Agenda - 06-11-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 incompatible with this development, this existing neighborhood would be 0 protected. Commissioner Marshall noted this seemed to be a very curious interpretation of the regulations. The buffer is required to protect the quality of development and she felt waiving the buffer requirement would be a serious compromise to the general plan for the physical development of the County. She continued saying that everyone coming in with a Planned Development would have an equal opportunity whether they were going for Rr2 or R-8 and no one would be penalized more than another. Cochran responded he had first proposed a general R-2 rezoning and not a Planned Development, as this is essentially a subdivision and potential purchasers would not want to be involved with a homeowners association, and was told that the Board was reluctant to approve, general rezonings due to loss of control. Based on this judgment, the applicant then pursued a Planned Development. Commissioner Wilihoit responded that Staff noted it was possible to waive the 100' buffer if a buffer of equivalent screening or impact were provided and he felt a backyard without a buffer was not equivalent to a 100' buffer. Cochran responded he was never led to believe he needed a perimeter buffer. It is really an open space requirement. County Attorney Gledhill told the Board and Council Members that the provision in question is 7.14.3 a) 4. It is more complex than just a 100' buffer. He noted that the term "buffer" was incorrect. Where you have a PDH district adjoining another residential district, the requirements of the adjoining residential district apply along the boundary; in lieu thereof, you could have a 100° open space along the PD-H boundary. That translates to any lots along the R-1 District having to be R-1; if they are not R-1, then there has to be 100' of open space between the PD-H boundary and the R-1 zone. 410 Mayor Massif asked if the open space requirement were a separate entity and Gledhill responded it could be a setback within the lot. He continued that if an R-2 District were adjacent to an R-1 District, there would be no such requirement. • Commissioner Carey noted the change from R-1 to R-2 triggers the requirement. Commissioner Marshall noted that after the more detailed explanation she is even more convinced that this proposal seriously compromises the general plan for the physical development of the County. Gledhill responded that perhaps the performance standard as used by the Town of Chapel Hill for its buffer requirement might address the concern regarding buffering one district from another district. Commissioner Carey asked Cochran if he were aware of the performance requirement under the Town of Chapel Hill's Ordinance and Cochran responded no. Roger Waldon described the buffer requirements of the Town Ordinance, noting that under the schedule of uses buffer requirements do not apply to this type of major subdivision application creating lots for single family dwellings that adjoin vacant land zoned R-1, R-2 or R-3. Buffers are required where the land is adjacent to a street or other more intensive uses. In this case the adjacent land is R-2 and vacant. Buffers are required along Weaver Dairy and Sunrise Road. Chapel Hill staff had requested that Town buffer standards be applied in anticipation of annexation of the property into the Town's corporate limits. Gordon asked if a buffer would be required near the Potted Plant. Waldon responded the buffer requirement applies to more intensive uses but not single family property. projecc bran requested that the Town buffer requirements apply to this t. A Council member questioned the availability of buildable areas on lots 35, 41 and 42 which contain drainage easements. Cochran responded dwelling units would have to be designed and located outside these easements.