Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORgi 046 <br /> PAGE 10 <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed <br /> amendments. <br /> Hartwell noted that he was unclear why provisions for <br /> flag lots are necessary and/or desirable. Collins <br /> responded that within the Subdivision Regulations there <br /> are some situations where flag lots are desirable. They <br /> include situations when the topography is such that it <br /> creates problems with lot size and setback requirements, <br /> situations where septic fields and nitrification fields are <br /> such that more than one lot could be utilized if flag lots <br /> were allowed, and situations where lots could have access <br /> onto streets of lower classifications with restricted access <br /> to arterials. <br /> 3. Subdivision Regulations. Amendments <br /> a. Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout (Flag Lots) <br /> b. Section II - Definitions (Flag Lots) <br /> Staff presentation by Marvin Collins. <br /> Section IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to <br /> be amended by adding additional wording to address to <br /> incorporate provision for flag lots in a subdivision lot <br /> layout. Flag lots are irregularly shaped where the buildable <br /> area of the lot is connected to the street by a smaller <br /> narrower portion of the lot. The narrower portion extends as <br /> an arm of the lot to the street, thus the name "flag lot" . <br /> The proposed amendment will identify permitted locations and <br /> types of flag lots. <br /> Section II of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be <br /> amended to add a definition of Flag Lot. The proposed <br /> amendment will clarify what a flag lot is and provide a legal <br /> definition. <br /> Collins also noted the proposed amendment of Section IV-B-5-a <br /> having to do with lot layout and the addition of Section IV- <br /> B-5-d having to do with the intent of flag lots and lot, <br /> standards for flag lots. (These are attachments on pages <br /> of these minutes) . <br /> Collins noted that these amendments would provide consistency <br /> with_ the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. <br /> Planning Board member Best asked it the provisions for flag <br /> lots represented a less restrictive approach in zoned versus <br /> unzoned townships. Collins indicated that the provisions <br /> xepresented a more restrictive approach in unzoned townships <br /> while permitting more flexibility in zoned townships. <br /> There were no public comments. <br />