Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
17 <br /> i revisions have been made and incorporated into the proposed amendments. One of the changes <br /> 2 presented at the Board's April meeting was that there must be increased lot size and at least two <br /> 3 of the criteria must be met in order to justify a private road. The Board had asked staff to revise <br /> 4 language in the ordinance provisions concerning private road justification by making the criteria <br /> 5 more specific. Criteria La,which requires significantly greater lot sizes and building setback <br /> 6 lines, now specifies minimum lot sizes of 80,000 square feet,three acres or five acres depending <br /> 7 on the minimum lot size of the zoning district with setbacks twice those required in each zoning <br /> 8 district. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Regarding the criteria that deals with significantly greater amounts of land of historical or <br /> 11 environmental significance, the language would be tightened to say, "At least fifty percent of the <br /> 12 site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive covenants as ref6renced in'An Inventory <br /> 13 of sites of Cultural,Historic,Recreational,Biological, and Geological Significance in the <br /> 14 Unincorporated Portions of Orange County"'. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Regarding criteria that deals with significantly greater stream buffers and reduced impervious <br /> 17 surface for private road subdivisions located in a protected watershed, the amendments propose <br /> 18 the stream buffers to be increased by 25%and impervious surface decreased by 15%. Another <br /> ig revision that has not been previously presented is that no private road justification would be <br /> 20 required for minor subdivisions with three or less lots. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Discussion ensued about the person who wants to subdivide on Lebanon Church Road, <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Benedict said that a private access easement is acceptable to access the adjacent lot, and this <br /> 25 language could be added in the ordinance. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 The board agreed to put the language about the private access easement into the ordinance. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Strayhorn would prefer that the setback requirements not be increased. Chair Allison agrees that <br /> 30 the setbacks should not be increased. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Barrows said that she hopes these proposed amendments make things clearer in regards to <br /> 33 private roads. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 MOTION: Gooding-Ray to accept the proposed amendments with the change <br /> 36 to the private road justification,and to add the language about <br /> 37 allowing the private access easement to access the adjacent lot. <br /> 38 Seconded by Selkirk. <br /> 39 The setback is still as recommended by the staff. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 VOTE: Ayes, 5;Noes, 3 (McAdams, Selkirk, and Strayhorn-disagree <br /> 42 with setback increase) <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Adjournment time being reached,the Chair asked for a motion to <br /> 45 extend the meeting to complete the agenda. <br /> 46 <br />