8_7_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9.4.24 Jessica King: Yes. 548 Patrick Mallett: You can correct me if I get your story wrong. This property is located on 711 Faith Way, 549 it's the Cheeks Township, it's an amendment between the Back Creek Protected and 550 Upper Eno Protected watersheds. Baseline zoning is R1 and would remain R1, the area 551 in blue is the existing overlay boundary, the area in red depicts the new boundary change 552 and with the other case it takes it to the property line then ties it back into the current 553 mapped overlay. Land use designation rural residential, this is a good point to 554 communicate what brought the property owner to here. She was essentially maxed out 555 with her impervious as it was prorated for her property for her driveway and her house. 556 Her desire was to build a modest garage and then there was the realization, well the ridge 557 line is not here, it's over here, and that change alone would allow for enough impervious 558 surface to do a small garage. Because of the way the legalities of this work, she too, just 559 like the previous case, we're already gone through that state process, the notification of 560 the board of commissioners, they've accepted it, we have since approved because we 561 legally have to accept that for permitting purposes, the true ridge line. Her garage, we 562 have signed off on that permit. The mapping that was done is kind of hard to read but it 563 basically corresponds to the previous map. Staff analysis is the application was complete, 564 the staff review, the application is considered request consistent with the Orange County 565 2030 comprehensive plan. The proper notifications were made via mail, sign postings 566 and listed on our active development web page. With the planning board level, just like 567 the other case, would get referred on with a recommendation to the Board of County 568 Commissioners. The planning director recommends to the board to receive the rezoning 569 application delivered on their proposal as desired, consider the planning director’s 570 recommendation, and make a recommendation to the BOCC on either the statement of 571 consistency, Attachment 6 or the statement inconsistency, Attachment 7, and the 572 proposed ordinance, Attachment 8 in time for the September 5th, 2024, BOCC meeting. 573 Adam Beeman: Anybody have any questions? 574 Chris Johnston: Does it matter that that line goes all the way down back to the originating line and so that 575 whole side there, does that matter in the slightest? 576 Patrick Mallett: It's the same circumstance. 577 Chris Johnston: I guess that's fair. It would be assumed that it would. 578 Patrick Mallett: The ridge line and the survey went beyond that slightly, but the reality is legally we can 579 amend it on her property, then we take it from there, but either property owner to the north 580 or south, if they felt like it benefited them and there was a need, it's a pretty compelling 581 reason to keep amending that to correspond with the ridge line. 582 Chris Johnston: I guess what I'm saying is this property owner wouldn't need to come back and then move 583 that red line back to the new line because it's along the property line, does that make 584 sense? 585 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, I understand what you're saying, there's no impact on the property owner. It's a 586 mathematical calculation and her impervious limits based on the watershed are based on 587 the amount of area on her property so, you're not going one way or another. 588 Chris Johnston: Okay. Then if the next property owner over gets a survey and finds it matches up to the 589 new line, they don't, the previous property owner doesn't need to come back and revert 590 back the line or anything along those lines, it would just continue on. 591