BC 1984 03 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

507 (D) Where residence(s) will be serviced by public or community water and sewer facilities, the lot area need only be twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. In such cases the other dimensional requirements will comply with that of the R-30 district. R-30 (A) (B) (c) Forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet required for each two-family dwelling unit (corner lots only). Permitted only in subdivisions. If a lot size exceeds eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty (18,750) the one apartment in an accessory building or garage is permitted. Where residence(s) will be serviced by public or community water and sewer facilities, the lot area need only be twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. In such cases the other dimensional requirements will comply with that of the R-30 district. Planning Board denied this request 3 to 2. Mr. Don Sellars presented information relating to the operation of package treatment plants. He stated that the water from the package treatment plants which runs into streams is more pure than the run-off from septic tanks and drain fields. He supported the reduction in lot sizes. Messrs. David Fudge and Manuel Kiser spoke in support of package treatment plants. Mr. John Cline, member of the Planning Board, spoke in favor of package treatment plants and the proposed smaller lot sizes. Mr. Roger Rice, resident of Piney Grove Church Road, opposed the reduction of lot sizes in the ARR districts, stating that the one-lane bridges and small roads in the county could not support the high density that would occur with smaller lot sizes. Mr. Fletcher Hartsell, attorney, opposed the proposed text amendment, stating it would "gut" the zoning classifications of ARR, R-40, and R-30 and would eliminate any type of transitional zones in the county. He complained that no bonding was required for the package treatment plants and that there was no County monitoring for the systems. Mr. Hartsell questioned the State's ability to effectively monitor the systems if the number of package treatment plants increased throughout the county. Mr. Ralph Broomg insurance agent, expressed concern regarding problems that could arise if the package treatment plant owners declare bankruptcy or sell to persons from out-of-state. Mr. Donald Hill of Route 6, Concord, spoke in opposition to the use of a package treatment plant on Piney Grove Church Road, stating it would contaminate the streams and harm his cattle and damage irrigation equipment. Also speaking against the proposed text amendment were Mr. Bill Martin, Mr. C. O. Hill and his daughter, and Mrs. Alice Hill. Mr. F. A. Rankin, Planning Board Chairman, opposed a decrease in rural lot sizes. Mr. William L. Mills, III, attorney, spoke in support of higher densities in the ARR, R-40, and R-30 districts where adequate facilities for water and sewer are available. Mr. Todd Bush also spoke in favor of the text amendment, stating that persons could no longer afford large tracts of land for homes. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Barnhardt, seconded by Commissioner Payne and unanimously carried, the Board deferred action on the proposed text amendment until after March 22, 1984, to have report from the Board of Health regarding package treatment plants. The Board will take action on the proposed amendment at the first meeting after receiving the report from the Board of Health. (5) Page 61, Section 4.11 Any lot of record as of February 1, 1982, without access to a state maintained road and/or without adequate access to a state maintained road may be used for residential purposes. These lots are exempt from exclusive right-of-way requirements, right-of-way width requirements, and are not required to have direct access to an existing public road. This provision in no way exempts the property from Section 1.4 of this ordinance.