Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 7/1/2015 <br />5 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 198 <br /> 199 <br />AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS: To make a 200 <br />recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments that would 201 <br />modify allowable impervious surfaced area within the county’s zoning jurisdiction 202 <br />through the installation of infiltration based storm water features. This item we 203 <br />heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 204 <br /> 205 <br /> Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 206 <br /> 207 <br />Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 208 <br /> 209 <br />Herman Staats: You mentioned that if someone decides to use this plan that it is then the responsibility of 210 <br />the property owner to maintain it? Is there some type of recommendation that when a person in the future 211 <br />chooses to but the property, how will they be notified of that? 212 <br /> 213 <br />Michael Harvey: We require the recordation of an operations and maintenance agreement on the deed. 214 <br />That requires disclosure and that is where a new property owner will be notified of their responsibilities. 215 <br /> 216 <br />Herman Staats: This issue has come up because the developer of a recent project assigned different 217 <br />levels of impervious surface not equally across the whole project and not necessarily based on individual 218 <br />property acreage so is there a regulation that has that developer disclose that information to the buyer? 219 <br /> 220 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes. It is memorialized on plats and declarations of restrictions we require to be recorded 221 <br />with a subdivision project. The planning staff, as part of our continuing education efforts, produces site 222 <br />assessments designed to identify environmental constraints and development limitations on property. This 223 <br />includes a breakdown of the allowable impervious surfaces for a given parcel. Staff provides as much 224 <br />detail as possible on recorded plats, declarations of restrictions, etc. 225 <br /> 226 <br />Herman Staats: Are real estate attorneys aware of this? 227 <br /> 228 <br />Michael Harvey: They ought to be. 229 <br /> 230 <br />Lisa Stuckey: By the time you get to the attorney…. 231 <br /> 232 <br />Herman Staats: If the realtor has not done their job….. 233 <br /> 234 <br />Tony Blake: I would suggest you put a color coding or make it more obvious than it is. 235 <br /> 236 <br />Craig Benedict: We find out how much impervious is allowed on the entire parcel, deduct the road and say 237 <br />this is how much you have left. Then leave it to the developer to apportion out that impervious. 238 <br /> 239 <br />Tony Blake: I would suggest a ratio, lot size to impervious surface. 240 <br /> 241 <br />Lydia Wegman: I would support doing something like Craig. I was at the BOCC where this was 242 <br />considered, Dr. Sexton spoke and it’s clear that she was hurt by the way the developer divided the 243 <br />impervious surface. I wanted to flag that the Commission of the Environment has not yet offered its view. 244 <br />I’m on the Commission for the Environment. We are very concerned about this change and will be putting 245 <br />in a formal statement in before the BOCC hearing. The impudence seems to be the consequence of the 246