Orange County NC Website
overall density of development less than 1 unit per 2.0 acres of <br />land, AND a limit of 6% on impervious surfaces. This linkage of <br />density and impervious surfaces is a common one used by many local <br />governments in the area (including Orange County). <br />This "minimum rule" has recently been clarified, however, to <br />require EITHER two-acre lots OR a 6% impervious surface cap as a <br />minimum for protecting water quality. The effect of this <br />clarification is that a two -acre minimum lot size is not <br />necessarily required. Local governments can instead impose a 5% <br />impervious surface cap on all new development. Such a cap would <br />limit houses on a 40,000 square foot lot to 2400 square feet of <br />impervious surface (including driveways and other appurtenances). <br />In addition, is should be noted that all of the state's rules are <br />"minimums ", which might be superseded by local governments which <br />opt for a higher level of low density land use protective measures. <br />The second interpretation involves non - residential development in <br />Class WS -II and WS -III watersheds. Currently, the rules appear to <br />limit new non - residential development to a maximum of 10% of the <br />watershed - allowing such uses to have a built -upon area of 70 %. <br />At a recent Triangle J COG meeting, a representative of DEM <br />suggested that this might be interpreted so as not to place a cap <br />on non - residential development - as long as the development met the <br />impervious surface requirements of the minimum rules. It is unclear <br />at this time whether this will be the position of the EMC as well. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The EMC's regional public hearing on August 15 in Raleigh generated <br />a tremendous amount of participation - such that the EMC plans to <br />schedule a second hearing for the area. Because of this, the EMC <br />has extended its deadline for receiving written comment in the <br />hearing process to October 31, 1991. <br />The issues defined both in the original staff report and in this <br />addendum have significant implications for Orange County in a <br />number of areas. There are external unknowns that will also <br />eventually factor into the equation. Other issues and questions <br />will certainly be raised as the process continues. <br />