Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
31 <br /> Brooks asked if duplexes would be allowed. Kirk responded they would be <br /> allowed if twice the minimum lot size is provided. <br /> Arthur Cogswell,representing the owners,commented that this area would be a <br /> terrible site for commercial development because of its distance from the <br /> highway and it is not large enough to be supported by the residents who would <br /> live there. It is too remote from traffic to be successful. <br /> Brown asked if there is potential for access to Old 86. Kirk responded that <br /> there would be access to Old NC 86,and possibly to New 86 as well. <br /> Willis stated that would be an issue when a definite plan is presented. Brown <br /> felt it would be an ideal situation for a pedestrian component. <br /> MOTION: Barrows moved acceptance of the Staff findings for Article 20.3.2 a-e and <br /> Article 4.2.8 a-c. Seconded by Hoecke. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> MOTION: Strayhom moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by <br /> Walters. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> (2) Z-5-96 Efland Setback Overlay District <br /> Proposed amendment an attachment to these minutes on pages <br /> Presentation by Mary Willis. <br /> This item is to consider the creation of a new Overlay Zoning District which <br /> would allow lesser setbacks than generally required in the underlying zoning <br /> district,and to apply the new Overlay district to the Ten and twenty-year <br /> Transition Areas in the Efland Area. <br /> The Orange County Planning Staff proposed that a new zoning overlay district <br /> applied to the 10-Year and 20-Year Transition Areas in the Efland area. The <br /> overlay district would allow setbacks of 20 feet from road right-of-way and 8 <br /> feet from side and rear property lines,with provision for zero-lotline <br /> development in the interior of a subdivision. The proposed setbacks are <br /> comparable to the setbacks currently allowed in the R-5 zoning district. <br /> The amendment was initiated by the Planning Staff after receiving a rezoning <br /> request submitted by a property owner to address a setback problem. Because <br /> the problem was common to many lots in the Efland area,an amendment was <br /> proposed by the Planning Staff to address the issue on a community-wide rather <br /> than lot-by-lot basis. <br /> Efland was an existing developed community when Cheeks Township was <br /> zoned in 1984,and is partially served by public water and sewer. Of the 1,289 <br /> existing lots in the Transition Areas,which includes the Efland community as <br /> well as area west to the vicinity of Buckhom Road,676(52%)are non- <br /> conforming lots smaller than 40,000 square feet. Many cannot be built upon in <br />