Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's <br /> response. <br /> 3. A BOCC member asked for clarification on the imposition of conditions. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: As detailed in the public hearing abstract, mutually agreed upon <br /> conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: <br /> i. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, <br /> ii. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and <br /> vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or <br /> iii. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. <br /> The applicant has verbally indicated they have accepted the recommended conditions. <br /> Further staff has been informed a letter signifying same will be presented at the <br /> November 5, 2015 regular BOCC meeting. <br /> 4. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify proposed and allowable density. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: The property is located within the Rural Residential (R-1) <br /> general use zoning district and the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay <br /> District allowing for a density of 1 dwelling unit for every 40,000 sq. ft.(0.92 acres) of <br /> property. <br /> The property is also located within the 20 Year Transition Area as denoted on the <br /> Future Land Use Map and is designated as being Urban on the Growth Management <br /> System Map indicating urban densities are permitted. <br /> This could result in a total of 112 dwelling units being developed on the property based <br /> purely on the size of the parcel and not taking other factors into consideration (i.e. <br /> adequate soils for septic, road access, permitting process, presence of stream and <br /> other environmental features, etc.). <br /> If approved the project would only allow for 1 dwelling unit for approximately every 3.2 <br /> acres of property and 34 dwelling units. <br /> 5. A Planning Board member asked if additional dwelling units could be added in the future. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: The plan could be modified through the submittal and processing <br /> of a new Conditional Zoning District petition. This would require holding a new <br /> neighborhood information meeting and a public hearing to review the proposal. <br /> 6. A BOCC member asked if the applicant was being asked to extend road access to adjacent <br /> parcels. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: It is not practical to extend the proposed roadway to the east due <br /> to the presence of streams and floodplain. There is no perceived benefit in requiring <br /> connection with adjoining subdivisions as this could create traffic concerns for adjacent <br /> neighborhoods. <br /> 7. A BOCC member asked the applicant to provide additional detail on the proposed 6 inch <br /> water line serving the project and if the line would be adequate to support water for both <br /> consumption and firefighting capabilities. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's <br /> response. <br />