Browse
Search
ORD-2009-011-Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) – 4115 Old NC 10 (Jones)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2009
>
ORD-2009-011-Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) – 4115 Old NC 10 (Jones)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2011 10:01:42 AM
Creation date
9/3/2009 11:28:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/17/2009
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
5d
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20090203
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment 10 2 2 <br />Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes <br />height limitations reduced from 60 ft. to 30 ft. Also, because of the linear type of district, the 100 ft. buffer <br />around the outside perimeter of the EDD, basically; was a complete taking of some of these lots. To avoid <br />all that, we created the district but we didn't map it. There was no indication that the County Commissioners <br />wanted to map it at that time. Now, this is the first part of the implementation to bring these parcels to the . <br />ED-LNR. You have non-conformities under the EDLO-1 you have aminimum-two acre lot size, most of <br />these lots do not approach two acres. You have 200 ft. lot width minimum, most of the lots do not exceed <br />100-120 ft. There is a 100 ft: perimeter buffer, no one has tried anything but would have problems if they <br />did. You have a service road requirement in this district, with small lots; putting a service road in would <br />impact their impervious surface which is limited on a small lot anyway. Both districts only allow 50% <br />impervious, so if you have a one acre lot and you put a 20 ft wide road across the frontage of a 100 ft. lot, <br />you are taking 2000 sq. ft. there plus you have to accommodate the storm water. You could do it on a two <br />acre lot but none of these lots in tract 1 are close to two acres. Interconnectivity, that's in both, we don't <br />have a problem there. Maximum liu~ding size of 5000 sq. ft. in the district we're proposing to do which is a <br />lesser impact to adjoining residential structures. I passed around some information that came up at the <br />public hearing. Ms. Soulier is here. The drainage here (referring to map) regardless of what develops, is <br />going to go where it currently is, they can't redistribute or redirect the water coming off the site and in this <br />district under the Neuse River rules you have to accommodate pre vs post development. When this was <br />approved by the Town of Hillsborough, these two bottom lots were in an existing 100 year flood plain. The <br />structures themselves are not in it but the actual lot is listed in a flood plain. The drainage is to the east. I <br />went there with Erosion Control and none of the drainage for this rezoning impacts any of these properties <br />down here. <br />Larry Wright: Where does it drain? <br />Robert Davis: This drains back into Cate's Creek. It ultimately ends up in Eno. <br />Larry Wright: That's not what I asked. Where-does parcel one drain? <br />Robert Davis: It sits on top of the hill. If you notice the Credit Union parking Ivt, the storm drainage is in the <br />front, so assume it releases toward 86. That would probably be the most likely place to drain. In my <br />opinion, it's not going this way. I can verify that before the Commissioner's meeting. This district is to <br />implement what was recommended in 2001 under the EDD. Nothing is changing in regard to uses. The <br />uses are roughly the same with one little d'rfference, which we have interpreted to be small scale repair of <br />appliance and things, not cars, not transmissions, or anything like that. That's basically all I have to say on <br />the amendment. In your packet, there is a statement of suffiaency. Both districts are Economic <br />Development Districts and it's clearly in a transition area. You'll also see a recommendation of approval. I <br />am open for questions. <br />Brian Crawford: Before questions and comments by the Board, are there any further statements or <br />presentations by the public? <br />Margo Pinkerton: Basically, we put our comments on this paper, and a. couple of hand written notes at the <br />end. I will disagree a little bit about the drainage in the lower portion. If you go to the neighborhood, you <br />can look right across old 86 and if you'll look from the neighborhood you're looking out and a little bit up old <br />86 and anything happens in fhat property, it does slope down into a now acknowledged tributary that goes <br />into Cate's Creek so when we have heavy rains there is flooding in that little recently acknowledged creek <br />and .~ forth. We're certainly very supportive of parcel one and think that makes total sense. It's not fait to <br />hold the current owners hostage because of things that have happened with zoning that weren't around <br />when they were there. The only thing, and I think we agree to the general plan, is we would like you all to <br />be mindful that there is flooding elements it isn't just at the bottom of the pictures I showed you when I went <br />to gather photographs, of course it wasn't fboded. A lot of times if you talk to the neighbors in that area <br />they will tell you that little feeder stream does get flooded, very much so. It is, as you can see, very close to <br />o1d.86 antl if you could just be mindful that this part of the neighborhood is generally inhabited by young <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.