Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br /> 1 1. Receive the application, <br /> 2 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn <br /> 3 testimony, <br /> 4 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be <br /> 5 returned in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and <br /> 6 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning <br /> 7 Board's recommendation, and any submitted written comments. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Commissioner Pelissier asked if Orange County would approve the alternative to the <br /> 10 traditional septic, or would the State need to give approval. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Michael Harvey said an email written by Alan Clapp, of Orange County Environmental <br /> 13 Health, states that it would be reviewed jointly by the State and the County. However, <br /> 14 depending on the nature of the system, it may defer to a total State approval. He added that if <br /> 15 this were the case, the County would receive notification from the State that the septic system <br /> 16 had been approved before any further development would be allowed. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Commissioner Rich asked if any of the 32 properties will go in to the Community Home <br /> 19 Trust for affordable housing. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Michael Harvey said probably not, but recommended asking the Applicant. He added <br /> 22 that he finds the metrics and economics of this project to be different than most, considering it <br /> 23 will be based on a condominium ownership model. He said he believes that houses will be <br /> 24 more affordable than most housing in the area. He added that it was not required of the <br /> 25 Applicant to designate properties to the Trust. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Commissioner Rich asked if there are conditions when it is required. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Michael Harvey said in accordance with section 6.1.18 of the UDO, there is a process <br /> 30 where a developer can request density bonuses. He reminded the Board that there is language <br /> 31 within the regulations that prohibits density bonuses being awarded for affordable housing in <br /> 32 watershed protection overlay districts, in which this project is. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Commissioner Price asked if there would need to be additional screenings between <br /> 35 homes as there is only 10 feet in between. She added as this is one big property, perhaps <br /> 36 additional screenings may not apply. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Michael Harvey said Commissioner Price is partially correct. He added that a home <br /> 39 occupation would have to be applied for, in accordance with the applicable standards as they <br /> 40 are relayed in the UDO. He said if additional screenings are required the owner will have to <br /> 41 abide by the UDO. He said this problem is not anticipated. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Commissioner Price said as this is one big property and has no property lines, there is <br /> 44 nowhere from which to measure the 10 feet between the two houses. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Michael Harvey said although there are no property lines, there will be a defined <br /> 47 ownership area. He said this will not meet the technical definition of a property line, per the <br /> 48 UDO, but additional landscaping may be required to comply with code. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Commissioner Price said she liked the project and would not want to see it stumble <br /> 51 based on technicalities. <br />