Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of <br /> Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the JOINT <br /> PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN. The Plan identified Transition <br /> areas where urban development was to occur as well as a Rural <br /> Buffer where very low density residential development was <br /> permitted. To maintain a low density of development and <br /> protect environmentally sensitive areas, a two-acre minimum <br /> lot size standard was established for the Rural Buffer. <br /> The Rural Buffer is located adjacent to the Towns of <br /> Chapel Hill and Carrboro and is bounded generally by <br /> Interstate 40, Clyde Road, Eubanks Road, Rogers Road, and <br /> Homestead Road to the south ; Cornwallis Road, Murphey School <br /> Road, Brockwell Road, the University Branch of the Southern <br /> Railroad, N.C. 86, Davis Road, and Tree Farm Road to the <br /> north ; the Durham County line to the east; and Dodsons <br /> Crossroads, Carl Durham Road, and Ferguson Road to the west. <br /> It contains approximately 38,000 acres and also includes a <br /> sizable portion of the area known as the "Southern Triangle" <br /> bounded by the Durham and Chatham County lines, and the Town <br /> of Chapel Hill extraterritorial jurisdiction line. <br /> To conform the Zoning Ordinance/Atlas with the adopted <br /> Land Use Plan, a public hearing was held on November 24, <br /> 1986. Amendments proposed included a new zoning district <br /> classification, Rural Buffer (RB) , the rezoning of <br /> approximately 38,000 acres to the new district designation, <br /> and a schedule of dimensional requirements applicable within <br /> the district. The most significant change proposed was an <br /> increase in the minimum residential lot size requirement from <br /> 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two (2) acres. At the <br /> hearing, a number of concerns were identified, including the <br /> following: <br /> 1 . property R i ghf s <br /> Property owners felt that the two acre minimum lot <br /> size requirement denies them reasonable use of <br /> their land. Another aspect of this concern <br /> involved Article 11 .7 of the Zoning Ordinance <br /> which generally requires nonconforming lots less <br /> than two ( 2) acres in size to be combined into <br /> conforming lots. Property owners felt the provi- <br /> sion was unfair since these lots were legally <br /> created under ordinances in effect at the time. <br /> M <br />