Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> The Planning Staff recommended redesign of both the Concept Plan and the <br /> Preliminary Plan to eliminate the strips which connect the remote septic disposal <br /> areas to lots 6 and 7. <br /> Planning Board Recommendation <br /> The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan (7-3 vote, 8/21/95) and <br /> Preliminary Plan (6-2 vote, 8/7/96) as proposed, including the proposed <br /> configuration of lots 6 and 7. There was considerable discussion and questions of <br /> staff regarding the rationale for the prohibition of septic easements. Some <br /> Planning Board members indicated that a failure of a remote system which utilized <br /> a pump, would likely be identified and corrected more quickly than a closer system <br /> which relied on gravity. With exception of the two dissenting votes, the majority <br /> of Planning Board members felt that compliance with Environmental Health <br /> regulations was sufficient and that the location of the septic systems for lots 6 and <br /> 7 was not a major concern. <br /> Administration Recommendation <br /> On September 3, 1996, the Administration recommended approval of the proposed <br /> subdivision per the Planning Board recommendation, including the proposed <br /> configuration of lots 6 and 7. <br /> The Administration recommendation was based on technical compliance with <br /> Article 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance (because no septic easements are being <br /> created) and compliance with Section IV-B-5a of the Subdivision Regulations <br /> (because an argument can be made that the buildable area within each lot is <br /> maximized given the constraints of soils suitability). Also, the average lots size of <br /> about 4.4 acres, more than four times the minimum allowed in the AR zoning <br /> district and L-ENO-PW protected watershed overlay district, contributes to <br /> watershed protection by providing justification for a private road (less clearing and <br /> impervious surface than a public road) and by creating less impervious surface than <br /> a more dense development. <br /> The Administration did recognize that the Planning Staff concerns regarding the lot <br /> layout and design of the Sibling Pine Estate Preliminary Plan have merit, and that a <br /> flexible development approach may have produced a subdivision design more in <br /> keeping with the intent of regulations regarding the use of septic easements. <br /> However, this development is not subject to the flexible development regulations, <br /> because it was initiated prior to their adoption, and the area to be used for septic <br /> disposal is contained within the boundaries of each individual lot. <br /> In order to obtain greater clarity on how such situations should be addressed in the <br /> future, the Administration also recommended that Subdivision Regulation and <br /> Zoning Ordinance provisions related to remote septic systems be revisited in the <br />