Agenda - 02-17-2003-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 201ots, then he is concerned. If there is a small project, it could be very daunting. Craig Benedict explained the different densities on a map. Commissioner Carey would like to hear from the public about the thresholds. He encouraged the staff to look at some differentiation in the criteria for different levels of projects and maybe even looking at increasing the acreage. Chair Jacobs asked if it was possible to do the acreage so that you differentiate based on the underlying zoning. For example, if it is one-acre lots, 20 acres might work; whereas, if it is two-acre lots, maybe 40 acres might work. Craig Benedict said that they could go in this direction. Jay Bryan made reference to the standards and said that the board considering the project has to make sure that the use will maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare and will enhance the value of contiguous property, and that the character of the use will be in harmony with the area. He said that the standards said that the board can deny the application if it finds that the use will not maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare. In Carrboro, the way the ordinance is phrased, the board can deny an application where it is shown that the use will not maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare. He asked if the standards could be changed to make it more flexible that would be in keeping with the present standards. Craig Benedict said that these general standards are used for the other 28 special uses that are out there -both class A and class B special uses. He said that the special use process is aquasi-judicial findings of fact process. The standards are not subjective. Geoff Gledhill said that he does not know how Carrboro does it, but the standard in all of these evidentiary questions is going to be a greater weight of the evidence. Regarding the general standard about maintaining or promoting public health, safety, and welfare, the ordinance has a special provision that implies that it would. In order for a project to be turned down because it fails to maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare, the burden shifts to those who oppose it to prove that in some specific manner by substantial evidence, the use does not maintain public health, safety, and welfare. It would require specific evidence that there is a specific problem. Some examples are traffic problems. Bany Katz asked if the County would be responsible to remedy a problem that may arrive if all of the bodies approve a subdivision and it turns out that there are public health failures. Craig Benedict said that sometimes a problem would come back to the local government if the project was already completed. Bany Katz made reference to the notification and said that 500 feet from the project is too small for a project that is going to impact people in a greater area. He asked for consideration of 1,000 feet. He made reference to page three, number 11 and irrigation. He asked if there were any standards for how irrigation systems can be approved or not approved. Craig Benedict said that there are certain building code requirements if it is from public water and sewer. They are trying to tie this in with the conservation ordinance. Geoff Gledhill said that the irrigation standard is in the draft. The system has to be designed and can be operated according to a water conservation plan described in the Resource Management Plan. Barry Katz asked about bon-owed open space that is referred to in the document. Craig Benedict said that borrowed open space is where, instead of everybody having athree-acre lot and having their own open space, there would be a 1.5-acre lot and the extra space is put into some kind of common area.