Minutes - 20090317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

The Board received the Planning Board recommendation on and considered approval of a staff-initiated Zoning Ordinance text amendment to modify existing landscape buffer regulations contained within Section 6.29.3a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Michael Harvey said that the staff put forward a staff-initiated text amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 6.29.3a, which is the Economic Development District Design Manual, to amend existing buffer regulations within the Hillsborough EDD. This was heard during the November Quarterly Public Hearing, and the impetus for initiating this amendment was to address concerns staff had over the potential for development within the Hillsborough corridor, specifically along NC 86. There has been interest in converting one of the existing residential structures into a professional office. Current buffer regulations would require a 50-foot landscaped area separating non-residential from residential development. Staff proposes buffer amendments that would allow for an individual to adaptively reuse existing single-family residential structures to obtain a reduction in the required buffer in order to increase the usable area. During the public hearing, there were numerous concerns. One concern was that if an individual deconstructed then they might be able to make use of this buffer allowance. The answer to that is no. The only way to make use of the buffer allowance is to use the existing residential structure for a non-residential purpose. Another concern is what would constitute a suitable screen when there were joint or shared driveways. Staff proposed language that would allow the Planning Director, at his discretion, to weigh certain landscape requirements. The Planning Board reviewed this item after a long deliberation and has recommended that the Board approve the amendment as presented by staff. He read the Administration recommendation. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 3.2.3g and said that it does not make sense to talk about granting a waiver of the location of a perimeter buffer. He said that the waiver should be for some of the planting requirements along the common lot line where there may be a shared use easement in place. Michael Harvey said that he understands this, but the rationale for writing it this way was to require and force dialog. Chair Foushee asked if there was compromised language here. Commissioner Jacobs suggested using the word "parameters" instead of "locations." Michael Harvey agreed with this. It was agreed to use the word "parameters." Commissioner Jacobs said that there were a number of questions at the public hearing that were left out of the minutes on page 11. The way that he reads the staff comment is that this amendment, while it addresses buffer issues, it is not the venue for addressing the other issues that were raised that relate to the buffer. He asked, if the buffer regulations are approved and then the Board wants to make adjustments to other aspects of these parcels that might affect the buffers, whether this would be possible or if it would be precluded because the buffer regulations have been approved. He does not want to approve something that will then preclude him from addressing limiting road access. Geof Gledhill said that the Board could come back and change the text. However, property owners who have vested rights in the present use of their property or some permitted use of the property that arise after these changes are adopted but before the text changes get adopted are going to continue to have the vested rights to do that. Commissioner Jacobs asked for the Clerk's office to go back and transcribe the clarifying questions and answers from the public hearing in November and bring back to the Board some identification of issues as well as the South Churton Street Access Management Plan to see what it says. He wants to make sure that what the County is doing is consistent with this.