Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
20 <br /> working with the individual in regard to the <br /> design of the lot and another could be <br /> petitioning the Board of Adjustment for a <br /> variance. Another method could create a special <br /> exception. This could be a case where the <br /> applicant is at or near the 4% and design <br /> standards could be created by which the water <br /> from the additional floor area could be <br /> infiltrated. If that is accomplished the <br /> applicant could be granted the additional floor <br /> area that is needed. He continued that design <br /> standards could be set up in order not to require <br /> Board of Adjustment approval for special <br /> exceptions. This could not be handled through <br /> the amendments that went to public hearing in <br /> November, 1989, but the three staffs could <br /> incorporate them into the watershed standards <br /> that are to be presented at public hearing in <br /> February 1990 . <br /> Eddleman noted that he was in favor of some <br /> methods of flexibility but was concerned that the <br /> problem may be worse than even this review has <br /> shown. Collins responded that was somewhat the <br /> idea behind performance standards or Board of <br /> Adjustment approval for special exceptions. <br /> Eidenier asked why not change the ratio to 5% and <br /> then only one of the examples would have need of <br /> approval for a special exception. Collins <br /> responded that had been considered, but the 4% . <br /> would comply with the recommendation by Camp, <br /> Dresser, McKee. Ways could be found to deal with <br /> the hardships and still abide by the <br /> recommendations made by the consultant. He <br /> continued that those that exceed the 4% were the <br /> larger buildings and one method of addressing <br /> that issue would be to go up (add a story) rather <br /> than out. <br /> Waddell asked why a larger lot size required a <br /> lower impervious surface ratio. Collins <br /> responded that the larger the lot size, the lower <br /> the density and less impervious surface; <br /> therefore, less runoff. Waddell continued <br /> expressing concern that the ratio was not the <br /> same for the larger lot sizes. Collins responded <br /> that the amount of land covered with impervious <br /> surface and the amount of water that is actually <br /> infiltrated into the soil. Camp, Dresser, McKee <br /> had a computer model that would project water <br /> quality levels would be in University Lake <br /> Watershed with the different scenarios. The goal <br /> was to retain the current water quality. In <br />