Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />Appropriation - Public School Building Funds (93-94) $ 1,224,693 <br />The following amendment is anticipated to complete this transfer <br />Transfer to New Chapel Hill-Carrboro Elementary School $ 100,000 <br />Chapel Hill High School Phase II (100,000) <br />E. SETTING DATES REQUIRED LEGALLY FOR LOG PUBLIC HEARING <br />The Board approved June 13 or June 19 as possible dates to hold a statutory required <br />public hearing on the potential siting of a new landfill in Orange County. <br />VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS <br />ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA <br />C. 1996 GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION <br />Commissioner Crowther asked that the Board consider, at a later time, for inclusion in <br />the County's Zoning Ordinance, provisions for obtaining timber deeds for all timber cut in Orange County. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the <br />resolution as presented and authorize the County Attorney to transmit the resolution to Orange County's <br />legislative delegation and authorize the Chair to send a letter from the Orange County Commissioners to the <br />County Commissioners of Person and Caswell Counties requesting the support of those two counties for <br />legislation to establish the boundaries between and among Caswell and Person Counties and Orange <br />County. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA <br />A. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br />FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSAL <br />Marvin Collins presented for consideration a list of recommended revisions to the <br />proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies which were presented at public hearing <br />on November 27, 1995. These revisions are a result of comments from members of the Board of <br />Commissioners, Planning Board members and citizens. He also mentioned that other items under discussion <br />were groundwater impacts, community wastewater disposal systems and the village option. Information on <br />both of those concerns indicates that in terms of densities in clusters, part of the flexible development <br />provisions allow off-site septic easements. As those provisions are utilized, the same dispersion of well sites <br />as with one acre clusters will occur. The concerns regarding groundwater withdrawal and cluster <br />developments with 112 acre lots could be addressed in much the same manner as conventional subdivisions. <br />Staff feels that ample opportunity has been given for citizens and the Planning Board to comment and that it <br />is not necessary to solicit further comment on the village options. The village option, if used, would require <br />more than 33% open space. The larger the development the more open space would be required. The <br />Administration's recommendation is to approve the proposal, including the revisions that have been <br />recommended. The presentation was completed and he requested questions from the Board of <br />Commissioners and Planning Board members. Responses to those questions follows: <br />In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about locational provisions for villages, Marvin <br />Collins said that villages are one of the flexible development options and as such are allowed anywhere in <br />the County. However, in rural areas which rely on septic systems, the yield plan would determine how many <br />units would be allowed in the village. A village which intended to take advantage of density bonus provisions <br />would be allowed only in transit corridors, utility service areas, etc. There is a ceiling on the density in terms <br />of how many units a village would have. It is structured that way so that a "University Station" could not be <br />located in Cedar Grove Township. The ceiling is controlled by the Zoning Ordinance in the Density Bonus <br />provisions. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked if a developer would be allowed to ask for water and sewer if they had <br />sufficient density. Marvin replied that would be permitted only if the development was located in the