Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> 1 RECOMMENDATION(S): <br /> 2 The Manager recommends the Board: <br /> 3 1. Receive the request; <br /> 4 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment; <br /> 5 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional <br /> 6 comments at a later date are permitted); <br /> 7 4. Approve Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the LIDO Text Amendment <br /> 8 (Attachment 6). <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Commissioner Price asked if this change will create a financial hardship for existing <br /> 11 homeowners. <br /> 12 Michael Harvey said no, and the intent of the amendment is to clearly define what <br /> 13 constitutes existing lots and existing developments, which should lessen any potential burden. <br /> 14 He said there are properties that have been subdivided after 1997, which have been held to the <br /> 15 appropriate reservoir standard and set back. He said there are several 10-acre lots, and larger, <br /> 16 that benefit from existing development definitions. He said adding the 1997 date will only <br /> 17 solidify claims to be classified as such. <br /> 18 Commissioner Price clarified that there will be no negative impacts for future <br /> 19 development. <br /> 20 Michael Harvey said no, but one will have to comply with the code. <br /> 21 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if one can subdivide one's property, with the <br /> 22 expectation of developing it, only to find out that it was actually undevelopable. <br /> 23 Michael Harvey said not during his tenure with the County. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to <br /> 26 open the public hearing. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 29 <br /> 30 PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> 31 Tim Boomhower declined to comment. <br /> 32 Melody Boomhower declined to comment. <br /> 33 Rob Bush said he owns property on Carr Store Road, and he asked the Board not to <br /> 34 approve the date in this amendment as February 1997. He said it would be more reasonable to <br /> 35 set the date to a future one, when the reservoir is filled to its new level. He said it seems <br /> 36 unjust for the department that approved site plans to label homes as non-conforming. He said <br /> 37 he lives in a tiny house, which he started building in 2013, and the site plan was approved by <br /> 38 the Planning Department, and, to his knowledge, was not contingent to a previous mobile home <br /> 39 that was removed from the property around 2003/2004. He said there was no mention of a <br /> 40 future expansion of the reservoir, and he only learned this years later. He said in May 2019, he <br /> 41 found out that his home would have restrictions put on it, and he could not be told if he would <br /> 42 be permitted to rebuild in the case of a disaster. He said he was very concerned about this lack <br /> 43 of information, and believes his current home site to be the only suitable one on his property, <br /> 44 due to a lack of perkable soil. He said he immediately asked the Planning Director for a <br /> 45 variance for buffer reduction. He said in July 2019 he was told his request would not be <br /> 46 handled as an individual variance, but rather by a County-initiated text amendment, as many <br /> 47 properties are affected around the reservoir. He said he was told this would come before the <br /> 48 BOCC in the fall of 2019, but he received no information about the text amendment details until <br /> 49 late January 2020. He said the amendment did not seem to address his concerns, and the <br /> 50 variance was not given to reduce buffers around his home. He said he spoke with staff, and it <br />