Minutes - 20080205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

area in the Growth Management System, and there would be 17 lots. No public parkland dedication is recommended because there are no County recreation and/or open space sites as designated in the Comprehensive Plan on the property. The payment-in-lieu is recommended at $455/lot or $7,735. This subdivision has been in process since 2006 and has come back to the Planning Board for preliminary approval after a court decision. Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of the effect of the court case. Geof Gledhill said that, initially, the Zoning Officer had determined that the entirety was in a critical area designation. The Board of Adjustment agreed with the Zoning Officer that all or most of this property is located in the critical area. With properties in the critical area, there is an impervious surface requirement and a minimum density. The minimum density in the critical area is one unit per two acres. The Board of Adjustment's decision upholding the Zoning Officer's decision requires the development to have one unit per two acres of density and 6% impervious surface. The decision of the Board of Adjustment was appealed to superior court, and before that hearing, a consent order was entered with the Board of County Commissioners' approval. The gist of the consent order was that this property would be treated as though it were in a critical area for density purposes, but outside the critical area for impervious surface, so that the development could be developed with 12% impervious surface. PUBLIC COMMENT: John Swanson submitted an information sheet that he compiled, which outlined ongoing questions posed by Orange County citizens and Orange County officials regarding the proposed Bluffs at Moorefields development. The information sheet is incorporated by reference. He stated his six points: 1) The Bluffs has been opposed by numerous Orange County officials. He quoted Planning Board member Sandra Quinn from November 7, 2007, "I think it is out of character," and we do not need this type of dense development." He said that Brian Crawford also expressed this concern and asked why the lots were not bigger. Sandra Quinn also said at this meeting, and he quoted, "I think this should send a message to the Board of County Commissioners that we are not in agreement with this. I will continue to say it." He said that the Orange County Zoning Officer determined that the project ran afoul of watershed designations and impervious surface requirements in 2006. He pointed out that a similar single- family residential housing development was voted against previously several years ago. This development was rejected by Orange County on similar concerns of density and water issues. 2) Historic, ongoing problems concerning the suitability of the Bluffs development site (namely long-time density and water concerns). 3) The Bluffs is too dense and North Carolina local governments (county and city) have authority to regulate density by statutory authority and North Carolina case law. He said that The Bluffs is too dense and North Carolina local governments have authority to regulate density by statutory authority and North Carolina case law. 4) The Bluffs does not comport with the legislative intent of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. 5) The Bluffs does not comport with the legislative intent of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 6) The Court Order concerning the Bluffs is for an absolute maximum of 17 lots (thereby a limitation on the property), it is therefore a ceiling on the development and not a floor. He asked the Board of County Commissioners not to approve The Bluffs development. Steve Yuhasz was representing Christopher Road Realty, Inc., the developer. He asked that the Board adopt the resolution of approval.