Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-21-1990
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1990
>
Agenda - 03-21-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 4:34:07 PM
Creation date
10/30/2017 4:29:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/21/1990
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
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
ADOPTED <br /> 31290 <br /> c. Option E developments should be located within one <br /> mile of arterial or collector roadways for traffic <br /> management reasons . Such developments should not be <br /> located directly on intersections, and should be <br /> buffered from roadways . <br /> d. Use of transferred development rights from within the <br /> Rural Boundary district would be required in order to <br /> create an Option E development. Development rights <br /> would be equal to the density in excess of one <br /> dwelling unit per acre. <br /> e. In conjunction with the above, the Committee should <br /> analyze and define a "Development Sector" for Option <br /> E developments, which would factor in the location of <br /> arterial and collector roadways and feasible public <br /> utility extension to create a logical, cost-effective <br /> and easily-defined corridor of the Rural Boundary <br /> district where such developments would be encouraged. <br /> f . Option E, as a self-contained community, should <br /> allow a commercial/institutional core to be designed <br /> at a village level . This should include a road <br /> network designed to protect the rural character and <br /> discourage passer-by commercial activity. <br /> 4) The Committee finds that the Option D (Planned) option <br /> may also require some form of sewer system. <br /> The Committee recommends that Option D developments <br /> utilize public water and sewer where available. Where <br /> public water and sewer extension is not cost effective, <br /> the use of community alternative sewer systems would be <br /> permitted. The use of these community systems would be <br /> contingent on participation in a Monitoring and <br /> Maintenance program adopted by the County, and such <br /> systems should be built to public specifications so that <br /> they might be incorporated into a public system in time. <br /> 5) For Option B, the maximum tract size for development with <br /> "Minor Subdivision" review incentives would be 200 acres. <br /> Option B subdivisions of greater than 200 acres in size <br /> would be permitted in accordance with the provisions of <br /> "Major Subdivisions" . <br /> ************************************************************* <br /> PART TWO - PROPOSED LOT SIZE AND OPEN SPACE <br /> The Committee recommends the following standards for the five <br /> development categories : <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.