Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-28-1989
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1989
>
Agenda - 06-28-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2017 4:29:57 PM
Creation date
3/10/2017 4:03:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/28/1989
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
296
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4 <br /> IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES <br /> I LAND USE ISSUES <br /> • It should be made clear that all jurisdictions don't have to adopt the same land <br /> use approach,but that there are three options,and that two of the options have <br /> associated requirements in addition to zoning. The following is a list of the options <br /> available to local governments: <br /> 1) Five acre minimum lot size zoning, with a 4%impervious surface limit; <br /> 2) Five acre cluster equivalent, which allows:half acre lots,provided that a 4% <br /> impervious surface limit is kept, an on-site structural BMP is provided to reduce <br /> the effect of pollutant slug loadings, and approximately 85%of the development <br /> maintained as permanent open space. (This option yields overall densities of <br /> between 3.3 acres per dwelling unit). <br /> 3) Existing land use plans with a 62 impervious surface limit(whether or not <br /> public water and sewer is available) for two acre lots and 12%impervious surface <br /> limits for one acre lots -- with structural starmwater BMPs (on-site or regional) <br /> provided for all developments. This option is recommended for use where either <br /> of the other two options are considered to be infeasible, and only if there is a <br /> publicly funded and operated program of effective inspection and maintenance of <br /> the stormwater BMPs. <br /> • If some local governments decide to go with the higher density/structural <br /> control option,who will take responsibility for the long-term performance of the <br /> structural BMPs? Will the structural BMPs be on-site or regional facilities? If on- <br /> site structures will be used, there should be some agreed-on design standards for <br /> those facilities. If regional BIvIP structures will be relied on, a BMP Master Plan will <br /> have to be prepared. Who will take the lead agency role in that effort? How will it <br /> be paid for? (see also Financing) <br /> • <br /> • Because impervious surface limitations are the key to the various land use <br /> approaches, the term "impervious surface"needs to be defined so that all <br /> jurisdictions are consistent in their regulation. Currently,Carrboro and Chatham <br /> County include gravel roads in their definition of impervious surfaces,and Orange <br /> County does not,for example. <br /> • The term "clustering"needs to be carefully used and defined,since each <br /> jurisdiction is likely to have a different definition of clustering in its ordinance, all <br /> of which may differ from the Study's recommendation. (The Study's definition <br /> calls for half acre lots, a maximum of 42 impervious surfaces, 85 of a <br /> development preserved permanently as open space, and an on-site structural <br /> stormwater BMP to reduce the effects of pollutant slug loadings). <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.