Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
28 <br /> plant is nonconforming with regard to the base <br /> zoning related to the use. She continued, the <br /> conditions that are being referred to here apply to <br /> uses that would otherwise be conforming but are not <br /> conforming in terms of setback requirements <br /> pertaining to the buffer. Nonconformities in terms <br /> of use in the basic zoning continue in the same <br /> manner that they do now. <br /> Barrows referred to the portion of the proposed <br /> amendment that would deem existing development <br /> conforming and, if destroyed, existing structures <br /> could be replaced in their current location provided <br /> there was no increase in impervious surface and no <br /> increase in any existing encroachment into buffers <br /> or setbacks. She noted information from the Board <br /> of Adjustment regarding conformity and she felt it <br /> was the intent to allow existing uses to go on but <br /> not encourage them to stay that way. If the use was <br /> destroyed or ceased to exist for a certain period of <br /> time, then the use would have to conform to the <br /> current regulations. She noted this seemed to be a <br /> departure from that regulation and she expressed <br /> concern with the creation of more non-conformities. <br /> Willis responded that if a house that is located in <br /> a stream buffer is destroyed 75%, it would be <br /> considered non-conforming and could not be replaced <br /> in that same location. Barrows expressed concern <br /> that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with <br /> current ordinances. Willis responded that the <br /> reason that there is an inconsistency is because the <br /> setbacks in the watershed standards are much greater <br /> than the zoning district setbacks. She continued <br /> that one of the key components of the watershed <br /> standards is the impervious surface, thus the <br /> situation already there is not being changed. She <br /> reminded members that the setbacks are 150 feet for <br /> the residence from the reservoir and 300 feet for <br /> the septic system. <br /> Willis continued that the main thing Staff wanted to <br /> do was to make sure that if a residence was <br /> destroyed, the owner could rebuild and obtain <br /> financing without becoming nonconforming. It was <br /> very important to the residents with whom staff had <br /> met that the term "nonconforming" not be attached to <br /> their property. Barrows expressed appreciation that <br /> the proposed amendment was in response to citizen <br /> concerns, but, she was also concerned with the <br /> inconsistency. <br /> Willis noted again that the amendment does not make <br /> anything nonconforming with respect to the <br /> underlying zoning, only to the overlay because it <br />