OCPB agenda 070115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

As articulated at the public hearing, the proposed project is a village style development with approximately 34 dwelling units and involves the preservation of the majority of the property as vegetative open space and farm area (i.e. pasture and crop production). The residential portion of the project would occupy approximately 22 acres of the parcel with another 5 to 8 acres being used to support the proposed septic system. The remaining acreage would be preserved as farmland and dedicated open space. During the public hearing the following comments were made: 1. There was general support for the project. 2. A BOCC member requested additional information on the ownership mechanism proposed by the applicant, expressing concern(s) over how residents will own their individual housing units and surrounding property. STAFF COMMENT: Staff and the applicant indicated the information would be provided. 3. A BOCC member asked for clarification on the imposition of conditions. STAFF COMMENT: As detailed in the public hearing abstract, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: i. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, ii. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or iii. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. 4. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify proposed and allowable density. STAFF COMMENT: The property is located within the Rural Residential (R-1) general use zoning district and the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District allowing for a density of 1 dwelling unit for every 40,000 sq. ft. (0.92 acres) of property. This could result in a total of 112 dwelling units being developed on the property based purely on the size of the parcel and not taking other factors into consideration (i.e. adequate soils for septic, road access, permitting process, presence of stream and other environmental features, etc.). If approved the project would only allow for 1 dwelling unit for approximately every 3.2 acres of property. 5. A Planning Board member asked if additional dwelling units could be added in the future. STAFF COMMENT: The plan could be modified through the submittal and processing of a new Conditional Zoning petition. This would mean the holding of a new neighborhood information meeting and a public hearing to review the proposal. 6. A BOCC member asked if the applicant was being asked to extend road access to adjacent parcels. STAFF COMMENT: It is not practical to extend the proposed roadway to the east due to the presence of streams and floodplain. There is no perceived benefit in 88