Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional <br /> comments at a later date are permitted); <br /> 4. Approve Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the UDO Text Amendment <br /> (Attachment 6). <br /> Commissioner Price asked if this change will create a financial hardship for existing <br /> homeowners. <br /> Michael Harvey said no, and the intent of the amendment is to clearly define what <br /> constitutes existing lots and existing developments, which should lessen any potential burden. <br /> He said there are properties that have been subdivided after 1997, which have been held to the <br /> appropriate reservoir standard and set back. He said there are several 10-acre lots, and larger, <br /> that benefit from existing development definitions. He said adding the 1997 date will only <br /> solidify claims to be classified as such. <br /> Commissioner Price clarified that there will be no negative impacts for future <br /> development. <br /> Michael Harvey said no, but one will have to comply with the code. <br /> Commissioner Marcoplos asked if one can subdivide one's property, with the <br /> expectation of developing it, only to find out that it was actually undevelopable. <br /> Michael Harvey said not during his tenure with the County. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to <br /> open the public hearing. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> Tim Boomhower declined to comment. <br /> Melody Boomhower declined to comment. <br /> Rob Bush said he owns property on Carr Store Road, and he asked the Board not to <br /> approve the date in this amendment as February 1997. He said it would be more reasonable to <br /> set the date to a future one, when the reservoir is filled to its new level. He said it seems <br /> unjust for the department that approved site plans to label homes as non-conforming. He said <br /> he lives in a tiny house, which he started building in 2013, and the site plan was approved by <br /> the Planning Department, and, to his knowledge, was not contingent to a previous mobile home <br /> that was removed from the property around 2003/2004. He said there was no mention of a <br /> future expansion of the reservoir, and he only learned this years later. He said in May 2019, he <br /> found out that his home would have restrictions put on it, and he could not be told if he would <br /> be permitted to rebuild in the case of a disaster. He said he was very concerned about this lack <br /> of information, and believes his current home site to be the only suitable one on his property, <br /> due to a lack of perkable soil. He said he immediately asked the Planning Director for a <br /> variance for buffer reduction. He said in July 2019 he was told his request would not be <br /> handled as an individual variance, but rather by a County-initiated text amendment, as many <br /> properties are affected around the reservoir. He said he was told this would come before the <br /> BOCC in the fall of 2019, but he received no information about the text amendment details until <br /> late January 2020. He said the amendment did not seem to address his concerns, and the <br /> variance was not given to reduce buffers around his home. He said he spoke with staff, and it <br /> was determined he would be allowed to add on or rebuild to the original mobile home's <br /> impervious area footprint. He said this was better than his original options, but he would still <br /> like a buffer reduction around his house to allow for more expansion on the already restricted <br /> lot, due to the lack of perk sites on his property. He said he would like to know why community <br />