Agenda - 10-19-1999 - 9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

' 36 ® Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider proposed amendments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable. RECOMIIIENDATION(S): Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) and ' to Article 22 (Definitions) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B -10 (Flexible Development) of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Board had many questions when that board reviewed the proposed amendments at its July 13, 1999, meeting. Many of those questions are answered in the attached Memorandum to the. Orange County Planning Board beginning on page. The. major concern of Cane Creek area residents who attended the public hearing was just compensation. for the taking their property, rights in order to protect drinking water to which they will not have access.. Citizens expressed concern.that,they were bearing the cost for development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Staff asked OWASA staff to clarify the studies on which they based their recommendation: ® if the study evaluated the impact on watershed quality of development occurring at a'zoned lot size other than 2 or 5 acres, or combination thereof; and ® what percentage of the watershed could be ' developed using the creative open space option before a tributary sub - impoundment is required for water quality protection: Response from OWASA states: ® OWASA model evaluated 12 increments of lot sizes between two and six acres and found that water quality goals are met when build -out occurs with lots of five acres or larger. Thus; the water quality goals can be met with the proposed five acre zoning with five two -acre lots allowed for lots of record if OWASA acquires 1,265 more acres of watershed. ® 10% of the watershed may ybe developed using the flexible development provisions (1 du/2 acres with 50% of total acreage preserved in open space) without requiring additional water quality protection. Please refer to the attached letter from OWASA in reply to staff's inquiry. Benedict discussed the questions that the Board had at the July 13,.1999 Planning Board meeting and the staff response to those questions. He distributed and. discussed a handout that shows the rate of growth in each township (copy attached). Katz asked about.transfer of development rights. Benedict responded that programs have been discussed regarding transfer of development rights. Ed Holland stated that OWASA is currently purchasing development rights on property. He stated that they are actually buying conservation easements from willing property owners in the watershed which does not require a transfer of development procedure. He stated that these are the people that use the water. Strayhorn asked how is the fair market value determined.. Holland responded that they look at the. development potential of the property as of right now. Strayhorn asked what was the last price that OWASA paid per acre. Holland responded for a conservation easement, approximately $2,000.00 per acre which leaves the property in the owners' name with restrictions. McAdams stated that he would be opposed to this iten i. Selkirk stated that he understands what the concerns are for clean water in the future. He noted that he is concerned with the 200 or so large landowners who are going to be very negatively impacted by this. Allison stated that his preference would be to leave as is. Katz stated that he understands the water quality issue and what they are trying to preserve but you have to look to the future. He stated that. he is in favor of the recommendations by staff. Strayhorn stated that he would prefer to leave it as it is. He stated