such a steep road and the high potential for
erosion of the travelway and ditches.
(b)Where possible, the road should be constructed along the contour of the
land to avoid steep grades.
(c)In exceptional circumstances a variance may be granted for a grade
greater than 12%, as may be approved by the Board of Adjustment prior
to construction (see Section 2.10 for variance procedures).
Circumstances where a variance will be considered are:
(i)There is no other reasonable access or location of the road,
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-20
30
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(ii)Relocating the road would create other, more serious problems
with drainage, stabilization, or environmental impact, and/or
(iii)The length of the segment with grade greater than 12% is no
longer than 100 feet.
(8)Intersection with Public Road
(a)The intersection of the Private Roadwith the existing public road shall
permit a safe entrance and exit.
(b)Adequate sight distances along the public road shall be provided by
choosing a good location for the right-of-way and clearing sight triangles
when building the road.
(c)The intersection of a Private Roadwith a public road must provide an
adequate place for cars to stop before entering the public road. See the
diagram below.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-21
31
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
Figure 7.8.5.D.8: Intersection with Public Road
(d)The Private Roadmust flare at the publicroad in order to permit a
vehicle to enter the Private Road when another vehicle is waiting to exit
on the Private Road. The dimensions of the required flare are 20-feet for
both a Class A and Class B Private Road, as shown in Figure 7.8.5.D.8.
(9)Drainage
(a)Ditches shall be constructed to provide drainage from the road and
adjacent areas.
(b)The ditches shall be built with sufficient depth and width to carry the
expected volume of water.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-22
32
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(c)The side slopes shall be graded so that they can be stabilized and to
prevent vehicles from becoming stuck if they slide into the ditch.
(d)Where the road crosses streams or minor watercourses, culverts shall be
installed to prevent ponding and washouts of the road for the design five-
year storm.
(e)On streams where it is not economical to install a large culvert of the
required size, the Erosion Control Officermay allow the installation of a
smaller culvert if engineering equivalent provisions are made to protect
the road surface and fill slopes from erosion when runoff tops the road.
(10)Turn-Arounds
(a)Vehicle turn-around areas shall be provided at the end of all dead end
roads. This can be accomplished by ending the road in a cul-de-sac or a
"T".
(b)The "T" type turn-around is preferred.
(c)Culs-de-sac shall have a minimum diameter of 70 feet.
(d)A "T" turn-around must conform to the dimensions in the diagram below.
Figure 7.8.5.D.10: “T” Type Turn-Arounds
(e)The location of the turn-around will depend on the arrangement of the
lots in the subdivision.
(f)If the Private Roadserves only one lot the turn-around should be located
near the building site.
(g)In a subdivision with several lots the turn-around should be at the end of
the road and the necessary right-of-way provided.
(11)Road Name and Sign
(a)The road name shall be verified with the Orange County Planning
Departmentto insure that the proposed name does not duplicate an
existing name.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-23
33
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(b)The road sign shall have one double-sided blade showing the name of
the Private Roadand another showing the name of the existing State
maintained road.
(c)Class B roads of any length are required to be named and to have a road
sign posted.
(12)Right-of-Way
(a)The right-of-way shall be 50-feet wide and indicated on the final plat.
(b)Requests for rights-of-way less than 50-feet in width must be approved
by the Board of County Commissioners. In no case shall a right-of-way
less than 25-feet in width be approved.
(c)Bends in the right-of-way must be at angles that will permit construction
of curves with a 125-foot minimum centerline radius (see subsection (17)
below).
(13)Vegetation
(a)All areas disturbed by the construction of the road, including the
shoulders, ditch banks, cut and fill slopes and any borrow areas, shall be
seeded in permanent vegetation to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
(b)Seeding should be done immediately after grading is completed and
before the final inspection by the Planning Department.
(c)The disturbed area shall be smoothed and lightly harrowed to break up
the soil and prepare a good seedbed. The following materials are
recommended per 1,000 square feet:
(i)1.4 lbs.Fescue grass seed
(ii)0.4 lbs.German or Browntop millet (to provide temporary cover
until the grass becomes established)
(iii)90 lbs.lime
(iv)23 lbs.10-10-10 Fertilizer
(v)Two 40 lb. Bales of straw for mulch (enough to cover 75% of the
ground surface)
(d)Other types of permanent vegetation may be substituted as long as they
provide adequate cover to prevent erosion.
(14)Maintenance
(a)Maintenance of the Private Roadmust be provided by the lot owners that
are served by the road.
(b)The required Road Maintenance Agreement between the lot owners is
required to insure that the cost is shared equally and a mechanism for
maintenance is set up.
(c)The responsibility for maintenance is the property owners and neither the
State nor Orange County will maintain the road.
(d)Regular attention shall be given to the following items in order to assure
that the road will remain in good condition:
(i)The vegetation shall be mowed, limed and fertilized as needed.
Areas that erode or where seeding is unsuccessful should be
reseeded.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-24
34
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(ii)Culverts shall be kept clear of trash and other obstructions that
could prevent or reduce the culverts function. If culverts are not
kept clear it will cause runoff to flow over the road and may
cause flooding upstream. Ditch banks and bottoms shall be
protected from erosion by maintaining good vegetation.
(iii)The travelway shall be maintained by grading the surface
material to fill any potholes that develop and to evenly spread the
surface material where the soil has been uncovered because of
erosion.
(iv)The road name sign shall be kept visible and legible so that
visitors and emergency personnel can easily locate the road.
(15)Vertical Clearance
A minimum 14-foot vertical clearance shall be provided above the travelway to
permit the passage of large vehicles under power lines and tree limbs.
(16)N.C. Department of Transportation Driveway Permit
The property owner is responsible for obtaining the required permit for access to
the state maintained road. This permit can be obtained from the DOT in
Hillsborough. Permits are normally granted on request.
(17)Minimum Curve Radius
(a)New curves shall be constructed with a minimum centerline radius of
125-feet (see graphic).
Figure 7.8.5.D.17.a: Minimum Curve Radius
(b)The right-of-way shall be designed with bends that will provide sufficient
width to construct the road to the minimum radius. For example, a 90
degree bend in a 50-foot right-of-way will not provide enough area to
construct a road 18-feet wide.
(c)The right-of-way must include sufficient width for the travelway and the
necessary shoulders, ditches and slopes.
(d)A curve radius of less than 125-feet may be approved if all of the
following conditions are met:
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-25
35
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8:Access and Roadways
(i)The road existed prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations
or was approved as part of an earlier subdivision;
(ii)Reconstruction of the existing road to meet a 125-foot curve
radius is not feasible due to the extent of earthwork which would
be required and/or the inability to reconfigure the existing right-
of-way location due to ownership or the location of existing
structures, wells or septic systems;
(iii)Standards pertaining to road width and grade will be met;
(iv)The subdivision can be approved with a Class B private road;
(v)Documentation is received from the Staff Engineer that the
proposed curve radius would provide for adequate vehicular
access and circulation; and
(vi)Documentation is received from the Department of Emergency
Services stating that the proposed curve radius would provide
access for the largest emergency vehicle expected to use the
road.
(18)Typical Cross-Section
The drawings below illustrate the typical cross sections for Class A and Class B
Private Roads.
Figure 7.8.5.D.18: Typical Cross Sections
(E)Compliance with Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations Required
Private road construction shall conform to the erosion and sedimentation control
provisions of this Ordinance (see Section 6.15).
(F)Inspections and Certifications
(1)Private road construction must be inspected and the construction certified in
writing to the Orange County Planning Departmentby a North Carolina
Professional Engineer.
(2)The location of the travelway within the right-of-way must be certified to be within
the platted private road right-of-way by a North Carolina Registered Land
Surveyor.
(3)The road must be inspected during construction so that any changes or
improvements necessary to insure approval can be made before the stone is
placed and the shoulders and ditches are seeded and mulched.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-26
36
ReturntoAgenda
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.9:Reservation of Space for Utilities
(4)The subdivider or his/her representative must inform the professional making the
certification prior to the start of construction and at intervals during construction
when inspections are needed so that they can be scheduled.
T ABLE 7.8.5.F:CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR SUBDIVISION PRIVATE ROADS
Maximum Number of Lotsin Subdivision3 or Fewer4-12
Professional Engineer Road Construction Certification
Required NoYes
Surveyor Certification Roadway in Platted Right-of-
Way YesYes
(5)Inspections by the Planning Departmentare made only to insure the following:
(a)That the road is built to the required dimensions;
(b)That the stone travelway is provided to the required width;
(c)That adequate drainage is provided;
(d)That any disturbed areas are seeded and mulched to establish
permanent vegetation; and
(e)To verify that the required road sign is in place.
(6)The subdivider is responsible for supervising construction and for quality control
inspections for clearing and grubbing of the right-of-way, compaction of fill,
construction materials, and so forth.
(7)The subdivider or representative should employ a qualified grading contractor
(and supervisor if necessary) to insure that the road is in the correct location and
that acceptable methods and materials are used.
(8)Bonds or letters of credit cannot be released or reduced until completion of the
road is certified.Arrangements for payment between the subdivider and
contractor are not the responsibility of Orange County.
7.8.6Alleys
(A)Alleys shall be required for lots used for commercial and industrial purposes except that
this requirement may be waived where other definite and assured provision is made for
service access.
(B)Alleys shall not be provided in residential subdivisions unless necessitated by unusual
circumstances.
(C)The width of an alley shall be adequate for the purpose which it serves.
(D)Dead end alleys shall be avoided where possible, but if unavoidable, shall be provided
with adequate turn around facilities at the dead end as may be recommended by the
Planning Boardand approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
SECTION 7.9:RESERVATION OF SPACEFOR UTILITIES
7.9.1Easements Required
(A)Where several utilities are available or can be anticipated to serve a subdivision
according to utility extension plans, utility easements, setbacks or other methods of
providing services may be required for service in thatsubdivision.
(B)Except where utilities may be located in approved alleys, easements, setbacks, or other
methods, not less than six feet in width may be required on each side of rear and side lot
lines.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-27
37
ReturntoAgenda