Agenda - 02-27-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 2 Reason 1: Undue Expansion of "Public Interest District" Concepts. The proposed amendments unduly expand the existing concept of "public interest district." Under the present ordinance, the purpose of the "public interest district" is "to preserve and protect certain public land and private educational lands, deemed environmentally sensitive and of major scientific research significance from the impacts of development." Under this statement of purpose, it is clear that the land to be included within a "public interest district" must both be environmentally sensitive and of major scientific research significance. Section 4.2.25a. The "application criteria" currently specify that such a designation should be inclusive of all Duke Forest lands, the Eno River State Park, all University. of North Carolina lands and "all other public or private educational lands deemed to be environmentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance." Section 4.2.25b (emphasis supplied) . Again, the land to be included must be both environmentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance. Under Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, an "environmentally sensitive area" is defined as "land which is subject to special natural environmental conditions such as flooding that presents significant constraints to bilt development. " The proposed amendment significantly broadens the concept of the "public interest district." In the first place it divides the districts into two types. A PID-I applies, generally, to lands which are expected to benefit, the public interest for at least twenty years. The PID-II designation applies to lands anticipated to benefit the public interest for at least five, probably not more than twenty years. The most radical departure is that it expressly applies to "land associated with a public reservoir" regardless of whether such land is "environmentally sensitive" or "of major scientific research significance." Reason 2: Uncertainty Over Meaning Of Proposed Ordinance Language. In addition to deviating from the existing conceptual standards, the proposed language of the new ordinance, as applied to the County's Seven Mile tract, has two significant ambiguities. First, the proposed language specifically provides that a PID- I district may be "applied on a voluntary basis only. . .". The first ambiguity arises out of the "voluntary" criterion. Who must volunteer? Is it the owner of the property to be subjected to the PID-I designation? Or is it all parties that will be affected by the PID-I designation? With specific regard to this Seven Mile tract, if read narrowly only the County, as titled owner of its property, would have to "volunteer" the property for the PID-I