Agenda - 08-26-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A' •J - include projects already completed or in progress, projects with a recorded plat or areas that have been zoned as of the closing date of the public hearings for the January 1, 1992 reclassification proceedings (September 30, 1991). However, as noted above the rule goes on to state that existing development is required to comply with these rules to the "maximum extent practicable ". For projects that are already completed or in progress, no modifications would be expected. For a recorded platted project that does not conform to the water supply requirements, it would be the responsibility of local govern- ment to determine if there are practicable options that could be required to bring the project in line with the requirements. If a project does not have a recorded plat, it could still be allowed if under existing zoning it has a site specific devel- opment plan approved prior to September 30, 1991 by local gov- ernment in compliance with G.S. 160A- 385(b) or if significant resources have been expended on building the project. Local governments will be responsible for determinations on whether significant resources have been expended. For example, road completion, installation of utilities, and completion of pro- ject design plans would constitute significant resource expen- diture. However, if one of the phases of a phased project has not had a significant expenditure of resources, then it would have to comply with the rules. For large areas that are zoned .but mainly undeveloped, there is a much greater ability to con- form to the water supply requirements. In this case, the "max- imum extent practicable" clause is intended to respect the uses that have been zoned (industrial, for example) even if it would not otherwise be allowed, but the density of development of that use shall conform to the rules. If this would require local governments to allow stormwater detention ponds and they would prefer the low density option, they would be expected to' rezone to.the lower density. • Do the density restrictions utilized in the adopted rules consti- tute the "taking" of land? The North Carolina test for a taking is whether the property was rendered "of no reasonable value" or the owner'is deprived of "all practicable use." It is felt that the proposed rules do allow land to be left with'a reasonable value and therefore taking is not an issue. • If a local government is in the headwaters of a watershed and does not use the water as a drinking water source, what is required of this local government to protect a downstream user's water? The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (G.S. 143 - 214.5) states that All local governments with jurisdiction in a water supply watershed must adopt land use management programs consistent with the established minimum criteria for that watershed. This does not exempt a local government because they do not use water from that watershed. Simply stated, if a town,.county or municipality has land use 12