Orange County NC Website
2 <br /> On October 18, 1993, the Planning Board considered the proposed <br /> amendments and recommended approval of the amendments presented <br /> at public hearing on August 23, 1993, with the following changes: (see <br /> attached Comments and Issues for discussion). <br /> 1. Adopt a new sliding scale for impervious surface ratios to apply <br /> to all existing and new lots in WS-II and WS-III watershed <br /> • <br /> (except for new lots in UNIV-PW and UNIV-CA). The <br /> proposed scale would require a 12% impervious surface limit for <br /> one-acre lots, and 10.5% for two-acre lots, and 6.0% for lots <br /> five acres or more. <br /> 2. Where the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet (excluding <br /> right-of-way), require also that the minimum lot area inclusive of <br /> right-of-way be a full acre (43,560). <br /> 3. Reduce the proposed minimum lot size in the Flat River <br /> Watershed to one acre. Maintain the 2-acre minimum lot size <br /> proposed in the Little River Watershed. <br /> 4. Increase the proposed minimum lot size in the portion of the <br /> Cane Creek Watershed outside of the critical Area from 40,000 <br /> square feet to 2 acres. <br /> 5. Eliminate the existing requirement that septic systems and <br /> structures be setback 300 feet and 150 feet, respectively, from <br /> streams in Critical Areas. Septic systems would be required to <br /> be located outside of any stream buffers, or 100' from the <br /> stream, whichever is farther. Structures must be located outside <br /> of the stream buffer. <br /> 6. Change the upper limit for non-residential impervious surface in <br /> WS-IV watersheds from 50% to 70% to correctly reflect the <br /> amount allowed by the State mandate. <br /> 7. Correct the definition of Critical Area in Article 22 to reflect a <br /> distance of 1/2 mile from the normal pool of the reservoir or the <br /> ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. <br /> 8. Other clarifications of and references to standards which are <br /> already in place. <br /> Differences between Planning Staff Recommendation and Planning <br /> Board Recommendation <br /> The only issue where the Planning Board action differed from the staff <br />