Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

184 Approved 2/2/11 181 drainage. We require buffers along what others might consider to be fairly insignificant streams. The state allows specific uses 182 in the stream buffer. Some are permitted outright and some are with mitigation. We currently allow some uses in the stream 183 buffer, in black, in the section May was referring to on page 142 through 143 and we are proposing to allow some additional uses 184 in the stream buffers. Some will be outright and some will be with mitigation but we are proposing allowable uses far less 185 expensive than those allowed by the state. Shannon has put together a chart showing what the state allows. 186 187 Tommy McNeill: In other words, in the final analysis, Orange County is a little more strict than the state? 188 189 Perdita Holtz: Yes. And we are recognized through the state for that. 190 191 May Becker: You are proposing to be more lenient than before and these particular numbers came from a local ... people before 192 here have considered Orange County as a local area as opposed to the state and if the state would come up with a buffer law 193 that would presumably apply to water bodies that are not as well known to people in Orange County, for example, because they 194 have the buffer for general buffer ordinance. Whereas in Orange County they presumably put some time into considering how 195 they protect the streams in Orange County and do we feel these buffer laws are what we want. 196 197 Perdita Holtz: Terry, has the list of state allowed uses expanded since our regulations were adopted? 198 199 Terry Hackett: Yes they have. 200 201 Perdita Holtz: So the state has changed and expanded their uses and we are now looking at what the state allows. Ultimately, 202 we have to be at least as restrictive as the state. 203 204 May Becker: No, I understand, I just feel that we have very limited number of water bodies and we have potentially a huge 205 amount of people who want to develop or move to Orange County and I feel that if these water bodies have laws to protect them 206 1 think we should carefully consider if we are going to weaken any of those laws, what is the impact, and is it necessary, what is 207 the reason for it. 208 209 Perdita Holtz: There are actually a large number of water bodies that are protected in Orange County. Every stream or drainage 210 is essentially in the stream buffer. 211 212 May Becker: My point is that if there is that protection, to take it away is something that I feel one really has to think about and 213 know what the affects are going to be rather than look at it and say we have this bigger government agency, the state, that has 214 something that is less restrictive so we are okay because we are still more restrictive than they are. 215 216 Perdita Holtz: So it comes down to the Planning Board deciding whether the added uses are reasonable in the Planning Boards 217 view and making recommendations about it. 218 219 Mark Marcoplos: Do we know where North Carolina is ranked nationally in terms of its standards on water quality? 220 221 Terry Hackett: I would say that North Carolina's Water Quality Protection laws are one of the better ones in the country. We 222 have a big push now to look at stormwater and the impacts of run off from development. Obviously Falls Lake and Jordan Lake 223 are in our area a big concern. The nutrient reduction strategies the state has that are now in effect for those water bodies are 224 probably the most stringent in the country. No one has ever done that. I would say that I don't know exactly how we would rank 225 but I would certainly say we are near the top with what we do. 226 227 (Tommy McNeill left meeting) 228 229 Mark Marcoplos: So the Jordan Lake plan is a relatively new instituted plan in reaction to years of failed management, right? A 230 lot of pollution has gone into Jordan Lake and that was the impetus of the Jordan Lake Plan. 231 232 Terry Hackett: It was but I would not necessarily chalk it up to failed management. Folks knew that and is very typical with our 233 impoundments which are very shallow relatively and the appropriate conditions for eutrophication.... we knew there was going to 234 be a problem and of course as things developed certain portions of the watershed without these stringent buffer rules and that is 235 probably contributing a lot to the eutrophication . I think basically that the buffer rules we have in place now and even most of the 236 rules proposed in the UDO are very reasonable and low impact and we will be able to manage those. 237 238 Pete Hallenbeck: May, there is language in this LIDO that talks about determining the size of the buffer zone and what it should 239 be whether it is woods or grass. Are those generally speaking acceptable? A follow up question would be, the concerns are with 4