Agenda - 12-12-2006-5l - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT MTL~~[.TTES 6 ~l 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 Craig Benedict showed some maps. He said that this is being. brought forward due to some ambiguity in the existing zoning text regulations pertaining to watershed overlay.zoning districts. A question came forward from a property owner about 6-8 months ago regarding whether their lands were within a water quality critical area of the Upper Eno Watershed. The question went to the Board of Adjustment regarding the location of the boundaries. The Board of Adjustment ruled that, as staff interpreted the boundaries in the text, and as the 1994 maps depict, the property was in the critical area. The Board of Adjustment asked that further review of the critical watershed boundaries be forwarded to the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board saw presentations on this. He explained some areas of the map. Options 1, 2, and 3 were discussed with the Planning Board. Option 1 is to leave it the way it is now, which is that the text says something a little different from the zoning map in 1994, and fry to make interpretations or go to the Board of Adjustment on a case-by- case basis. Option 2 is to modify the text to explain the new flood pools and leave the zoning maps (Administration recommendation). Option 3 is to change the text and also change the zoning map. The Planning Board asked the staff to examine option 3. The recommendation is somewhere between option 2 and option 3, which is to change the text to as close as possible to what is known as fact in the short-term, and change the map as needed to address things such as the Hillsborough Strategic Growth Plan, Efland Small Area study, nature preserve area, etc. Michelle Kempinski said that in the Board's packet the minutes for the October meeting were missing. The October meeting included a motion recommending option 3. Jeff Schmitt said that this whole issue came up because of inconsistencies between the language and the existing map. He said that if the Planning Board were to adopt what is being recommended, a developer will still potentially have an inconsistency in the language and map. Craig Benedict said that changing the text would diminish the inconsistency. Option 3 would entail first class notifications to every property owner that would be affected by this. The preliminary numbers show that there would be thousands of mailings. The staff thought that the maps could be addressed on a small area-planning basis. Judith Wegner said that the Board should note that there is a disagreement between the staff and Planning Board. She said that many would say that the map is what people will look at. She thinks that it would be better to deal with the County as a whole as opposed to piece meal Jay Bryan said that one option would be for the Board to refer both options back to the Planning Board. Renee Price-Saunders said that the Planning Board was aware that option 3 would entail thousands of mailings, but it felt that this was the only way to make it right. Chair Jacobs asked Geof Gledihll, understanding what the Planning Board is recommending, why the administration is recommending option 2. Geof Gledhill said that he does not think the administration has made a recommendation of substance for this yet. His view is that there is an immediate problem that the text and the map do not match. He said that there needs to be a fix to this problem. He would recommend writing the text to give way to the 1994 adopted map, because the map created the overlay watershed protection districts that are in question. This would solve the immediate problem. He said that the Planning Board is doing what it should be doing by looking in the long-term to update the map. He does not disagree with this, but he is concerned that the purpose of the water supply protection regulations is to protect the water supply. Also, this problem exists with the County's entire protected water supply watershed and it is a fairly substantial undertaking to notify all of the property owners. He thinks the County should consider doing this eventually, but it is not an immediate fix that he would urge the Planning Director and County Commissioners to consider.