Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-21-2009 - 5b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2009
>
Agenda - 04-21-2009
>
Agenda - 04-21-2009 - 5b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2012 4:53:15 PM
Creation date
4/17/2009 4:38:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/21/2009
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20090421
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2009
ORD-2009-027 Resolution Amending the County Flood Damage Prevention Subdivision Zoning Atlas Ordinance
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2009
RES-2009-027a Flood Ordinance
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5 <br />1 Rachel Phelps Hawkins arrived at 8:01 p.m. <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 Commissioner Jacobs said that the notices were very difficult to understand. He asked <br />5 for clarification about whether it would change anything about the property. Craig Benedict said <br />6 that this is correct. <br />7 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the adoption of this ordinance. He said that <br />8 qualified farms are exempt from zoning regulations under State statute. He noted on the <br />9 proposed Part 1.5 that the farm exemption is supposedly not in effect with respect to this <br />10 particular section of the zoning ordinance. He asked about the legal basis for exempting in <br />11 Orange County certain parts of zoning from the bona fide farm exemption. <br />12 Michael Harvey said that the Planning Department staff had the same concerns and the <br />13 section was written based on the model of the Wake County Unified Development Ordinance <br />14 after review with the County Attorney's Office. <br />15 Commissioner Gordon said that the notice should have been clearer so that people <br />16 would not have been forced to come out to the public hearing to get clarification. <br />17 <br />18 PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />19 Lynette Hartsell spoke on behalf of the Friends of Lake Orange. She said that she asked for <br />20 a copy of the letter from the Attorney General's Office that prompted this change. The letter is <br />21 dated September 14, 2005, and is addressed to the National Flood Insurance Program. It was <br />22 actually a memorandum. She said that the letter that she received addressed issues of FEMA, <br />23 flood maps, and whether the maps can be incorporated. The issue addressed in the <br />24 memorandum was whether or not future maps could be accepted without this kind of public <br />25 notice. She said that she is confused that this is being moved under zoning. There is nothing in <br />26 the letter that she read that you cannot have a standalone flood prevention ordinance. She said <br />27 that the people in Lake Orange get nervous about these things. She said that the people in <br />28 Lake Orange are concerned that their rights will be taken away from them. She said that there <br />29 is a lot of distrust that the government will not act in the citizens' best interest. She said that <br />30 there must be meaningful dialog and not just public hearings. She asked the County <br />31 Commissioners to think outside the box and initiate a task force charged to identify problems <br />32 and find solutions for Lake Orange and reach a binding agreement. <br />33 Brent Clayton said that he bought 6.5 acres in 2000 and it was not in the floodplain. His <br />34 property got put in a floodplain in 2007. He originally purchased his property to ?? behind the <br />35 house that is there now. The floodplain took almost three acres of his property, and the <br />36 property is now useless. He asked how this was helping him. <br />37 Steve Richardson was with the Friends of Lake Orange. He said that there are vast <br />38 gaps in the proposal and there are some State constitutionality questions. He urged the County <br />39 Commissioners to decline to act on this unnecessary proposal. If the County Commissioners <br />40 vote on this, he asked that they amend it specifically to honor and grandfather the special, <br />41 perpetual, contractual rights with the County under the terms by which Lake Orange was gifted <br />42 to the County 40 years ago, so that nothing within the technical zoning change can be <br />43 construed as going against those rights in any way. Secondly, the property owners of Lake <br />44 Orange have endured decades of bad experience with the County and are mistrustful. Several <br />45 County Commissioners and staff have been welcoming, forthcoming, and have worked in good <br />46 faith. He thanked those people. He said that these people were the exception. He said that the <br />47 assurance that this change would have no effect on properties is not strictly true. He read a <br />48 resolution that was proposed by the Friends of Lake Orange, as follows: <br />49 "In the interest of reestablishing mutual trust and good will, eliminating future avoidable <br />50 misunderstandings that could further divert all involved from their other interests, <br />51 responsibilities, and duties, as well as potential future involvement of remote third parties whose <br />61 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.