ORD-2009-011-Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) – 4115 Old NC 10 (Jones)

Browse Search

Attachment 10 2 2 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes height limitations reduced from 60 ft. to 30 ft. Also, because of the linear type of district, the 100 ft. buffer around the outside perimeter of the EDD, basically; was a complete taking of some of these lots. To avoid all that, we created the district but we didn't map it. There was no indication that the County Commissioners wanted to map it at that time. Now, this is the first part of the implementation to bring these parcels to the . ED-LNR. You have non-conformities under the EDLO-1 you have aminimum-two acre lot size, most of these lots do not approach two acres. You have 200 ft. lot width minimum, most of the lots do not exceed 100-120 ft. There is a 100 ft: perimeter buffer, no one has tried anything but would have problems if they did. You have a service road requirement in this district, with small lots; putting a service road in would impact their impervious surface which is limited on a small lot anyway. Both districts only allow 50% impervious, so if you have a one acre lot and you put a 20 ft wide road across the frontage of a 100 ft. lot, you are taking 2000 sq. ft. there plus you have to accommodate the storm water. You could do it on a two acre lot but none of these lots in tract 1 are close to two acres. Interconnectivity, that's in both, we don't have a problem there. Maximum liu~ding size of 5000 sq. ft. in the district we're proposing to do which is a lesser impact to adjoining residential structures. I passed around some information that came up at the public hearing. Ms. Soulier is here. The drainage here (referring to map) regardless of what develops, is going to go where it currently is, they can't redistribute or redirect the water coming off the site and in this district under the Neuse River rules you have to accommodate pre vs post development. When this was approved by the Town of Hillsborough, these two bottom lots were in an existing 100 year flood plain. The structures themselves are not in it but the actual lot is listed in a flood plain. The drainage is to the east. I went there with Erosion Control and none of the drainage for this rezoning impacts any of these properties down here. Larry Wright: Where does it drain? Robert Davis: This drains back into Cate's Creek. It ultimately ends up in Eno. Larry Wright: That's not what I asked. Where-does parcel one drain? Robert Davis: It sits on top of the hill. If you notice the Credit Union parking Ivt, the storm drainage is in the front, so assume it releases toward 86. That would probably be the most likely place to drain. In my opinion, it's not going this way. I can verify that before the Commissioner's meeting. This district is to implement what was recommended in 2001 under the EDD. Nothing is changing in regard to uses. The uses are roughly the same with one little d'rfference, which we have interpreted to be small scale repair of appliance and things, not cars, not transmissions, or anything like that. That's basically all I have to say on the amendment. In your packet, there is a statement of suffiaency. Both districts are Economic Development Districts and it's clearly in a transition area. You'll also see a recommendation of approval. I am open for questions. Brian Crawford: Before questions and comments by the Board, are there any further statements or presentations by the public? Margo Pinkerton: Basically, we put our comments on this paper, and a. couple of hand written notes at the end. I will disagree a little bit about the drainage in the lower portion. If you go to the neighborhood, you can look right across old 86 and if you'll look from the neighborhood you're looking out and a little bit up old 86 and anything happens in fhat property, it does slope down into a now acknowledged tributary that goes into Cate's Creek so when we have heavy rains there is flooding in that little recently acknowledged creek and .~ forth. We're certainly very supportive of parcel one and think that makes total sense. It's not fait to hold the current owners hostage because of things that have happened with zoning that weren't around when they were there. The only thing, and I think we agree to the general plan, is we would like you all to be mindful that there is flooding elements it isn't just at the bottom of the pictures I showed you when I went to gather photographs, of course it wasn't fboded. A lot of times if you talk to the neighbors in that area they will tell you that little feeder stream does get flooded, very much so. It is, as you can see, very close to o1d.86 antl if you could just be mindful that this part of the neighborhood is generally inhabited by young