Agenda - 09-21-1993 - VIII-D - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

48 responded lots less than two acres prior to the new standards can be built on but will be considered non-conforming lots. It is not really a vesting issue but, rather if a lot exists at the time the new regulations become effective, that lot can be built on, but any new lots created after that time would have to be two acres in size. Mac Jordan, developer, made a statement regarding the water quality issue. He stated that the large lots that bordered the Eno and the areas that would affect water quality are much larger than the new standards would recommend. He felt that there would be ample amount of undisturbed area to protect the river and any water problems that might occur because of the development. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Eidenier & Reid - both concerned with the area of the Eno River being developed for a possible reservoir. As a representative -of Hillsborough, Eidenier noted concern with the area being developed. ) Burklin stated that he was influenced by the lack of comment and concern from the Town of Hillsborough. He suggested again that the Town be encouraged to be more active in such concerns. AGENDA ITEM #8: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/24/93) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ( 1) Articles 6.23, 6.24 & 6.25 - Impervious Surface Regulated Presentation by Marvin Collins. 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concern was that Orange County may seek to hold onto such an easement even though the purpose for its creation was no longer valid.