Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, <br /> BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL&HARGRAVE <br /> ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> IIOCHURTON51REET <br /> HU-5BOROUGH.N C.27278 <br /> 919-732-2196 <br /> 919-942-8000 July 6, 1982 <br /> CHAPEL Him OFFICE <br /> SLITE 2D.FRANKLIN BUILDING <br /> 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET <br /> CHAPEL HILL N.0 27514 <br /> 919-9294151 ' <br /> ALONZO B.COLEMAN,JR <br /> STEVEN A..BERN Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman <br /> DONALD R.DICKERSON Mr. Norman Gustaveson <br /> ROGER B.BERNHOU <br /> GEorFREY E.GLEDHILL. M& Shirley Marshall <br /> DOUGLAS HARGRAVE Mr. Norman Walker <br /> MARTIN J.BERNHOL2 <br /> WILLIAM H.BREEZE JR. Mr. Donald Willhoit <br /> act <br /> County Board of Commissioners <br /> BONNER D.SAWYER Orange County Courthouse <br /> 119M,19721 106 Margaret Lane <br /> Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 <br /> Re: Watershed District Regulations <br /> Dear Commissioners: <br /> The proposed regulations pertaining to the proposed <br /> watershed protection district include lot size requirements. There are <br /> two problems with these regulations as proposed during the public <br /> hearing. The first problem is a technical one which can be corrected <br /> by a clarifying amendment to the zoning ordinance. The second <br /> problem is more substantive in nature. First, the technical problem. <br /> Proposed section 6.23.2(a) states thatt. "irrespective of <br /> densities allowed by this ordinance, the development of any land or <br /> structure within the protected Watershed H District shall require one <br /> of the following.- [Lot size requirements follow]:' Section 7.3 of the <br /> zoning ordinancep pertaining to planned development districts states,, in <br /> pertinent part, as follows: "Where there are conflicts between the <br /> special P.D. regulations herein and general zoning, subdivision, or other <br /> regulations or requirements, these P.D. regulations shall apply in P.D. <br /> Districts...." These two "supremacy" clauses are in conflict. The <br /> intention of the board as to which should control must be addressed. <br /> As you know the P.D. districts permit greater densities than "straight" <br /> zoning districts. The proposed watershed protection amendments <br /> restrict development density. The relationship between the two <br /> measures must be reconciled. This relationship can be addressed fairly <br /> simply and should go to public hearing as soon as possible. The <br /> watershed protection amendments can be adopted essentially as <br /> presented during the last public hearing with clarifying amendments <br /> presented at the next possible public hearing and adopted later this <br /> summer. <br /> The second problem pertains to proposed section 6.23.2(e) of <br /> the watershed protection regulations which states as follows: "These <br />