WSMU_MRSV_Memo_19930326

O3/26/93 17:51 Z 704 347 4710 Centralina COG P.O2
March 26, 1993
Lisa:
Here is a quick summary of my question to you regarding existing
development:
1 . The Town of Mooresville appears as if it will consider a
development as meeting the term "existing development" if on
or before July 1 , 1993, a plat for a particular development
has been approved by the Town and there has been
infrastructural expenditures and improvements (e.g. ,
installation of a road, water, and/or sewer network) on the
piece of property in question.
2 . If this position is taken, a decision needs to be reached as
to how much development can take place on the piece of
property. For instance, in a WS-XI district outside of the
critical area, a maximum of 12 percent built-upon area is
allowed under the low density option. Assuming the Town
adopts the standard herein outlined in subsection 1, a
developer could initially construct buildings which exceed the
12 percent maximum because the development was accorded a
vested right under the term "existing development" .
3 . Let's assume that on a 100,000 square foot tract in the WS-II
district, a developer initially builds a 15,000 square foot
building (i.e. , a building with a built-upon ratio of 15
percent) . That building would be exempted from the
regulations because of its vested rights status,
4 . A few years down the road the owner of the 15,000 square foot
building wants to undertake an expansion. Can this be done?
one approach that could be used is that the 15,000 square feet
of building is considered as being "existing development" and
that a maximum 12 percent built upon area could be developed
on the remaining 85,000 square feet. In other words, an
additional 10,200 square feet of impervious surface could be
placed on the lot ( 85,000 X .12= 10,200) .

03/26/93 17:51 Z 704 347 4710 Centralina COG P.03
5. Is the approach outlined in Subsection 4 correct? Or, since
the development was accorded a "vested right" under the term
"existing development", all future expansions on the tract
would also be exempt from the provisions of the watershed
regulations?
Any and all input from you on this matter will be greatly
appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks'
Bill
cc. Erskine Smith
Call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bill.