Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Mr. Barrett stated that the Town Board had adopted a new Land <br />Use Plan in July of 1986, just prior to the January 1, 1987 <br />effective date of the last revaluation. The plan included <br />design guidelines, Resource Conservation Distract ordinances <br />with amendments and entrance -way corridor guidelines. He <br />explained the effect of the RCD ordinance was to essentially <br />prohibit any kind of active development in the RCD. <br />He further stated that the Land Use,Plan calls for preserving <br />development from steep slopes of over 150, with 20% <br />completely out, and under 15% with tight restrictions. He <br />explained that much of the three properties under appeal had <br />slopes of over 15 %. The Bennett property had 13 Acres on the <br />West side of 15/501 which was almost all in the RCD and the <br />37 acres on the east side was made up primarily of slopes <br />over 15% to 20 %. <br />In regards to the obey's Creek property Mr. Barrett explained <br />that 11 of the 90 acres was in the RCD and the remaining <br />acres also had a large portion in steep slopes and 7 acres <br />would be necessary to accommodate the Laurel Hill Parkway. <br />Concerning the Lystra Road 8 property, Mr. Barrett <br />explained that of the 33 1/4 acres, 2 1/4 were in the RCD, <br />approximately 13 1/2 in areas of steep slopes, and a small <br />portion would be necessary to accommodate the Laurel Hill <br />Parkway. <br />Mr. Barrett contends that the Town of Chapel Hill <br />Comprehensive Land -Use plan, which was enacted in July of <br />1986, has an adverse affect on developmental potential for <br />the appealed properties. He offered examples of properties <br />considered for development but believed to be economically <br />unfeasible because of the restrictions imposed by the Land - <br />Use Plan. <br />Mr. Barrett also made reference to a status report of the <br />Small Area Plans, submitted by Chapel Hill Planning to the <br />Town Council, quoting sections relating to natural drainage <br />ways and steep sloped areas. He also pointed out that the <br />report stated that most of the area east of 15/501 contains <br />land with major building restrictions. <br />Mr. Barrett stated that all three of the properties under <br />appeal were on the east side of 15/501 and should be <br />assessed on review after considering the implications of the <br />Comprehensive Land -Use Plan. <br />Mr. Barrett continued by defining zoning density requirements <br />and making reference to his handout which indicated probable <br />number of units allowed based on useable land. <br />Mr. Barrett stated that based on his calculations the Bennett <br />2 <br />