Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
36 <br /> 1 In the 1990's The Town of Hillsborough began the necessary permitting processes at the State <br /> 2 level to construct the West Fork on the Eno reservoir within the Cedar Grove Township of the <br /> 3 county. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Work was broken down into two phases, with Phase 1 including the Town purchasing property <br /> 6 to expand the reservoir. The final boundary of the reservoir was established on February 11, <br /> 7 1997 with the recording of plats within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office denoting <br /> 8 the Town's purchase of property along the West Fork of the Eno. Attachment 1 contains maps <br /> 9 of the existing reservoir boundary, based on 2017 aerial photographic data, denoting the <br /> 10 aforementioned 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Phase 2 of the project involves the actual clearing of property and expanding the existing NPE <br /> 13 of the reservoir. The Town has already begun Phase 2 of the project, including land clearing <br /> 14 and increasing the elevation of the dam. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 While the Town purchased sufficient property to accommodate the approved expansion of the <br /> 17 actual reservoir, the required reservoir setback could still potentially impact adjacent parcels of <br /> 18 property. Adjacent property owners have expressed concern the UDO does not specifically <br /> 19 reference the expansion of the reservoir, thereby making their properties potentially <br /> 20 nonconforming to applicable watershed management regulations (i.e. required reservoir <br /> 21 setbacks). <br /> 22 <br /> 23 In an effort to address this concern, staff proposed a text amendment (Attachment 6) to <br /> 24 reference the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno from the date the Town secured property <br /> 25 allowing for the approved expansion. In consultation with the County Attorney's Office, staff has <br /> 26 determined this date is February 12, 1997. While property owners are still required to abide by <br /> 27 applicable setbacks per Section(s) 4.2.9 and 6.13.4 of the UDO, owners will have greater <br /> 28 latitude in demonstrating compliance with applicable standards. This amendment will not <br /> 29 necessarily allow for additional development of structures closer to the actual reservoir. It will, <br /> 30 however, recognize the conforming status of existing development and not arbitrarily make <br /> 31 same non-conforming. The status can be important with respect to property transactions and <br /> 32 mortgage applications. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 This proposal was reviewed at the November 6, 2019 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) <br /> 35 meeting. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 2. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `... <br /> 38 cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a <br /> 39 recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County <br /> 40 Commissioners'. The amendments are necessary to address current inconsistencies within the <br /> 41 UDO relating to the definition of what constitutes `existing lots' and/or `existing development' <br /> 42 with respect to compliance with applicable reservoir setbacks. This amendment should likely <br /> 43 have been completed in 1997 when the Town was purchasing property to establish the <br /> 44 reservoir. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Planning Board Recommendation: At its February 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board <br /> 47 voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the proposed <br /> 48 UDO Text Amendment. Excerpts of the minutes from this meeting, as well as the Planning <br /> 49 Board's signed Statement of Consistency, are included in Attachment 3. <br /> 50 <br />