Minutes - 19850826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

000~~7 In the period of time following the approval of the Water Quality Critical Area and Protected Watershed II Zoning Ordinance text amendments, the staff has monitored the administration of these standards and has identified specific concexns to be addressed. These concerns have tracked similar concerns raised by members of the Board of Commisaivners and by othex local government staffs attempting to implement the State-Local Action Guidelines for the Falls of the Neuse and Jordan watersheds. Specifically. these concerns include the complexity of the Impervious Surface Ratios Table as opposed to the three-tiered approach endorsed by the TJCOG and the State of North Carolina; the lack of recognition in the Table of areas already serviced by public water and sewer services and developed at higher densities given the provision of these services; the technical difficulties posed by a standard of atormwater management which relies solely on infiltration; and the seed to establish an acceptable guideline for implementation of the infiltration standard by type of land use, particularly large lot development. The particular items are: 6.23.4. 6.23.7. 6.24.6. and 6.24.$. These track each other within the two watershed districts and, specifically, provide fax the control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces in protected watersheds in one of three ways. The preferred method is on-site infiltration through the retention of undisturbed, vegetated areas; the other two methods are structural or engineered infiltration measures, such as trenches or retention ponds, which reduce the amount of runoff and detention structuxes that reduce the rate of runoff. These methods will be used va a site specific basis. Smith noted that Orange County is the only-agency at this time which is evaluating every project that is in a protected watershed. It is felt that a minimum cutoff is reasonable from a technical and administxative standpoint in terms of evaluating a site plan. Staff would like to provide some flexibility in the administrative procedures so that those sites 50,000 sq. ft. or larger would not have to be reviewed through detailed calculations, yet would have some site specific requirements. Also proposed is a revision of the Impervious Surface Ratios Table by district to reflect State requirements. Gordon inquired if the Planning Board reviewed these proposed amendments. Smith responded yea. Smith continued with Article 8 SPECIAL USE_PERffiTE In reviewing recent requests for the issuance of Special Use Permits, members of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board have expressed concern regarding the burden of proof in determining compliance with the General Standards specified in Section $.2 of Article 8. The Ordinance provides that where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards. specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the aplication must be approved unless the Board finds, in some specific manner, that the general standards have not been satisfied. Under the present Oxdinance, the burden of proof rests pzimarily with those opposing the issuance of the Special Use Permit to prove that the general and/or specific standards have not been satisfied. The proposed amendment would require the Board to make specific findings that the general standards have been met. Those opposing the issuance of the Special Use Permit would continua to have the burden of proving that the general standards have not been satisfied. Kizer expressed concern about the proposed amendments, noting that what was currently in the ordinance was precisely what the County Attorney had