Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> 1 • Proposed amendments make existing regulations easier to follow/understand what is <br /> 2 required. <br /> 3 • Proposal provides appropriate references to stormwater standards. <br /> 4 • Contradictions are eliminated. <br /> 5 RECOMMENDATION: <br /> 6 1. Receive the proposed amendments. <br /> 7 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on <br /> 8 the proposed amendments. <br /> 9 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be <br /> 10 returned to the BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. <br /> 11 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning <br /> 12 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Commissioner McKee asked about a possible scenario. He said that if a four-lot <br /> 15 subdivision was approved this past year and two of the lots were built upon and did not have to <br /> 16 meet this requirement, then next year the other two lots were built upon, he asked if the other <br /> 17 two lots would have to absorb the entire disturbed area or just for their lots and Michael Harvey <br /> 18 said that it would be just for their lot. This is handled on a lot-by-lot basis. <br /> 19 Commissioner Rich asked about the additional cost for surveying and Michael Harvey <br /> 20 said $500-1,000. <br /> 21 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12 and Section 2.4.1 and said that she <br /> 22 would not consider option `c' because she would not wish to change the protection for University <br /> 23 Lake Watershed. <br /> 24 Michael Harvey indicated the proposed amendment would not impact existing <br /> 25 development regulations enforced in the University Lake Watershed Overlay district. The <br /> 26 proposal would only potentially eliminate the requirement for the submittal of a professionally <br /> 27 prepared site plan based solely on a parcels location within the district and link its submittal to <br /> 28 existing stormwater management thresholds instead. Michal Harvey asked if there was any <br /> 29 preference for option `a' or `b'. <br /> 30 Chair Jacobs said that he was deferring his opinion until he heard the questions from the <br /> 31 Planning Board. <br /> 32 Maxine Mitchell said that she would reserve her comments until this came back to the <br /> 33 Planning Board. <br /> 34 Commissioner McKee said that his preference would be option `a'. He is concerned <br /> 35 about people that would be trying to build homes for family members, etc. He also does not <br /> 36 want to increase costs to landowners. <br /> 37 Chair Jacobs made reference to the Haw River watershed and said that this has been <br /> 38 identified as something that the County needs to address. He said that he would like for the <br /> 39 Planning Board to consider options `a' and `c'. He would also like to solicit options from <br /> 40 OWASA, Hillsborough, and Mebane. <br /> 41 Commissioner Pelissier said that she prefers option `c'. <br />