Agenda - 03-10-20; 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Clarification of Setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir

Browse Search

2 Section 4.2.2, specifically subsections (F) through (1), of the UDO establishes the applicability of watershed protection standards including establishing criteria defining those properties (developed and undeveloped) considered to be `grandfathered' with respect to applicable buffer (i.e. stream and reservoir) standards. In the 1990's, the Town of Hillsborough began the necessary permitting processes at the State level to construct the West Fork on the Eno reservoir within the Cedar Grove Township of the county. Work was broken down into two phases, with Phase 1 including the Town purchasing property to expand the reservoir. The final boundary of the reservoir was established on February 11, 1997 with the recording of plats within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office denoting the Town's purchase of property along the West Fork of the Eno. Attachment 1 contains maps of the existing reservoir boundary, based on 2017 aerial photographic data, denoting the aforementioned 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas. Phase 2 of the project involves the actual clearing of property and expanding the existing NPE of the reservoir. The Town has already begun Phase 2 of the project, including land clearing and increasing the elevation of the dam. While the Town purchased sufficient property to accommodate the approved expansion of the actual reservoir, the required reservoir setback could still potentially impact adjacent parcels of property. Adjacent property owners 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. required reservoir setbacks). In an effort to address this concern, staff proposed a text amendment (Attachment 6) to reference the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno from the date the Town secured property allowing for the approved expansion. In consultation with the County Attorney office, staff has determined this date is February 12, 1997. While property owners are still required to abide by applicable setbacks per Section(s) 4.2.9 and 6.13.4 of the UDO, they 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. 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.