Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (May 29, 2001) <br /> a. Orange County Subdivision Amendments <br /> 1. Modify Section IV-B-3 Street <br /> a. Amend Section IV-B-3-d-1 Roads <br /> b. Amend Appendix A Private Road Standards, Purpose <br /> Karen Lincoln made this presentation. <br /> BACKGROUND: The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County <br /> Planning Board, at a public hearing on May 29, 2001, received comments on proposed amendments <br /> to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Proposed amendments to Section IV-13 3-d-1: <br /> 1. Clarify language pertaining to the intent and substance of private road justification for three-lot <br /> subdivisions (page ); and <br /> 2. Provide justification for a private road to allow a zoning lot size of 60,000 sq. ft. in subdivisions that <br /> provide 50% open space (also known as Sliding Scale Open Space/Cluster Provision). The chart <br /> on page demonstrates the benefits of the 60,000 sq. ft. lot with <br /> 50% open space option over other possible outcomes using a sliding scale. The proposed <br /> amendment is on page <br /> The proposed amendment to Appendix A. Private Road Standards (page ) adds language to further <br /> clarify the differences between public and private roads. <br /> Comments from the public hearing follow: <br /> 1. Delete from private road justification for a three-lot subdivision <br /> a. The provision that the road would not meet density requirement to be accepted into the State <br /> Maintenance Program. Staff has incorporated this comment in the proposed amendments. <br /> b. The provision restricting further subdivision of three-lot subdivisions from the parent tract and <br /> reference section of the subdivision regulations that defines a minor subdivision (not more than <br /> five lots created from any tract of land within a ten year period). Staff has added language to <br /> further clarify the provision instead of deleting it. <br /> 2. Include text as well as charts giving requirements for private roads in conventional subdivisions <br /> and cluster subdivisions. Staff has incorporated this comment in the proposed amendments. <br /> 3. Add a statement that the 60,000 sq. ft. zoning lot required for a private road (in zoning districts/ <br /> overlay districts where maximum density is 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres or greater) does not negate <br /> the smaller lot size allowed in subdivisions eligible for a density bonus under the flexible <br /> development standards. Staff has incorporated this comment in the proposed amendments. <br /> FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this decision item. <br /> RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning staff recommends that the Planning Board recommends that the <br /> Board of Commissioners adopt the proposed amendments. <br /> The first amendment would reword language justifying a private road in 3-lot subdivisions. The <br /> second amendment would develop a sliding scale that would allow smaller lot sizes on private roads if <br /> the subdivisions provided more open space. The third amendment is some different language to <br /> further clarify the differences between public and private roads. <br /> At the public hearing on May 29th, some comments were made regarding provision three, that the <br /> private road would not meet the density requirements to be taken over by the state for maintenance <br /> even if it were built to state standards. It was recommended that this provision be deleted. Staff <br /> concurs that this is not important enough to put into this section. <br />