HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1476something needed to occur about BSR and an approach that regulated the increase of traffic was
a reasonable and rational approach -- not arbitrary or capricious. He said the approach of having
a 13 -month true up for the people unlucky to obtain a permit meant that no person would be
delayed for more than one year. Pope said a second part of the plan would be based on recently
enacted legislation (G.S. 153A-349.1) that allows counties to enter into development agreements
with developers. He said this legislation allowed county commissioners to enter into agreements
with developers of tracts of 25 acres or more of developable property. Pope said it was felt that
large developments were particularly problematic; therefore, the legislature decided to confer
authority to the counties to deal with development in this fashion. He said this legislation could
be applied to the Brawley School Road, along with Perth Road, and other "hot" spots. Pope said
that in regards to the ordinance being applied to Perth Road, it was unlikely the data would
support it. He said for the Brawley School Road, however, he was recommending the ordinance
along with G.S. 153A-349.1.
Commissioner Johnson said he understood that if an applicant wasn't chosen in a 12 -
month period of time that during the 13 month, the person would be issued a permit.
Warren said correct — the staff would contact the applicant during the IP month.
Commissioner Robertson asked if there were a mechanism to prevent a developer, who
might not be ready to build, from going ahead and applying.
Warren said there would be one allocation per parcel, and if someone (large developer)
came into the office there was a mechanism to allow only 20% of the drawing, in any one
monthly period, for any one entity. (Example: If someone had 100 in the drawing and 4 were
pulled, the staff would only allow 2 to be permitted for the following period. The other 2 would
go back in the "hat.")
Robertson said that at the end of 12 months a developer could build a 100 -lot subdivision.
Warren said yes. He said a developer would not be able to "cook" the process because if
they didn't pay for the permit, their application would be null and void.
land.
Commissioner Williams asked if the permits were transferable.
Warren said the allocation was granted to a specific applicant but it aligned more with the
Commissioner Tice asked about individuals already in possession of permits.
Warren said if permits were already purchased, they would be exempt. (If purchased
before the effective date of the ordinance.) He said if applicants felt wronged, there was a
process for appeal through the board of adjustment. Warren said there were provisions to make
alterations to the ordinance, if needed.
Commissioner Johnson asked about vested rights.
Allison said it wasn't uncommon for applicants to obtain zoning and environmental
permits, and then be faced with new regulations. He said that if the individual could show (1)
substantial expenditures [this does not include purchase of the land], (2) good faith, (3) valid
local approval — zoning/health permit, and (4) detriment [financial harm], this was a strong case
for vested rights.
Commissioner Tice noted that one of the findings of fact needed correction. (Oak Tree
Elementary should be eliminated and replaced by Lake Norman Elementary).
Hurley said there was state legislation in the northeast that allowed for this type of
ordinance, but there wasn't any case law in North Carolina.
The board agreed to call for a public hearing on April 17 and to place the matter on the
consent agenda.