Minutes - 19891127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~.~- 3, possible he felt the numbers could be left as is. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Routes 6, 7, and 13 (partial) Chapel Hill and Rural Route 4 Hillsborough. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 6 15.2 - Interim Develo ment Standards 3. a. Subdivision Re ulations Text Amendments These item were presented by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this presentation is to receive citizen comment on the proposed amendments to the interim development standards applicable in University Lake watershed. The proposed amendments, if adapted, would provide more flexibility in the administration and application of the current standards contained in Article 7.15.2 pf the Zoning Drdinance and Section IV-C-2 of the Subdivision Regulations. In March 1989, the Final,Reoort - University Lake Watershed Studer was issued by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM). Following the release of the Final Report, the Town of Carrboro adapted a moratorium an development within that portion of its planning and zoning jurisdiction in University Lake watershed, pending a decision an water quality protection strategies. Orange County subsequently adopted interim development standards for the watershed for a six-month period, including a five-acre minimum lot size where mare than five lots are created. DWASA also continued its moratorium on water and sewer extensions into the watershed. In addition to the above actions, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange work group review the study and provide recommended watershed protection strategies to its constituent jurisdictions. In October, the Work Group completed a proposed agreement on University Lake watershed protection and asked that it be circulated to the respective governing boards for comment and adoption. The proposed agreement included several provisions which, if implemented, would provide greater flexibility in the interim development standards by addressing potential hardships experienced by landowners in the watershed. These provisions include #2, #3, #4, and #5a of the attached agreement. Though not the stimulus far the proposed ordinance amendments, an example of the flexibility needed in the standards was presented to the Planning Board at its October 16 meeting. The Durham Estates Subdivision consists of ten lots with an average density ;,, _ .' 1