Orange County NC Website
1I <br />The initial purpose of this amendment was to <br />formalize a policy requiring twice the minimum <br />lot size for a lot which provides a septic <br />easement for another lot. During the development <br />of the amendment, the policy was re- evaluated. <br />The amendment also establishes a minimum lot size <br />for lots served by public water or sewer, but not <br />both. <br />It is recommended that 40,000 square feet remain <br />the minimum lot size where a well and septic tank <br />are used, 30,000 square feet where there is a <br />septic tank but no well, and 15,000 square feet <br />where there is both public water and sewer. A <br />septic easement would require an additional <br />20,000 square feet. <br />The Orange County Board of Health endorsed the <br />proposal on July 26, 1990. The potential for <br />increased density in the unzoned townships was <br />identified as an issue by the Planning Board on <br />August 20, 1990. <br />The proposed amendment was presented for public <br />hearing on August 30, 1990. There were no <br />comments. <br />The Planning Staff recommends approval of the <br />proposed amendment. <br />(Copies of proposed amendments and diagrams <br />attachments to these minutes on pages .) <br />Scearbo noted that clarification was needed for <br />IV -B -1 -2 to indicate that it applies to both <br />zoned and unzoned townships. She suggested that <br />it read: The minimum lot size for new lots shall <br />not be less than that appropriate for the method <br />of water supply and wastewater disposal system. <br />Waddell asked if it was possible that a lot could <br />have a well but be served by public sewer. <br />Scearbo responded that she did not know of <br />such a case. She continued that the situation <br />most likely to occur would be public water but <br />individual septic system. <br />Jacobs expressed concern with the timing of this <br />proposed amendment noting that the majority of <br />the two watersheds indicated are in unzoned <br />townships. He noted that zoning of the two <br />northern townships is an issue to be reviewed by <br />the Ordinance Review Committee and expressed <br />further concern with the reduction of minimum <br />