Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />February 5, 2013 meeting and additional information regarding the proposal can be <br />found with the agenda materials from this <br />meeting: http:// orangecountync .gov /occlerks /130909.pdf <br />2. Analysis <br />As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning <br />Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based <br />upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning <br />Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. The following information is offered: <br />The proposed zoning overlay districts are consistent with the recommendations made <br />in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan <br />(http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning/ documents /Efland PlanADOPTED062706.pdf) <br />which called for design standards in the "core area" of Efland. The primary purpose <br />of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village and urban style of development <br />in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer <br />systems. The affected area is also designated as a Commercial - Industrial Transition <br />Activity Node ( CITAN) on the County's Future Land Use Map. It is pertinent to note <br />that some of the zoning districts allowed in a CITAN land use classification allow <br />residential uses "by right." The proposed overlay districts have been written so that <br />the requirements will not pertain to existing or new single - family detached residential <br />uses. All other residential uses (e.g., duplexes, multi - family) proposed in the overlay <br />districts will be required to conform to the requirements of the overlay districts. <br />Because County development regulations pertain primarily to areas that are not <br />intended to be served by public and water systems, which tends to result in larger lot <br />sizes and lower density, some of the County's regulations are not suitable for areas <br />intended to have denser or more intensive development on smaller lots. For <br />example, some of the land use buffer requirement in Section 6.8 of the UDO would <br />be infeasible to meet on a parcel of property that is less than 100 feet in width and <br />has an area measurement typically referred to in square feet rather than in acres. <br />However, in areas of the county slated for denser development than the outlying rural <br />areas, smaller sized lots with buildings closer together is to be expected. Therefore, <br />development regulations must be modified to reflect these physical differences while <br />continuing to strive for quality development. The proposed overlay districts endeavor <br />to encourage development while ensuring quality. <br />Development will still be required to meet the impervious surface limitations <br />contained in Section 4.2 of the UDO. Because the impervious surface limitations <br />stem from State statutes /rules, modifications to the allowable percentages are not <br />permitted except as allowed in Section 4.2.8. <br />The primary reason the former proposal was denied was disagreement over whether <br />sidewalks (publicly owned /maintained) and /or privately owned /maintained connecting <br />walkways would be required in the Efland Village Overlay District. More information <br />about this topic is available in the Amendment Form for the former project, viewable <br />at: http:// orangecountync .gov /occlerks /130909.pdf (also see the link in the former <br />Amendment Form to the October 2011 work session materials where the BOCC <br />2 <br />