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

17 32 Michael Harvey said no because this is an UDO text amendment. Chair Rich asked if some of the homes will be less valuable if this amendment is approved. Michael Harvey said he is not a tax person and cannot speak to those questions, but these lots are not considered non-conforming under the County UDO, as they are considered to be existing lots, or to have existing development. He said the County does not treat these properties as non-conforming, but rather as lots and parcels that were in existence prior to the reservoir being established and wants to give them leeway in terms of compliance. Chair Rich asked if the year that the reservoir was established could be identified. Michael Harvey said the plats were recorded on February 12, 1997, which is when the Town secured the final property purchase, which secured the final boundary of the lots. He said picking this date is consistent with how the County has treated other reservoirs. Commissioner Price said the minutes refer to a property that has been sub-divided many times since 1997, and will not qualify as an existing lot, but the date has not yet been established, as the BOCC has not yet voted. Michael Harvey said he based his answer of the proposal made by staff, and that it did not constitute a lot of record based on how staff was interpreting how the UDO needed to be modified to reference the establishment of the West Fork in the Eno Reservoir. Commissioner Price said his sub-division exists now, and the BOCC has not voted on the date. She asked how it is possible that staff can already say that this resident's actions would disqualify him as existing lots. Michael Harvey said he is basing his answer on staff's proposal of the date of February 12, 1997 being the logical date to establish when the normal pool elevation for the West Fork of the Eno was established. He said this is his answer. Commissioner Price said the BOCC has not yet established this date. Michael Harvey said the BOCC could change the date, and that may change the answer. Commissioner Price said she is not asking to change the date, but is pointing out that the date has not yet been voted on. She said all of this will be retroactive. Michael Harvey said the only date he can use, as articulated in his abstract and presentation, is January 1994. Commissioner Price said she is not concerned about the date, but wants to know if this would be retroactive. Michael Harvey said he has answered the question to the best of his ability. Commissioner Price said the Town of Hillsborough had to negotiate with the property owners to secure the property necessary to accommodate the reservoir, and asked if this pertained to current negotiations, or years past. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said years ago. He said in the present code, an existing lot is defined as January 1, 1994, and this is the date that staff has used as this is when the watershed regulations went into effect. He said, in absence of this new amendment, the date could be as late as February 12, 1997. He said the date previously used was January 1, 1994 prior to the amendments that may be made tonight. Craig Benedict said when Hillsborough chose to build reservoir phases one and two, in the mid 1990s, the Town bought properties to accommodate this. He said all of the land that Hillsborough needed for these two phases was purchased by 1997. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the bottom line is that a house could be rebuilt, and possibly expanded, if it were to be destroyed by a natural even, such as a tornado. Craig Benedict said the house could be rebuilt to whatever approved existing septic systems exist. He said any expansion to septic systems would have to be approved through the Health Department.