Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-26-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 08-26-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 11:43:46 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 11:33:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/26/1991
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
354
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
;.k --.„ . <br />months to submit ado ted Tans to the EMC for the 11 watersheds ( or <br />portions thereof) in its jurisdiction. Actual adoption of the plans <br />by the County would need to occur by late -1993. <br />2. ADDITIONS /MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES <br />The NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources <br />published new proposed watershed "minimum rules" on June 14 for <br />public hearing. These changes represent both additions and <br />deletions to the existing minimums. These changes fall into four <br />broad categories: <br />A. Definition of Existing Development <br />The original definition of "existing development" as adopted by the <br />EMC is development projects in progress with significant resources <br />already expended on the project, or ro'ects platted by January 1 <br />1991. <br />The proposed new definition of existing development would be <br />com leted development, latted development and zoned develo ment. <br />This definition would be used <br />watersheds, 'and to grandfather <br />proposed regulations. <br />for two purposes: to classify <br />or exempt development from the <br />The significant addition here is that of "zoned development ". <br />Although the proposed "minimum rules" are somewhat vague, it <br />appears that undeveloped land zoned for a particular density or <br />type of land use could be exempted from the rules and permitted to <br />develop under current zoning. This provision could have a profound <br />impact on watersheds such as Cane Creek, Back Creek, and Haw Creek. <br />One suggested alternative is the substitution of "vested rights" <br />qualifications to define existing development rather than the <br />existence of zoning for undeveloped land. <br />B. New Development Variances and Rules <br />The current "minimum rules" language allows exemption of minor non- <br />conforming uses prior to reclassification in order to achieve a <br />higher watershed classification. After a watershed is classified, <br />all new development is required to comply with the minimum rules. <br />The new proposed language would allow exemptions for non - conforming <br />uses prior to and after reclassification - to be approved by the <br />EMC on a case -by -case basis. <br />Questions have been raised in this area regarding the cumulative <br />effect of such exemptions and the allowance of exemptions after <br />classification has been completed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.