Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
17 <br />1 revisions have been made and incorporated into the proposed amendments. One of the changes <br />2 presented at the Boazd's April meeting was that there must be increased lot size and at least two <br />3 of the criteria must be met in order to justify a private road. The Boazd had asked staff to revise <br />4 language in the ordinance provisions concerning private road justification by making the criteria <br />5 more specific. Criteria l.a, which requires significantly greater lot sizes and building setback <br />6 lines, now specifies minimum lot sizes of $0,000 square feet, three acres or five acres depending <br />7 on the minimum lot size of the zoning district with setbacks twice those required in each zoning <br />8 district. <br />9 <br />to Regarding the criteria that deals with significantly greater amounts of land of historical or <br />11 environmental significance, the language would be tightened to say, "At least fifty percent of the <br />12 site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive covenants as referenced in 'An Inventory <br />13 of sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the <br />14 Unincorporated Portions of Orange County"'. <br />15 <br />16 Regarding criteria that deals with significantly greater stream buffers and reduced impervious <br />17 surface for private road subdivisions located in a protected watershed, the amendments propose <br />18 the stream buffers to be increased by 25% and impervious surface decreased by 15%. Another <br />19 revision that has not been previously presented is that no private road justification would be <br />20 required for minor subdivisions with three or less lots. <br />21 <br />22 Discussion ensued about the person who wants to subdivide on Lebanon Church Road. <br />23 <br />24 Benedict said that a private access easement is acceptable to access the adjacent lot, and this <br />25 language could be added in the ordinance. <br />26 <br />27 The board agreed to put the language about the private access easement into the ordinance. <br />28 <br />29 Strayhorn would prefer that the setback requirements not be increased. Chair Allison agrees that <br />30 the setbacks should not be increased. <br />31 <br />32 Barrows said that she hopes these proposed amendments make things clearer in regazds to <br />33 private roads. <br />34 <br />35 MOTION: - Gooding-Ray to accept the proposed amendments with the change <br />36 to the private road justification, and to add the language about <br />37 allowing the private access easement to access the adjacent lot. <br />38 Seconded by Selkirk. <br />39 The setback is still as recommended by the staff. <br />40 <br />41 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 3 (McAdams, Selkirk, and Strayhorn -disagree <br />42 with setback increase) <br />43 <br />44 Adjournment time being reached, the Chair asked for a motion to <br />45 extend the meeting to complete the agenda. <br />46 <br />