Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
88 <br /> Comment: Any time you develop in this area you potentially create water quality issues. <br /> Answer. (Mike Neal) I understand. We are taking several precautions with respect to <br /> roadway locations, stream buffer crossings, and proposed stormwater features to address <br /> this issue. <br /> Question: Why is there a 100 foot building setback denoted on the plan? <br /> Answer. (Staff) The Ordinance requires a 100 foot building setback along the perimeter of <br /> the property. This means no structure (i.e. house, shed, etc.) can be located in this area. <br /> Question: So this means there cannot be a house built right on my property line? <br /> Answer. (Staff) No structure can be erected within the 100 foot building setback area <br /> denoted on the concept plan. <br /> Question: This property was considered previously for a subdivision a long time ago. <br /> During the review of that concept plan I seem to remember more area was designated as <br /> being encumbered by floodplain at that time. When did the floodplain boundaries change? <br /> Answer. (Staff) In 2007 the County adopted new floodplain maps. Portions of the property <br /> were removed from the floodplain which is why you see a difference. <br /> Comment: This is too much development in the University Lake watershed and the scope <br /> of the project needs to be reduced. <br /> Question: Who will maintain or control the open space? <br /> Answer. (Mike Neal) A local homeowners association. <br /> Question: What impervious surface limit will the project be held to? <br /> Answer. (Staff) The project will be held to a 6% impervious surface limit in accordance <br /> with the provisions of the UDO. <br /> Question: What opportunity is there to require additional impervious surface be <br /> transferred from this project to the adjoining subdivision? There is a real problem with the <br /> limitations currently imposed on adjoining property owners, who are part of an earlier <br /> project built by the same developer as Triple Crown Farms, and the developer needs to <br /> address this discrepancy. <br /> Answer. (Staff) The County cannot mandate the developer transfer additional impervious <br /> surface to existing properties to the east of this project even if they are being developed by <br /> the same individual and were once part of the same property. Impervious surface limits for <br /> Triple Crown have already been established. If the developer chooses to transfer <br /> impervious surface area there is a process he can go through to do that but it cannot be <br /> required or mandated by the County because he is now looking to subdivide this parcel of <br /> property. <br /> There was additional discussion with respect to the impervious surface issues for the <br /> Triple Crown project. <br />