Agenda - 09-01-20; 6-a - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Clarification of Setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir

Browse Search

14 29 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted); 4. Approve Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the UFO Text Amendment (Attachment 6). Commissioner Price asked if this change will create a financial hardship for existing homeowners. Michael Harvey said no, and the intent of the amendment is to clearly define what constitutes existing lots and existing developments, which should lessen any potential burden. He said there are properties that have been subdivided after 1997, which have been held to the appropriate reservoir standard and set back. He said there are several 10-acre lots, and larger, that benefit from existing development definitions. He said adding the 1997 date will only solidify claims to be classified as such. Commissioner Price clarified that there will be no negative impacts for future development. Michael Harvey said no, but one will have to comply with the code. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if one can subdivide one's property, with the expectation of developing it, only to find out that it was actually undevelopable. Michael Harvey said not during his tenure with the County. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT: Tim Boomhower declined to comment. Melody Boomhower declined to comment. Rob Bush said he owns property on Carr Store Road, and he asked the Board not to approve the date in this amendment as February 1997. He said it would be more reasonable to set the date to a future one, when the reservoir is filled to its new level. He said it seems unjust for the department that approved site plans to label homes as non-conforming. He said he lives in a tiny house, which he started building in 2013, and the site plan was approved by the Planning Department, and, to his knowledge, was not contingent to a previous mobile home that was removed from the property around 200312004. He said there was no mention of a future expansion of the reservoir, and he only learned this years later. He said in May 2019, he found out that his home would have restrictions put on it, and he could not be told if he would be permitted to rebuild in the case of a disaster. He said he was very concerned about this lack of information, and believes his current home site to be the only suitable one on his property, due to a lack of perkable sail. He said he immediately asked the Planning Di rector for a variance for buffer reduction. He said in July 2019 he was told his request would not be handled as an individual variance, but rather by a County-initiated text amendment, as many properties are affected around the reservoir. He said he was told this would come before the BOCC in the fall of 2019, but he received no information about the text amendment details until late January 2020. He said the amendment did not seem to address his concerns, and the variance was not given to reduce buffers around his home. He said he spoke with staff, and it was determined he would be allowed to add on or rebuild to the original mobile home's impervious area footprint. He said this was better than his original options, but he would still like a buffer reduction around his house to allow for more expansion on the already restricted lot, due to the lack of perk sites on his property. He said he would like to know why community