Orange County NC Website
• <br /> In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a <br /> proposed amendment to consider traffic impacts of efficiency <br /> apartments and duplexes in determining the private road classification <br /> required for subdivision approval and eliminate approval of Class A <br /> roads for minor subdivisions by the Board of Commissioners. To <br /> account for the traffic impact of potential additional residences, it <br /> is proposed that efficiency apartments and duplexes be considered in <br /> determining the appropriate classification for a private road. An <br /> efficiency apartment is expected to create about half of the traffic <br /> generated by a single-family residence. A duplex is expected to <br /> generate about the same amount of traffic as a single-family <br /> residence. <br /> THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by <br /> Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these road standards to the Planning <br /> Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of <br /> Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> ITEMS FOR DECISION <br /> 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (Continued) <br /> a. PD-3-90 Carolina Friends School <br /> ***This item was presented earlier in the meeting. <br /> Ms. Betty Eidenier, Chairman of the Planning Board, read a <br /> prepared statement indicating that the Orange County Planning Board <br /> recognizes the need for expeditious consideration of the Special Use <br /> permits for the Carolina Friends School. However, they strongly <br /> protest the manner in which this matter has been considered outside <br /> the ordinary procedures and protections, such as allowing written <br /> public comment. They trust that no precedent has been set by this <br /> case. She stated that they found in the affirmative for the three <br /> conditions before approving the Special Use. They concur with the <br /> Planning Staff recommendation with the eight conditions, as amended. <br /> Commissioner Hartwell informed the Board that after a building <br /> permit was issued the staff at the school discovered that they had not <br /> gotten a permit for the deck. A representative of the school went to <br /> the Planning Department to get a permit. At that point, it was <br /> mentioned that the permit had been revoked. The problem arose from <br /> the fact that although the school staff was aware that they needed a <br /> special use permit, they were not aware that it was a different permit <br /> from the original building permit which they were issued. He pointed <br /> out that this exception was made only because of the oversight on the <br /> part of staff in explaining what was needed. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by <br /> Commissioner Willhoit, that the Board finds a preponderance of <br /> evidence to indicate compliance with the General Standards, specific <br /> rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all <br /> required regulations and standards with the exception of those <br /> standards for which the Planning Board found a lack of compliance and <br />