Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ~~`- <br />a. Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots (RURAL BUFFER) <br />The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. <br />Article 11.7 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that <br />nonconforming lots of record, in the same ownership and with continuous <br />frontage, be combined to create conforming lots. <br />On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the <br />Rural Suffer (RB) zoning district designation and its application to <br />38,000 acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. Data <br />fram the Orange Caunty Land Records Office indicates that 244 lots (5.7~ <br />of all lots) would have to be combined to meet the two-acre minimum lot <br />size requirement. Of these lots, 142.(3.3% of all lots) are developed. <br />A moratorium on enforcement of Article 11.7 was approved by <br />the Commissioners, pending a public hearing to consider revisions to the <br />requirements. Any amendment would be applicable in all zoned townships. <br />Approval of the amendment would allow the construction of <br />single-family detached dwellings and customary accessory structures on <br />nonconforming lots of record. As applied to the Rural Buffer district, <br />the amendment would affect 102 lots (2.4~ of all lots). <br />.Collins stated that the ordinance amendment, if approved, will <br />:delete the requirement to combine non conforming lots in the-Rural <br />Suffer or any other portion of the County. It would allow any <br />individual who owns anon- conforming lot of record to build on that lot <br />provided building setback requirements are met for the district in which <br />it is located. <br />Steve Quint spoke representing twelve members of the <br />Homeowners Association in the Fa11s of New Hape Subdivision. He <br />expressed concern that the present law is a very obscure one which only <br />devalues property. It takes away the individual's right to develop his <br />property as he desires. He commended the objectives of the regulation <br />but noted that individuals had purchased adjoining lots in the hopes of <br />maintaining the rural character of the area. <br />Chair Marshall clarified Mr. Quint's position as speaking in <br />favor of the amendment which deletes the requirement to combine lots in <br />order to make them conforming. Mr. Quint agreed with the clarification. <br />Chris Best asked about building on non-conforming lots that <br />are not contiguous and consist of only one acre. Collins responded <br />construction would be permitted, providing the ownership is not the same <br />as adjoining property. Sest inquired if there would be other non <br />conforming lots at a later date. Collins responded there would be no <br />more non-conforming created unless the Zoning Ordinance were amended. <br />In answer to a question from <br />that acquisition by a public agency, <br />could create a non conforming situation. <br />which could be addressed by the Board of <br />a variance. <br />John Hartwell, Collins stated <br />such as for road right-of-way, <br />This would create a hardship <br />Adjustment through approval of <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br />