ORD-2006-101 - Proposed Stream Buffer Zoning Text Amendment

Browse Search

Chair Jacobs made reference to page 12, "Temporary roads intended to allow access to a property for development purposes." He asked who permits a temporary road and who makes sure that when the development is completed that the road no longer exists. Michael Harvey said that this was added because of a recommendation from the Division of Water Quality. It would be permitted through the County's zoning permit process if it was a subdivision. The County would make sure that the road would no longer exist. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 20 where it says, "Proposal expands on the number of uses allowed within a stream buffer to be consistent with DWQ requirements." He said that this makes it sound like the number of uses is being liberalized because that's what DWQ allows. Michael Harvey said that this is saying that DWQ allows for certain uses that the County sees are reasonable. Chair Jacobs said that sometimes DWQ's requirements seem to be watered down to fit the development community's interest. Michael Harvey assured Chair Jacobs that this is not the intention. Chair Jacobs suggested that the language include "low impact" as opposed to a passive building. Commissioner Gordon said that she would hope that the Planning Board would look very carefully at all of these uses that are being allowed. She said that some of the uses are pretty intrusive. Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons for all of the uses is to see what the County Commissioners see as acceptable. Jay Bryan asked if there was a hurry with this and Michael Harvey said no, but the existing standards are lax. There is no immediate need, but the problem needs to be fixed. Public Comment Lynette Hartsell said that she owns property at Lake Orange and Cane Creek. She said that she thinks this is a very poor plan. She said that she has been listening to the comments tonight that the property owners are committing illegal acts on property that they somehow think they own. She said that it is because she paid money for the property and she has a deed that says she owns it. She understands that there has to be a relationship with the Planning Board, County Commissioners, and people who are moving in that area that want water. She said that she wants clean water just as much as everyone else. She said that none of the current property owners are criminals, but they are property owners and taxpayers. She said that this is a stealth conservation easement and the common person cannot read it and understand how to get a mitigation plan through. She said that the plan is vague and gives staff power that the County Commissioners should not give. She said that, in the end of the document, it says that the agreement must be recorded as an easement deed and continues in perpetuity as an easement. She said that there is something wrong with her giving the County her land, if it lets her use the land. She understands the need for erosion control, but she is perplexed at the need for erosion police. She said that if the 25 -foot buffer is allowed to go untended, there will be an enormous vermin control problem. She said that this plan should be pitched and the Planning Board should start over and work with the landowners in a more symbiotic relationship and create something synergistic rather than something antagonistic. Pete Wehr lives on Lake Orange. He asked if this affects Lake Orange and it was answered that it affects all of Orange County. He said that the landowners there should be consulted because they are great stewards of the lake. He said that he resents someone telling him how the landowners can better keep the lake clean. He feels insulted by the ordinance. He said that the landowners there should be exempt from the ordinance, and if not, then the County should buy the buffer and lower their taxes. John Macaulay lives on Queen Street. He suggested that the remediation include native plants.