Planning Board - 020520 Agenda Packet

Browse Search

writing of this memorandum the anticipated normal pool elevation of the expanded reservoir will be 643.9 ft. Attachment 1 contains maps of the existing reservoir boundary, based on 2017 aerial photographic data, denoting the aforementioned 150 ft. and 300 ft. setback areas. Phase 2 of the project will involve the actual clearing of property and expanding the existing ‘normal pool’ elevation of the reservoir. The Town has begun portions of Phase 2 of the project by increasing the elevation of the dam. Clearing/grading of property to accommodate the additional water storage will not commence until work on the dam is completed. While the Town purchased sufficient property to accommodate the approved expansion of the actual reservoir, the required reservoir setback will still potentially impact adjacent parcels of property. Property owners adjacent to the waterbody have expressed concern the UDO does not specifically reference the expansion of the reservoir thereby making their properties potentially non-conforming to applicable watershed management regulations (i.e. the required reservoir setback). In an effort to address this concern staff is proposing a text amendment (Attachment 4) to reference the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno, from the date the Town began legally securing property to allow for the approved expansion, in terms of defining what constitutes existing development. Specifically, this is February 11, 1997 (i.e. the date plats were recorded within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office denoting the Town’s purchase of property along the West Fork of the Eno allowing for the expansion of the reservoir). Property owners are still required to abide by the applicable setbacks per Section(2) 4.2.9 and 6.13.4 of the UDO but will have greater latitude in demonstrating compliance with applicable standards. This amendment will not necessarily allow for additional development of structures closer to the actual reservoir. It will, however, recognize the conforming status of existing development and not arbitrarily make same non-conforming. The status can be important with respect to property transactions and mortgage applications. As previously indicated, this proposal was reviewed at the November 6, 2019 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meeting. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 2. Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘… cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. The amendments are necessary to address current inconsistencies within the UDO relating to the definition of what constitutes ‘existing lots’ and/or ‘existing development’ with respect to compliance with applicable reservoir setbacks. This amendment should likely have been completed in 1997 when the Town was purchasing property to establish the reservoir in the first place. Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment, as contained within Attachment 4. 11