|
32
<br /> 1429 impervious? And the answer is yes. So that's all based on state law, and we react to that. So,
<br /> 1430 these are the sections affected. You'll see most of it in the packet. I think you might have to go
<br /> 1431 back to the last meeting's agenda, but it's mostly clarifying acronyms; it's spelling things out; it's
<br /> 1432 making our charts and tables, mostly in Article 4,just a little bit easier to read and understand.
<br /> 1433 And most of that's specific to that existing development date. Article 10 is just this water feature
<br /> 1434 definition that I'll get into, so 24 pages total. It's pretty small. These can get quite detailed. So,
<br /> 1435 tied to this amendment is we figured this was as good of an amendment as any to squeeze this in.
<br /> 1436 This is our gray, our sliding scale that was in the LIDO. So,this is a table that staff,we don't know
<br /> 1437 who, but staff put together sometime in the early to mid'90s in reaction to when these watershed
<br /> 1438 regulations were being rolled out at the state level. Someone was smart enough to say,well,what
<br /> 1439 about non-conforming lots? Like you're putting things, these requirements on lots that,well,there
<br /> 1440 might have been a home here before this rule was applied. So that was the purpose of this, but
<br /> 1441 over the years, it's just become, it's tough to explain to constituents. We don't have a legal
<br /> 1442 background like, no, this number came from here. It was just,we believe, staff putting this table
<br /> 1443 together. So,what we're proposing to do with these amendments are just to simplify this, a one-
<br /> 1444 and-done number for an impervious area cap, and we zoomed in on 12 percent, and there's a lot
<br /> 1445 of reasoning for that. Mostly, 12 percent is an impervious level that the state tends to consider low
<br /> 1446 density, anything 12 percent and below. So,we've, instead of sending constituents to this chart to
<br /> 1447 figure out what their allowable impervious, if you have a non-conforming lot that was in existence
<br /> 1448 prior to those regs,you get this number. And so,we feel it's just going to clarify, it's going to save
<br /> 1449 a lot of staff time and a lot of confusion from constituents. We've got some,we can go through
<br /> 1450 these one by one.
<br /> 1451
<br /> 1452 Patrick Mallett: Yeah,we can go.
<br /> 1453
<br /> 1454 Christopher Sandt: These are just some cases that Pat and I put together that display what this does in the real world,
<br /> 1455 eliminating the sliding scale and making this a little bit more straightforward.
<br /> 1456
<br /> 1457 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 /> 1458 permits on smaller lots and what they get today and what they would get tomorrow, and then
<br /> 1459 factor in a couple of things. So, in this first case,you've got a small lot. And the sliding scale that
<br /> 1460 you saw before was intended to address, largely, subdivisions that were done in the'70s and '80s,
<br /> 1461 maybe in some cases near Chapel Hill in the'60s. At that time, the minimum lot size,we didn't
<br /> 1462 have a repair area requirement, and the minimum lot size in many instances was a half an acre.
<br /> 1463 And so,you have quite a few subdivisions that are around the periphery. They're not in Chapel
<br /> 1464 Hill's jurisdiction, Carrboro's,or Hillsborough's, but they're significant subdivisions and they have
<br /> 1465 smaller lots, so when you start to factor in a percentage base of the lot size,you start to get
<br /> 1466 pinched. And I think that was what was driving this idea for the sliding scale. I think it was a good
<br /> 1467 idea at the time, but it just doesn't really work on the practical end of the stick. So, in the first
<br /> 1468 case,you've got a lot that an applicant did a rudimentary drawing, but they're essentially taking a
<br /> 1469 manufactured home in the Chapel Hill Township. The lot was recorded in 1987. It was developed
<br /> 1470 in 2023. Gives you the lot size and the breakout, .6 acres, and they're just looking to put a double
<br /> 1471 wide, and that's the square footage. And so, it sort of walks you through the baseline if they had 6
<br /> 1472 percent,what they would be allowed with the sliding scale, 14.8 percent. With the new impervious
<br /> 1473 limit,they would get this amount, and then if they did an SCM,they would get a slightly larger
<br /> 1474 bump.
<br /> 1475
<br /> 1476 Chris Johnston: I'm sorry, SCM?
<br /> 1477
<br /> 1478 Patrick Mallett: I'm sorry, stormwater control measure. So, it's a stormwater feature. The next example is Chapel
<br /> 1479 Hill Township, University Lake protected, recorded in 1973. The house was built in '73. They did
<br /> 1480 a 2023 addition, so we're right at an acre lot size. It shows a comparison as with the other one.
<br /> 1481 So,you get actually slightly more impervious but a modest amount, a reasonable amount,we
<br /> 1482 think. The next scenario, Bingham Township, lot recorded in 1984. It was developed in '84, and
<br /> 1483 then they added a garage in 2024. Lot size a little bit over an acre, and again you get,when you
<br />
|