Browse
Search
020520 Planning Board Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
020520 Planning Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2020 12:14:57 PM
Creation date
8/17/2020 12:14:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/5/2020
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Planning Board - 020520 Agenda Packet
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
View images
View plain text
Approved 8/5/20 <br /> <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO that would prevent that. All the property owner would have to do is 106 <br />comply with applicable setback standards. 107 <br /> 108 <br />Michael Harvey: What this amendment does is establish a key date as it relates to the enforcement of the reservoir 109 <br />setback from the West Fork on the Eno. The amendment establishes the date for staff to ascertain what constitutes 110 <br />an existing lot and existing development when enforcing the required structure and septic setbacks. The UDO 111 <br />contains waiver provisions for an existing lot so that property owners who own a parcel established prior to the 112 <br />development or designation of a reservoir site with respect to locating a structure and septic system. Unfortunately 113 <br />this amendment will not address everyone’s issues along the Eno. For example we have a property owner who has 114 <br />subdivided his lot several times from 1997 to today. His property will not qualify as an existing lot under this 115 <br />provision. The County staff chose the proposed date that made sense as it relates to the enforcement of reservoir 116 <br />setbacks. February 12, 1997 is the date the West Fork on the Eno reservoir was established as it relates to 117 <br />identifying the point where the 150 ft. structure and 300 ft. septic setback are taken from. 118 <br /> 119 <br />I am asking the Board to approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 3 and recommend the adoption of the 120 <br />revised Attachment 4, which establishes the key critical date with respect to what constitutes exis ting development 121 <br />and an existing lot along the West Fork on the Eno of February 12, 1997. 122 <br /> 123 <br />Hunter Spitzer: Is there a way to amend the proposal to change the dates for what constitutes a legal lot and existing 124 <br />development to a different date? I am concerned there may be some property owners who will not qualify with the 125 <br />February 12, 1997 date and we will make more structures nonconforming. 126 <br /> 127 <br />Michael Harvey: I am not comfortable with that. The intent of the identified sections is to define what qualifies as 128 <br />existing development and an existing lot as it relates to when a reservoir was established. From the date a reservoir 129 <br />is established, people who subdivide their property are obligated to abide by applicable reservoir setbacks for 130 <br />structures and septic systems. I will remind all parties there is nothing in this section preventing a property owner 131 <br />from seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment if they believe the strict interpretation of the UDO infringes on 132 <br />their development or redevelopment of their property. 133 <br /> 134 <br />Hunter Spitzer: That only covers regulated subdivisions correct? 135 <br /> 136 <br />Michael Harvey: All property, created through the regulated, expedited, exempt subdivision processes, are required 137 <br />to abide by the established setbacks when they develop their property. This is handled as part of the zoning 138 <br />compliance permit process, which is separate from the subdivision process, and would include compliance with the 139 <br />150 ft. setback for all structures and the 300 ft. setback for all septic systems from a reservoir. You are correct, 140 <br />however, it is likely a property owner engaging in an exempt subdivision will not be aware of the potential impacts of 141 <br />their action as it relates to complying with applicable reservoir setbacks. Unfortunately that is not something staff can 142 <br />address. We can continue to advise property owners of the issue but cannot require they take the consequences 143 <br />into account when deciding to proceed with an exempt subdivision. 144 <br /> 145 <br />Craig Benedict: Some of these issues hit home for property owners when the Town began clearing property to allow 146 <br />for the raising of the reservoir. It became clearer to those property owners just where the edge of the reservoir was 147 <br />going to be and that led to questions of us on anticipated impacts. 148 <br /> 149 <br />Patricia Roberts: Will these people have to purchase flood insurance? 150 <br /> 151 <br />Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO mandating property owner purchase flood insurance. There is existing 152 <br />special flood hazard area along the reservoir. It is typically up to the lending inst itution if flood insurance will be 153 <br />required. Again I want to clarify this amendment package, in and of itself, does not create the need for flood 154 <br />insurance. I will not bore you with my 20 minute presentation on why you should purchase flood insurance 155 <br />regardless of your property’s location within a special flood hazard area. 156 <br /> 157 <br />Randy Marshal: The aerial photo still shows trees along the reservoir area. Has clearing begun? 158
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).