ORD-2009-009-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area-

Browse Search

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. Commissioner Yuhasz verified with staff that this ordinance would only affect these few houses. He said that it would be difficult to try and provide any common access to these houses and provide parking in front, etc. He said that to put additional requirements would preclude adaptive reuse of these structures. Commissioner Jacobs said that there could be language that encourages parking to the rear or to the sides. There is limited flexibility. He said that Old NC 86 is already a mess and he is concerned about moving forward. He said that it might be more important to have an access road than a buffer behind the buildings. He said that he does not want to approve something that he will later regret. Commissioner Gordon about the Planning Board's deliberations. Michael Harvey said that the Planning Board deliberated for a long time on this matter and there were several friendly amendments to the motion that were not approved. Those friendly amendments would have asked the County Commissioners to direct staff to begin the process of amending the ordinance to address these concerns. There was unanimous approval. He said that clarifying points were that there was a similar problem when the Efland- Cheeks Overlay District was adopted. There may be existing language within the EDD Design Manual that would encourage and require shared driveway access. He thinks that there are