Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> — Staff has been informed by the Efland Volunteer Fire Department they have <br /> equipment to address pressure problems and believe the proposed water line is <br /> adequate. <br /> • Stormwater and erosion control permits will have to be issued for the project, if approved <br /> by BOCC. <br /> • Staff has requested additional landscape plans denoting planting of foliage in and <br /> around the proposed houses. <br /> • Staff has informed the applicant the solar array denoted on the site plan can only be <br /> viewed for illustrative purposes. Development of said facility will have to comply with <br /> Class B Special Use Permit process detailed within UDO. <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> 1. Receive the application, <br /> 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn <br /> testimony, <br /> 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be <br /> returned in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and <br /> 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning <br /> Board's recommendation, and any submitted written comments. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier asked if Orange County would approve the alternative to the <br /> traditional septic, or would the State need to give approval. <br /> Michael Harvey said an email written by Alan Clapp, of Orange County Environmental <br /> Health, states that it would be reviewed jointly by the State and the County. However, <br /> depending on the nature of the system, it may defer to a total State approval. He added that if <br /> this were the case, the County would receive notification from the State that the septic system <br /> had been approved before any further development would be allowed. <br /> Commissioner Rich asked if any of the 32 properties will go in to the Community Home <br /> Trust for affordable housing. <br /> Michael Harvey said probably not, but recommended asking the Applicant. He added <br /> that he finds the metrics and economics of this project to be different than most, considering it <br /> will be based on a condominium ownership model. He said he believes that houses will be <br /> more affordable than most housing in the area. He added that it was not required of the <br /> Applicant to designate properties to the Trust. <br /> Commissioner Rich asked if there are conditions when it is required. <br /> Michael Harvey said in accordance with section 6.1.18 of the UDO, there is a process <br /> where a developer can request density bonuses. He reminded the Board that there is language <br /> within the regulations that prohibits density bonuses being awarded for affordable housing in <br /> watershed protection overlay districts, in which this project is. <br /> Commissioner Price asked if there would need to be additional screenings between <br /> homes as there is only 10 feet in between. She added as this is one big property, perhaps <br /> additional screenings may not apply. <br /> Michael Harvey said Commissioner Price is partially correct. He added that a home <br /> occupation would have to be applied for, in accordance with the applicable standards as they <br />