Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
192 <br />Approved 2/2/11 <br />659 Brian Crawford: Any other discussion? <br />660 <br />661 May Becker: Number 8 .....driveway crossings and single family residential lots. <br />662 <br />663 Perdita Holtz: What about it specifically? <br />664 <br />665 May Becker: You have developers and at this point, they don't necessarily have access to lots and make sure you have the kind <br />666 of ... if you have a driveway you will have more runoff. If you have something that is not developed, if you add this as a <br />667 permitted use by right, again, it seems it is offering developers options that are kind of open ended. <br />668 <br />669 Perdita Holtz: Michael, doesn't this occur fairly frequently because there is no other option? <br />670 <br />671 Michael Harvey: You are correct. This actually codifies an interpretation. Existing language says public and private streets and <br />672 railroad rights of way. It has been interpreted through out subdivision process that there are many instances where we don't <br />673 want a right a way where you have a 20 foot road, we would rather encroach with a driveway which is anywhere from 12 to 15 <br />674 feet. <br />675 <br />676 Brian Crawford: Much of that is runoff. <br />677 <br />678 May Becker: But if you are saying something is permitted by right that doesn't mean they are not going to do something else? <br />679 <br />680 Michael Harvey: Just because it is permitted by right does not mean that it is not reviewed and approved in accordance with <br />681 standards of the UDO. It still has to go through that review and approval process. Single family residences just aren't put on <br />682 property overnight or at the whim of a developer because they can do it'by right'. It has to go through an approval process. <br />683 <br />684 Brian Crawford: If this was a single developer or a single person building a home there are minimum the lot sizes anyway. <br />685 <br />686 Michael Harvey: There are minimum lot sizes. They range from district to district and conceivably by subdivision. <br />687 <br />688 Lary Wright: If you want to build a kennel, and you want it at the back of the lot, we have a case where there is a problem with <br />689 getting emergency vehicles back there. It is only 12 feet wide driveway so there are restrictions that way. Here, you have a <br />690 developer that wants to take place, a kennel back in someone's yard, and the fire marshal has issues. There are other things <br />691 that come into play. <br />692 <br />693 May Becker: I understand it is just I have gotten into talking about permitted by right as opposed to suggesting it is permitted if <br />694 certain approval is given. It's the language. <br />695 <br />696 Brian Crawford: I think I hear folks, with the Section of number 13, that the other Planning Board members are becoming <br />697 convinced that there is still an approval process in this term permitted by right. I know you have issues with term but we have to <br />698 get to try to get you comfortable somehow that this permitted by right isn't as open ended as you are interpreting. We can keep <br />699 going down this list and that is what we keep coming back to. We have got to come to a point that the "permitted by right" term, <br />700 we have to decide to change it or we ... as in my case, I am comfortable that the language is restrictive enough. That is <br />701 essentially where the issue is now. I don't know how we make you comfortable or how you make us comfortable. I do agree on <br />702 13 that I think one of the suggestions were that we move that to D and I didn't think the staff had a problem with that. <br />703 <br />704 May Becker: Pretty much ... I suggest we add if particular approvals are given as opposed to my interpretation that it shall be <br />705 given. <br />706 <br />707 Brian Crawford: So you are still suggesting additional language in number 13. <br />708 <br />709 May Becker: Permitted with mitigation suggests that I am permitted to do this if I do what is listed on page 6.4.2 a and b and <br />710 these as mitigation shall be provided in accordance with the state standards and shall be approved and inspected by the Erosion <br />711 Control Supervisor. <br />712 <br />713 Alan Campbell: In b1 if we went to something like the landowner shall be required to provide mitigation in accordance with that <br />714 so it's active. Basically, this shall require approval from the Erosion Control Supervisor. Something that makes it clear that the <br />715 Erosion Control supervisor isn't required to give the approval, the landowner is required to get the approval. <br />716 <br />12 <br />