BC 2000 10 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

547 Mr. Ray Eury of 2895 Poplar Tent Road, Concord, listed the following concerns regarding the proposed UDO: (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 required 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. He 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 contained in the Comprehensive Plan "and/or the purpose statement for the zoning district." Mr. Robert Brinkley, Attorney with Smith, Helms, Mulliss and Moore, commented on the legal aspects of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). He addressed the following issues: (1) Method of calculating the additional burden a new development will place on existing infrastructure capacity; (2) Establishment of the adequacy standard; and (3) Commitment by the County to improve all the 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 to statements by Mr. Clifton, Mr. Brinkley agreed it is the Board's responsibility to look at the adequacy of existing public facilities during approval of the development process. At the request of Chairman Fennel, Mr. Marshall reviewed each of the staff recommended changes to the UDO. He said the Concord City Council had included the changes in its adoption of the I/DO. The recommended changes involved such issues as third party rezonings, conditional use permits, Floor Area Ratio standards, maximum density in the RV district, home occupation standards, mining and quarrying standards and repairs to nonconforming structures. There was discussion by Board members regarding the following issues: street connectivity; cul de sacs, including desirability and safety issues; sidewalk regulations; certification of landscape plans; home business regulations; and the APFO. 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 regulations at the workshop on November 6. There was no one else who wished to address the Board, and Chairman Fennel closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Fennel announced that the Board would meet at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 2000, in a work session to continue review of the proposed D-DO. Further, he stated the Board would consider the adoption of the UDO at its November 20tn meeting. Memorandum of Understanding between Cabarrus Municipalities Re~ardin~ the Administration of Proposed Unified Development Ordinance County and the Local and Amendments to the chairman Fennel stated the Memorandum of Understanding would be listed on the November 20th Agenda for the Board's consideration. Complaint - osprey Lake Subdivision Mr. Mack Neikirk and Mr. Rick Borders, residents of the Osprey Lake Subdivision on Gold Hill Road, questioned how the County planned to implement the UDO since it does not enforce existing regulations. They complained that the subdivision developer, Randy Wiggins, had failed to meet sedimentation, erosion control and subdivision requirements. They cited specific complaints concerning sewer and flooding 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. Clifton advised he had talked with Mr. Neikirk regarding the 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.