Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a2
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2009
>
Agenda - 03-26-2009
>
Agenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2009 10:29:55 AM
Creation date
3/25/2009 10:28:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/26/2009
Meeting Type
Assembly of Government
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
4a2
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20090326
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4a-16 <br />gill impact the buffer far both activities that would need a development permit, as well as <br />activities that currently do not such as clearing, other activities currently considered <br />"maintenance" that affect the buffer. Enforcement would have to include the collection of <br />data an location of different buffer cover types and monitoring to ensure that forested <br />buffers are nat impacted and the footprints of uses in buffers did not increase. No costs <br />are included forthe extensive education thatwill be required for landouuner, developers, <br />engineers, surveyors, real estate agents, and attorneys. <br />~~, The Fiscal Analysis asserts that the NPDE Phase ~ requirements include a ~-foot <br />setback far impervious surfaces far all perennial and intermittent streams {pg, 78~ and that <br />therefore the additional casts associated with the Jordan requirements farthe pratection of <br />existing riparian buffers are minimal. The NP~E requirements state that "built-upon <br />areas are at least 3g feet landward of perennial and ir~terrnittent surface waters.,' The <br />NPDE requirement does nat prohibit the disturbance ~e.g., clearing and grading} within <br />the 3a~faot setback and it should nat be interpreted as affording the same protection as a <br />buffer pratection requirement. <br />~ ~. The Fiscal Analysis assumes I~ndowners would likely take steps to revegetate cleared <br />riparian areas in existing developr~ents regardless of the rule's requirement Mpg. ~~ ~, and <br />therefiore pace na new costs. vve have found that most landawners are usually only willing <br />to revegetate to lawn Even those vuith interest to reforest their riparian areas will require <br />guidance, and possibly assistance, from local governr~ents. <br />~ ~, fasts far mitigating riparian buffer impacts are supposedly railed into thane far riparian <br />buffer pratection Mpg. ~~g}, but any costs far administering this program are not explicitly <br />mentioned in the cast estimates far riparian buffer protectian. In the experience of staff, <br />costs associated v~rith plan re~riew, inspection, recardkeepin, and ensuring r~aintenance, <br />even far restoration projects not undertaken by the Tawn, are significant. <br />Pale ~ of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.