Agenda 09-07-1993 - VIII-C - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 but lacking sufficient area to satisfy impervious surface standards. The proposed amendment would permit a land owner to satisfy the impervious surface limitations in protected watersheds through approval and recordation of a conservation agreement. The agreement between Orange County and a land owner would prohibit development of land in a protected watershed in perpetuity. [Note: Orange County would be the owner of the easements. ] In such cases, a modification of the required impervious surface ratios could be approved administratively but only to the extent that additional land in the same watershed is conserved or protected from development. Furthermore, the land which would be subject to a conservation agreement must be adjacent to the land proposed for development and for which a modification of the impervious surface ratios is sought. This item was considered at public hearing on May 24, 1993 . Two persons spoke in favor of the proposal. Copies of the draft public hearing minutes are provided. At the June 21, 1993 meeting of the Planning Board, a question arose about the wording contained in the first sentence of Section 6.24.4, Subsection b. Specifically, the Board focused on the "in perpetuity" provision and the hypothetical case of a farmer who provided a conservation easement. If the impervious surface requirements were eliminated at some future date, could the farmer have the easement dissolved, given the existence of the perpetuity provision? The Board's concern was that Orange County may seek to hold onto such an easment even though the purpose for its creation was no longer valid. The Planning Board also questioned the wording of G.S. 121-38 (c) which states that conservation agreements may be for shorter "stipulated" periods of time. Specifically, must there be a specific ending date or could wording be added [to the ordinance or the agreement] which indicated that the agreement is void if the ordinance provisions were terminated/eliminated? The County Attorney's response to the above questions is provided in his attached August 9, 1993 letter. At its August 16, 1993 meeting, the Planning Board considered the proposed amendment, including the County Attorney's comments, and recommended approval of the proposal as presented at public hearing. The Planning Board vote was 8-1. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation.