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

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 50 51 DR;.AFT MINUTES 7 8 Public Comment Steve Yuhasz commented on this public hearing process. He said that the text .amendments are complicated and it is difficult to prepare comments when the amendments were not available until the Wednesday prior to the public hearing. He said that if this is the only opportunity for the public to comment, then that is not enough time. He said that he was involved with the question that arose with the text and the maps for this item. It seems to him that the real problem is which is given precedence -the text or the maps. He said that the text ought to hold rather than the maps regarding overlay districts where the district is well-defined by the text. He said that if the maps are viewed as illustrative rather than controlling, there is not a problem. He made reference to the definitions where it talks about "potential reservoirs" and then talks about "proposed reservoirs" in the same definition. He asked that this be consistent. In contributing watersheds, he pointed out that, included in this is a redefinition of the critical area for both Cane Creek and University Lakes. This definition is "one-half mile from the normal pool elevation or the contributing watershed divide, whichever is greater." He said that it is possible, with this definition, for a piece of property to be both in the Cane Creek Critical Area and in the Back Creek Protected Watershed. He does not think that this is intended. He urged the County Commissioners to look at the text rather than the maps because the text is specific. Geof Gledhill made reference to Mr. Yuhasz's comments about Cane Creek and said that the only thing in front of the Board tonight is the Upper Eno. Chair Jacobs encouraged Mr. Yuhasz to submit any additional comments in writing for the Planning Board to be able to consider as part of the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer this to the Planning Board to return a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. No option was specified. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Discussion ensued on the Planning Board's recommendations: Chair Jacobs assured the Planning Board that the Board takes the recommendations under advisement and reads the minutes, etc. Geof Gledhill said that his recommendations were in no way stiff-arming the Planning Board, but only a measured response to a measured problem. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the abstracts and said that it would be helpful to distinguish between what is being considered and what is not (i.e., Eno or Cane Creek). Also, she agrees that the text should be available when the ad goes out. 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Staff initiated amendments to Sections 6.23.7 through 6.24.3 -Stream Buffers - to include new regulations establishing formal stream buffer replacement standards and creation of new regulations allowing for minimal disturbance within an identified stream buffer for specific types of development. Michael Harvey made this presentation. He said that this is a modification of existing standards on the ordinance governing the protection of stream buffers. He read the definition of stream buffers. The County has had these regulations since 1982 and there have been several amendments. Most notably, in 1994, stream buffers were extended to cover the majority of the County. In the ordinance, there are references to standards that govern the reestablishment and the replanting of a buffer that has been illegally or accidentally disturbed. The staff, over the last several months, has identified several concerns within the existing ordinance. There is a lack of a uniform comprehensive and centralized planting standard within the ordinance that