Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> i� <br /> AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (AUGUST 28,2000) <br /> 3 a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments <br /> 4 (1)Proposed Stream Buffer Amendments <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Davis made the presentation. He said that this item was referred back to the Planning Board at the public <br /> 7 hearing for a recommendation. It was brought to the Ordinance Review Committee to make a <br /> 8 recommendation to the Planning Board. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 The ordinance restricts the amount of unencumbered tot space on lots. In other words,there would have <br /> I 1 to be a minimum lot size that could be built on for a particular lot. For any lot between 40,000 square feet <br /> 12 and 1.99 acres,there would have to be a usable area of 30,000 square feet. For any lot that is two acres <br /> 13 and greater in size,there would have to be a usable area of 40,000 square feet. The definition of a usable <br /> 14 lot area is the portion of a lot unencumbered by stream buffer,conservation easements,drainage <br /> 15 easements,public or private rights-of-way,access easements,and utility easements. It also includes the <br /> 16 portion of a lot unencumbered by slopes greater than 20 percent and wildlife corridors,ponds,lakes,and <br /> 17 other bodies of water. The stream buffer has also been clarified to be from the edge of the floodplain. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 On page 58,under"Method A-Stream Buffer Based on Slope and Groundcover"the Ordinance Review <br /> 20 Committee recommended some changes. The width of the buffer shall be"a minimum of"50 feet. For <br /> 21 slope values less than 7.5 percent,the Ordinance Review Committee recommended that only an <br /> 22 additional 15 feet should be added to the 50-foot buffer. For slope values 7.5 percent and greater,the <br /> 23 Ordinance Review Committee recommended that only an additional 30 feet should be added to the 50- <br /> 24 foot buffer. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Regarding Section 8,which reads, "This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption,"the Ordinance <br /> 27 Review Committee recommended that lots with building permits would be vested,septic system repair <br /> 28 areas would be vested,and any existing structures that are in the buffers would be vested. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Benedict said that if a FEMA floodplain is modified by the federal government,a rebuilding probably <br /> 31 would not be allowed. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Davis said that the Ordinance Review Committee agreed unanimously to recommend the ordinance <br /> 34 amendments to the Planning Board. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 There was a question about the last sentence of the definition of"lot,usable",and it was changed to say, <br /> 37 "Usable lot also excludes all areas within lots having slopes greater than 20%and all areas within wildlife <br /> 38 corridors,ponds,and lakes." <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Barrows asked about the definition of a wildlife corridor. Davis said that it should have been included in <br /> 41 the document to say,"as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan." <br /> 42 <br /> 43 McAdams asked if all of the people that would be affected by the ordinance amendment were notified of <br /> .44- _she change and Davis said that they were not notified individually,but through the legal advertisement. <br /> 45 The main issue has to do with new lots that are encumbered and not usable. <br /> 46 <br /> ­47 Woods asked about farming activities in the floodplain and said that they should be exempt. Barrows <br /> 48 disagrees because of possible pesticides being used near the water. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Davis said that bona fide farms were exempt from zoning ordinances according to state rules. <br /> 51 <br /> 52 Strayhorn would lice it stated in the document that farms would be exempt. <br /> 53 <br />