Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 The applicant has verbally indicated they have accepted the recommended conditions. <br /> 2 Further staff has been informed a letter signifying same will be presented at the <br /> 3 November 5, 2015 regular BOCC meeting. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 4. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify proposed and allowable density. <br /> 6 STAFF COMMENT: The property is located within the Rural Residential (R-1) <br /> 7 general use zoning district and the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay <br /> 8 District allowing for a density of 1 dwelling unit for every 40,000 sq. ft.(0.92 acres) of <br /> 9 property. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 The property is also located within the 20 Year Transition Area as denoted on the Future <br /> 12 Land Use Map and is designated as being Urban on the Growth Management System <br /> 13 Map indicating urban densities are permitted. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 This could result in a total of 112 dwelling units being developed on the property based <br /> 16 purely on the size of the parcel and not taking other factors into consideration (i.e. <br /> 17 adequate soils for septic, road access, permitting process, presence of stream and <br /> 18 other environmental features, etc.). <br /> 19 <br /> 20 If approved the project would only allow for 1 dwelling unit for approximately every 3.2 <br /> 21 acres of property and 34 dwelling units. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 5. A Planning Board member asked if additional dwelling units could be added in the future. <br /> 24 STAFF COMMENT: The plan could be modified through the submittal and processing of <br /> 25 a new Conditional Zoning District petition. This would require holding a new <br /> 26 neighborhood information meeting and a public hearing to review the proposal. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 6. A BOCC member asked if the applicant was being asked to extend road access to adjacent <br /> 29 parcels. <br /> 30 STAFF COMMENT: It is not practical to extend the proposed roadway to the east due to <br /> 31 the presence of streams and floodplain. There is no perceived benefit in requiring <br /> 32 connection with adjoining subdivisions as this could create traffic concerns for adjacent <br /> 33 neighborhoods. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 7. A BOCC member asked the applicant to provide additional detail on the proposed 6 inch <br /> 36 water line serving the project and if the line would be adequate to support water for both <br /> 37 consumption and firefighting capabilities. <br /> 38 STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's <br /> 39 response. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 In consultation with the Fire Marshal and Orange County Emergency Services staff is <br /> 42 recommending a condition requiring the final size of required waterlines to be <br /> 43 determined at time of permitting with the review and approval of the Orange County Fire <br /> 44 Marshal. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 8. Several BOCC members asked for clarification on the proposed septic system for the project. <br /> 47 STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's <br /> 48 response. <br /> 49 <br />