Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 Appropriation - Public School Building Funds (93-94) $ 1,224,693 <br /> 2 The following amendment is anticipated to complete this transfer <br /> 3 Transfer to New Chapel Hill=Carrboro Elementary School $ 100,000 <br /> 4 Chapel Hill High School Phase II (100,000) <br /> 5 <br /> 6 E. SETTING DATES REQUIRED LEGALLY FOR LOG PUBLIC HEARING <br /> 7 <br /> 8 The Board approved June 13 or June 19 as possible dates to hold a statutory required <br /> 9 public hearing on the potential siting of a new landfill in Orange County. <br /> 10 VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS <br /> 11 <br /> 12 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA <br /> 13 C. 1996 GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION <br /> 14 Commissioner Crowther asked that the Board consider, at a later time, for inclusion in <br /> 15 the County's Zoning Ordinance, provisions for obtaining timber deeds for all timber cut in Orange County. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the <br /> 18 resolution as presented and authorize the County Attorney to transmit the resolution to Orange County's <br /> 19 legislative delegation and authorize the Chair to send a letter from the Orange County Commissioners to the <br /> 20 County Commissioners of Person and Caswell Counties requesting the support of those two counties for <br /> 21 legislation to establish the boundaries between and among Caswell and Person Counties and Orange <br /> 22 County. <br /> 23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 24 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA <br /> 27 A. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS <br /> 28 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENTIOPEN SPACE PROPOSAL <br /> 29 Marvin Collins presented for consideration a list of recommended revisions to the <br /> 30 proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies which were presented at public hearing <br /> 31 on November 27, 1995. These revisions are a result of comments from members of the Board of <br /> 32 Commissioners, Planning Board members and citizens. He also mentioned that other items under discussion <br /> 33 were groundwater impacts, community wastewater disposal systems and the village option. Information on <br /> 34 both of those concerns indicates that in terms of densities in clusters, part of the flexible development <br /> 35 provisions allow off-site septic easements. As those provisions are utilized, the same dispersion of well sites <br /> 36 as with one acre clusters will occur. The concerns regarding groundwater withdrawal and cluster <br /> 37 developments with 1/2 acre lots could be addressed in much the same manner as conventional subdivisions. <br /> 38 Staff feels that ample opportunity has been given for citizens and the Planning Board to comment and that it <br /> 39 is not necessary to solicit further comment on the village options. The village option, if used, would require <br /> 40 more than 33% open space. The larger the development the more open space would be required. The <br /> 41 Administration's recommendation is to approve the proposal, including the revisions that have been <br /> 42 recommended. The presentation was completed and he requested questions from the Board of <br /> 43 Commissioners and Planning Board members. Responses to those questions follows: <br /> 44 <br /> 45 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about locational provisions for villages, Marvin <br /> 46 Collins said that villages are one of the flexible development options and as such are allowed anywhere in <br /> 47 the County. However, in rural areas which rely on septic systems, the yield plan would determine how many <br /> 48 units would be allowed in the village. A village which intended to take advantage of density bonus provisions <br /> 49 would be allowed only in transit corridors, utility service areas, etc. There is a ceiling on the density in terms <br /> 50 of how many units a village would have. It is structured that way so that a "University Station" could not be <br /> 51 located in Cedar Grove Township. The ceiling is controlled by the Zoning Ordinance in the Density Bonus <br /> 52 provisions. <br /> 53 <br /> 54 Commissioner Gordon asked if a developer would be allowed to ask for water and sewer if they had <br /> 55 sufficient density. Marvin replied that would be permitted only if the development was located in the <br />