OCPB agenda 040313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner McKee asked about a possible scenario. He said that if a four-lot 1 subdivision was approved this past year and two of the lots were built upon and did not have to 2 meet this requirement, then next year the other two lots were built upon, he asked if the other 3 two lots would have to absorb the entire disturbed area or just for their lots and Michael Harvey 4 said that it would be just for their lot. This is handled on a lot-by-lot basis. 5 Commissioner Rich asked about the additional cost for surveying and Michael Harvey 6 said $500-1,000. 7 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12 and Section 2.4.1 and said that she 8 would not consider option ‘c’ because she would not go for changing the protection for 9 University Lake Watershed. 10 Michael Harvey indicated the proposed amendment would not impact existing 11 development regulations enforced in the University Lake Watershed Overlay district. The 12 proposal would only potentially eliminate the requirement for the submittal of a professionally 13 prepared site plan based solely on a parcels location within the district and link its submittal to 14 existing stormwater management thresholds instead. Michal Harvey asked if there was any 15 preference for option ‘a’ or ‘b’. 16 Chair Jacobs said that he was deferring his opinion until he heard the questions from the 17 Planning Board. 18 Maxine Mitchell said that she would reserve her comments until this came back to the 19 Planning Board. 20 Commissioner McKee said that his preference would be option ‘a’. He is concerned 21 about people that would be trying to build homes for family members, etc. He also does not 22 want to increase costs to landowners. 23 Chair Jacobs made reference to the Haw River watershed and said that this has been 24 identified as something that the County needs to address. He said that he would like for the 25 Planning Board to consider options ‘a’ and ‘c’. He would also like to solicit options from 26 OWASA, Hillsborough, and Mebane. 27 Commissioner Pelissier said that she prefers option ‘c’. 28 Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to look back and consider University 29 Lake Watershed. She would not want to change the University Lake Watershed. She would 30 prefer something that would protect all of the 6%. 31 Commissioner Dorosin said that it seems that this proposal is about creating consistency 32 within the ordinance. 33 Commissioner Rich asked that the Planning Board get feedback from OWASA. She is 34 leaning toward option ‘c’. 35 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close 36 the public hearing. 37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 38 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer 39 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the 40 BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until 41 May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board’s recommendation and any 42 submitted written comments. 43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 44 36