AG 2000 11 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Ray Eury of 2895 Poplar Tent Road, Concord, listed the following concerns regarding the proposed UP0: (1) Reference to the City of Concord rather than the County~ (2] Section 1.1.4.1 - clarification concerning the distribution of population and traffic; {3) Section 1.3.3 - future amendments to the UDO and re0iuired conformity to the .comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marshall responded to Mr. Eury's concerns. He also distributed a list of recommended changes, to the UDO based on recent public input. Be pointed out Section 1.3.3 had been amended to state that future amendments to the zoning map must be consistent with the future land use map containsd in the Comprehensive Plan 'and/or the purpose statement for the zen/ns district. · Mr. Robert Brinkley, Attorney with Smith, Helms, Mulliss and Moore, commented on the legal aspects of the A~equate Public Facilities Ordinance (A~PO). He addressed the following issues: (1) Method of calculating the additional burden a new development will place on existing infrastructure capacity~ (2) ~stablishment of the adequacy standard; and (3) Commitment by the County to improve all ~hs infrastructure that is needed for future new development. Mr. Brinkley summarized his comments by saying that in order to implement an APFO, the County must have an adequate inventory to the condition and sufficiency of existing infrastructure, a good faith estimate of the likely increased demands on such infrastructure, a comprehensive plan and schedule for completion of all necessary improvements, and a commitment and ability to fund all the costs required to improve those infrastrUcture items. In response., t.o statements by Mr. Clifton,. Mr. Brinkley agreed it is the Board's responsibli!ty to look at the adequacy of existing 'public facilities during approval of the development process. At the request of Chairma~ Fer~nel, Mr. Marshall reviewed each of the staff recommended cham~es to the LDO. He said the Concord City Council had included the 'changes ia its adoptioa of the UDO. The recommended changes involved such issues as third party retchings, conditional use permits, Area Ratio standards, maximum density in the RV district, home occupation standards, mining and quarrying standards and repairs to nonconforming There was discussion by Board members regarding the following issues: street connectivity; cul de sacs, iacluding desirability and safety issues; sidewalk re~lations ~ certification of landscape plans; home business regulations; and the A~FO. A majority of the Board members generally agreed that the landscape certification requirement was too restrictive. Also, Mr. Marshall agreed to provide a comparison of current and proposed home business repulations at the workshop on November 6. There was no one else who wished to address the Board, and Chairman Feanel closed the public hearing at 8:00 Chairman Fennel announced that the Board would meet at 6:30 p.m. on Monday Novembsr 6, 2000, in a work session to continue review of the proposed UDO. Further, he stated the Board would consider the adoption of the UDO at its November 20~ meeting. Memorandum of ~nderstend~ng between Ca~arrus C~u~ty and the Local Munic~p&li=ie$ Re~ard/n,~ the A~minisCration o£ and Amendments to the Chairman Fennel stated the Memorandum of Understanding would he listed on the November 20~ Agenda for the Board's consideration. Mr. Mack Nsikirk and Mr. Rick Borders, residents of the Osprey Lake Subdivision on ~old Rill Road, questioned how the County planned to implement the LDO since it does not enforce existing requlations. They complained that the subdivision developer, Randy wig~ins, had failed to meet sedimentation, erosion c~ntrol --~ subdivision requirements. They cited specific complaints concerning sewer and floodin~ problems. Finally, Mr. Neikirk and Mr. Borders criticized the inspection of the lake by Department of Environment and Natural ResoUrces officials and stressed the importance of keeping the lake on the property. Mr. Cliftoa advised he had talked with Mr. Neikirk regarding thc cited' problems at Osprey Lake. He stated some of the issues are County related while other issues, such as septic tank failures and landscaping concerns, are between the buyer and seller.