Agenda - 02-27-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 3 designation. Under the more expansive reading, not only must the County "volunteer" it, it must also get the consents of the adjoining property owners whose tracts will be burdened by the 100 foot buffer. If this more expansive reading applies, i state on the record that the Brown family does not consent to any PID-I designation that will have the impact of burdening its property with a 100 foot buffer. The second ambiguity inheres in the phrase "land associated with a public reservoir." Does this mean a public reservoir that has been built? Or does it refer to a reservoir that is still on the drawing board? The site for the proposed reservoir has not yet been selected by the Board. If the Board selects the McGowan Creek site, will the definition "land associated with a public reservoir" not be satisfied as to the Seven Mile property? If Orange County determines not to make a selection between the two sites and the selection is left to a joint venture between Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water System, will this have some impact on whether the land is "associated with the public reservoir"? Furthermore, what are the geographic criteria for determining whether land is "associated with the public reservoir"? In the case of the County's Seven Mile Creek tract, obviously a portion of it will border the impoundment. What about that portion of the property which is beyond the "take line"? Is that land which is "associated with the public reservoir"? In other words, is the "land associated with the public reservoir" strictly within the "take lines" or does it encompass all of the property acquired as a consequence of the threatened public taking? This could have a material impact on where the 100 foot buffer runs from. One choice would be to have it run from the take line. The other choice would have it run from the contiguous property line across on to the property of the adjacent owner. Reason 3: Equality. Perhaps the most cogent argument against the proposed zoning amendment is the imposition of a 100 foot buffer on adjoining lands. Proposed Section 6.26. This buffer requirement is new. Its articulated purpose is to insulate PID-I land from development. The proposed language expressly states that "no new structures or disturbance shall be permitted within the designated buffer. . .". (I am assuming that this does not apply to the soil disturbance activities of a bona fide farm as defined in Article 22) . The paradox is that the 100 foot buffer is not an equal one. Under both PID-I and II, there is a front, side and rear set back of only 50 feet. Thus, any permitted use within PID-I could be built up to 50 feet from the property line between a PID-I tract and the adjoining land owner. The reverse is not true, however.