|
32
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 110 tied to this amendment is we figured this was as good of an amendment as any to squeeze this in.
<br /> 111 This is our gray, our sliding scale that was in the UDO. So, this is a table that staff,we don't know
<br /> 112 who, but staff put together sometime in the early to mid'90s in reaction to when these watershed
<br /> 113 regulations were being rolled out at the state level. Someone was smart enough to say,well,what
<br /> 114 about non-conforming lots? Like you're putting things, these requirements on lots that,well,there
<br /> 115 might have been a home here before this rule was applied. So that was the purpose of this, but
<br /> 116 over the years, it's just become, it's tough to explain to constituents. We don't have a legal
<br /> 117 background like, no,this number came from here. It was just,we believe, staff putting this table
<br /> 118 together. So,what we're proposing to do with these amendments are just to simplify this,a one-
<br /> 119 and-done number for an impervious area cap, and we zoomed in on 12 percent, and there's a lot
<br /> 120 of reasoning for that. Mostly, 12 percent is an impervious level that the state tends to consider low
<br /> 121 density, anything 12 percent and below. So,we've, instead of sending constituents to this chart to
<br /> 122 figure out what their allowable impervious, if you have a non-conforming lot that was in existence
<br /> 123 prior to those regs,you get this number. And so,we feel it's just going to clarify, it's going to save
<br /> 124 a lot of staff time and a lot of confusion from constituents. We've got some,we can go through
<br /> 125 these one by one.
<br /> 126
<br /> 127 Patrick Mallett: Yeah,we can go.
<br /> 128
<br /> 129 Christopher Sandt: These are just some cases that Pat and I put together that display what this does in the real world,
<br /> 130 eliminating the sliding scale and making this a little bit more straightforward.
<br /> 131
<br /> 132 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, so we've got four examples. What I did is let's apply this to real world, look at some recent
<br /> 133 permits on smaller lots and what they get today and what they would get tomorrow, and then
<br /> 134 factor in a couple of things. So, in this first case,you've got a small lot. And the sliding scale that
<br /> 135 you saw before was intended to address, largely, subdivisions that were done in the 70s and'80s,
<br /> 136 maybe in some cases near Chapel Hill in the'60s. At that time,the minimum lot size,we didn't
<br /> 137 have a repair area requirement, and the minimum lot size in many instances was a half an acre.
<br /> 138 And so, you have quite a few subdivisions that are around the periphery. They're not in Chapel
<br /> 139 Hill's jurisdiction, Carrboro's,or Hillsborough's, but they're significant subdivisions and they have
<br /> 140 smaller lots, so when you start to factor in a percentage base of the lot size,you start to get
<br /> 141 pinched. And I think that was what was driving this idea for the sliding scale. I think it was a good
<br /> 142 idea at the time, but it just doesn't really work on the practical end of the stick. So, in the first
<br /> 143 case,you've got a lot that an applicant did a rudimentary drawing, but they're essentially taking a
<br /> 144 manufactured home in the Chapel Hill Township. The lot was recorded in 1987. It was developed
<br /> 145 in 2023. Gives you the lot size and the breakout, .6 acres, and they're just looking to put a double
<br /> 146 wide, and that's the square footage. And so, it sort of walks you through the baseline if they had 6
<br /> 147 percent,what they would be allowed with the sliding scale, 14.8 percent. With the new impervious
<br /> 148 limit,they would get this amount, and then if they did an SCM, they would get a slightly larger
<br /> 149 bump.
<br /> 150
<br /> 151 Chris Johnston: I'm sorry, SCM?
<br /> 152
<br /> 153 Patrick Mallett: I'm sorry, stormwater control measure. So, it's a stormwater feature. The next example is Chapel
<br /> 154 Hill Township, University Lake protected, recorded in 1973. The house was built in'73. They did
<br /> 155 a 2023 addition, so we're right at an acre lot size. It shows a comparison as with the other one.
<br /> 156 So,you get actually slightly more impervious but a modest amount, a reasonable amount,we
<br /> 157 think. The next scenario, Bingham Township, lot recorded in 1984. It was developed in'84, and
<br /> 158 then they added a garage in 2024. Lot size a little bit over an acre, and again you get,when you
<br /> 159 do the math,you get a comparable, reasonable,we think, square footage. So those are some
<br /> 160 real-world comparisons. And I would say that with this new legislation,the sliding scale becomes
<br /> 161 kind of a moot point because they're going to get grandfathered in certain allowances. And if we
<br /> 162 let the sliding scale in,they would get that allowance plus what is mandated by the state,so they'd
<br /> 163 get what I call a double bump. We really don't want that to happen, but we want to come up with a
<br />
|