Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
134 <br /> treated as impervious surface (except in the <br /> University Lake Watershed) . The State mandate <br /> requires that gravel be considered an impervious <br /> surface. The inclusion of gravel roads and <br /> driveways in impervious surface calculations can <br /> have a significant effect on lot development, <br /> particularly for two-acre lots which have previously <br /> been subject of a six percent limit. Willis <br /> continued, giving examples of development that could <br /> occur with a 12% impervious surface limit. Review <br /> was done by the Planning Staff to determine the <br /> impact of lowering the sliding scale. (This review <br /> is included in the Comments and Issues Report. ) <br /> The Planning Staff recommends that the revised <br /> sliding scale be used to determine the impervious <br /> surface ratio for all existing lots and new lots <br /> (except for new lots in the ULW) . The overall <br /> effect of the revised sliding scale would be to meet <br /> the State mandate through lot size restrictions <br /> while also maintaining a limit on impervious <br /> surface. Willis also reviewed the Proposed <br /> Residential Impervious Surface Limits table. <br /> Waddell expressed concern with the table noting that <br /> he felt developers are being encouraged to develop <br /> smaller size lots. Willis responded that the <br /> mathematics of the scale are such that the square <br /> footage begins to drop at about 4 .5 acres, but that <br /> the amount of impervious surface is still more than <br /> adequate to allow for full development of the lots. <br /> Barrows indicated concern that the larger lots were <br /> expected to provide the provisions for rainwater <br /> runoff from the higher density lots. Willis <br /> responded that the smaller lots did have a high <br /> percentage in order to accommodate reasonable <br /> development. Barrows noted that she felt this was <br /> discriminatory. Willis responded that there is a <br /> State allowance of 10% variance from the Board of <br /> Adjustment. <br /> Eidenier asked why this recommendation is not being <br /> applied to University Lake. Willis responded that <br /> no changes are being proposed for University Lake <br /> Watershed due to the study that was done. <br /> In regard to the Flat River Watershed, Willis stated <br /> that water originating in the Orange County portion <br /> of the Flat River Watershed flows through Person <br /> County where development standards are considerably <br /> less restrictive (one-acre minimum lot size, no <br /> impervious surface limit) . Upstream protection <br /> provided by Orange County could be negated by the <br />