Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-02-1994-IX-I
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 05-02-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-02-1994-IX-I
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2016 9:43:05 AM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:58:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/2/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-I
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940502
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6 <br /> least 150' from the reservoir. The septic system would have <br /> to be laid out and approved by Environmental Health in a <br /> location which encroached as little as possible into the <br /> setback. A variance would be recommended only to the extent <br /> of that encroachment. Once the location of the septic system <br /> was identified, the areas available for construction could be <br /> identified. If there were adequate area for construction <br /> outside of the 150' building setback, then a variance for the <br /> building setback would not be recommended. If there were not <br /> adequate area for construction outside of the 150 ' setback, <br /> then a variance would be recommended, but only to the extent <br /> of the encroachment necessary to allow development of the <br /> property. <br /> It is unlikely that a variance would be denied if the effect <br /> of that denial would be to prohibit any use of the property. <br /> Implementing regulations which would prohibit development of <br /> an existing lot for a public purpose (such as watershed <br /> protection) without compensation could raise the issue of a <br /> property taking. <br /> The only real issue involved in the amendment is the process <br /> by which development of the existing lots would be reviewed <br /> and approved. A variance requires that the applicant pay a <br /> $180 fee and that the Planning Staff prepare a report to <br /> present to the Board of Adjustment. The hearing before the <br /> Board of Adjustment must be advertised in a newspaper of local <br /> circulation. The minimum cost of advertising a single item <br /> for a Board of Adjustment meeting is about $250. The per- <br /> variance cost of advertising would decrease if more than one <br /> variance were being presented at the same meeting, and would <br /> increase with the number of lines in the advertisement. A <br /> notice must also be sent to each property owner within 500 ' of <br /> the property. In addition, a sign advertising the variance <br /> must be posted on the property. <br /> If the amendment is approved, the decision would be make at <br /> the staff level rather than by the Board of Adjustment. The <br /> information on which a decision would be made, and the <br /> criteria used to evaluate that information, would be the same, <br /> regardless of who makes the decision. Staff recommends a <br /> process which is more simple, and less costly to both the <br /> applicant and the County. <br /> 4. What are the implications of applying the proposed amendment <br /> to selected watersheds only? <br /> Staff anticipates that setback reductions will only occur on <br /> the lots surrounding Lake Orange. The development pattern <br /> around Cane Creek consist of much larger lot sizes. It is <br /> because of the number of small lots surrounding Lake Orange <br /> that the amendment has been proposed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.