Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

162 ~esponse: Na changes to waie~shed protection regulations are being proposed. Critical and Protected ~aundaries are nat changing. The exi$ting Wate~shed Protection ~verlay District provisions (Section 4.2~ have not heen changed. ' ~. Con~ern~ Conditionat districfs should be prohibited fram the University take Watershed Qvertay Districfi, the Cane Creek and Upper Eno Protected and Critical Areas, and the Rural Bufifer. Qiespmnses Prohibiting condifiiona) districts would be problemafiic because Coun4y reg~fations curre~ntBy require that subdivisions of ~er~ain size thresholcls be a~pproved through ~he Ptanned Developrner~t pra~ess. (n the [3f30, 4he appr~vat prac~ss for tertain sc~bdivisions would be the Conditionai Use approval process {see Section 7.2.3 on page 7-4 forsize th~eshatds). Additioreally, prohibixing conditionat c#isfiricts from these areas would be~a significan~ change from existing caunty regulations which altaw property owners to appiy far Planneci Develapment districts in ~hese areas with legislative approval following due p~acess procedures. The conditrionat district regulations cantained in the UDO require a, iVeighborhood Information Meeting priar to the public hearing (see Sections ~.9.1(D} and 2,9.2(D) on pages 2-40 and 2-44, respectiively). Presenfly, neighborhood information meetings are required only for major subdivisions. Caunty Piar~ning staff believed it wauld be prudent to require that all conditional district projects hvld a neighborhood information meeting tn order to promote public involvement and transparency rather than have potentiaf canfusion that could result if onfy certair~ projects (major subdivisfons) would be subject to the requirement. 3