Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> To: Orange County (Comments on Watershed zoning) <br /> From: Ernie Patterson 6.4," <br /> Date: March 15, 1990 <br /> Subject: Analysis of land use patterns under the proposed <br /> watershed zoning requirements. <br /> In looking at the proposed watershed zoning requirements I <br /> decided to not only look the typical lot sized as referenced in <br /> Mr. Collins' memo of February 1, 1990 but also look at an actual <br /> five (5) acre subdivision that is in the process of being built. <br /> Attachments C, D, and E use the typical lot sizes as addressed in <br /> Mr. Collins' memo and show that for five (5) acre lots as long as <br /> the road is along the narrower dimension of the lot and the house <br /> is built somewhere before the center of the lot the 6% impervious <br /> coverage limit works fairly well. The two (2) acre lots all fall <br /> under the 12% limit as long as the same conditions apply. The <br /> problems occur when the width of a lot with road frontage exceeds <br /> the length of a lot then the additional impervious ground <br /> coverage caused by the extra road frontage will increase the <br /> percentage covered to exceed 6% for 5 acre lots and 12% for two <br /> acre lots. This effect seems to be constant with different <br /> building sizes. <br /> Attachment A looks at the Holly Creek Subdivision as built, <br /> with the limitation that the road frontages are taken from the <br /> subdivision plat, the driveways and parking areas that are <br /> actually built were measured by pacing the driveway and <br /> ' multiplying by 3 feet , and the house sizes were from a <br /> combination of what the owners said their house covered and <br /> pacing around them and calculating. This summary shows 3 of the <br /> 9 lots or 33% would exceed the 6% impervious coverage and if one <br /> averages the lot road frontage and applies the average equally 6 <br /> of the 9 lots or 66% would exceed 6% coverage. The major reason <br /> for this is that by counting the driveway as 100% impervious <br /> coverage and the fact that most of the home owners have chosen to <br /> build their houses as far back from the road as possible they all <br /> have long driveways and a large portion of their total impervious <br /> surface coverage is taken up by gravel driveways and parking <br /> areas. What I would suggest is that the county determine a <br /> "impervious coverage factor" for gravel driveways that reduces <br /> their effective impervious coverage to less that 100% or exempt <br /> driveways from the formula and reduce the total allowable <br /> coverage to some lesser percent. If you are interested in the <br /> effect of either of these suggestion I will be happy to rerun the <br /> model using the options you specify. <br /> If you need fully accurate measurements, I am willing with <br /> some help to go out with a tape measure and remeasure the lots. <br /> 1 <br />