Agenda - 06-01-2010 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

54 183 Mark Marcoplos: This wouid be surface data? How the streams, land,rype of soil, etc.doesn't quite seem to be like sure fire 184 protection against pollution. 185 186 Jeffrey Schmitt: I give kudos to the engineer or whoever it was in the organization that split this out. I for one think this is far too 187 restrictive,notwithstanding that I would be voted down aimost categorically so I am not going to bring that up but following the 188 rules,categories 1,2 and 3,all these new stream definitions,that draws this outside line,the people,your department utilizing 189 these rules said this area has a unique geographical location and because of it,it does not have the same characteristics as the 190 rest of this property in being required to be protected. Were this not here,I would not be saying anything but my comment is that 191 your folks,following their rules has said this could be isolated,we have the technology to do it bringing it in simply because it is 192 inside of it is inconsistent with what we are trying to do. 193 194 Brian Crawford: Have the property owner's in that area been communicated to or sent a message there is a change being made 195 to their property? 196 197 Craig Benedict: Yes. We notified the people who would be put into the critical area and we also notified a lot of people being 198 taken out of the critical. These people are being added to the critical area over here and there are these that will be taken out so 199 we have notified people coming in and out. We didn't have anybody specifically mention they came from that area where they 200 are being taken out of the critical area,we didn't hear anything specific. 201 202 Brian Crawford: There is a possibility that those foiks won't mind being put in the critical area. There is a possibility they will 203 accept it or not. My fear is they currently have a right and for that to be taken away from them without them specifically 204 acknowledging it.... 205 206 Jeffrey Schmitt: Let's ask it on a legal basis. If we were to say this now needs to be included in this area and these folks 207 decided to file a suit based on the regulations in place,I ask Counsel,do they have a basis to sue? 208 209 Perdita Holtz: It's currently in the 1994 critical area. 210 211 Brian Crawford: Right but they are changing it. 212 213 Samantha Cabe: I would think there would be some sort of basis,a balancing test. You would have to have a basis for including 214 it if you are limiting their development. In 1994,the critical area was defined based on the current technology we had and the 215 ability we probably needed more wiggle room because we couldn't hone in on exact areas. Now we have the ability to hone on 216 more specific area and we are redefining all these critical areas more precisely and the critical areas we have identified to protect 217 watershed that is a public interest that could be weighed against a private property right. People in this donut hole,what is the 218 public interest that would give way against their private properry rights when we have this map, it wouid be evidence that our 219 planning depariment has opined that is it not necessary to protect these watersheds to inc�ude them in the critical area. 220 221 May Becker: What do you base that on? If you say maps, it sounds arbitrary as if you are saying that you would rather protect 222 the property rights. The line that was drawn in 1994 wasn't arbitrary,if you look at it you can tell it was based on data and there 223 is no reason that since some time has passed that we understand these systems better than before. Why change what we had 224 in 1994. I know we went through this last time and discussed the definitions. Why not just define it as an empirical line to the 225 best knowledge we had and still have and add the natural resource area to it that we discussed last time.Why weaken the area 226 when we have no evidence that these natural resources don't need to be protected with only the evidence there is going to be 227 growth in the Counry. 228 229 Pete Hallenbeck: We are getting caught up here. I don't think back and forth would be the concepts of precision. The original 230 lines were drawn as best as could be done in 1994 which was take a pencil, take a map,take a guess and have at it. Now 231 through the miracle of GIS we are able to come up with a much more precise rule set as far as distance in streams, orders of 232 branching and we create these new maps including things like donut holes and including some other points such as the bump 233 from Panther Branch which is the artifact of the rule set applied to the GIS data I am worried that doesn't apply as well to 234 McGowen Creek and we will also see some changes around the Efland interchange of that property and in public comments 235 people are asking why didn't we take into account which way the water flows which came into effect with some of those areas by 236 Duke Energy so it is kind of odd, I think we need to be careful not to take complex rules that are applied by computers to 237 accurate information and extrapolate that out to be accurate or better. There is still a lot of guessing and approximation as far as 238 what our setback distance is on our streams that reducing all the areas we are having trouble with. 239 240 Jeffrey Schmitt: There is so much guessing that Orange Counry has said we are going to make the area 10 times greater than 241 the state says they need to begin with. I am sure the state has our best interest at heart when they made the rules to begin with. 242