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

Browse Search

185 Approved 2/2/11 240 the permitted use in general, in particular these new ones? Is there a problem defining what the buffer should look like or a 241 problem of all these places you can violate the buffer? 242 243 May Becker: My other concern is the places where you can violate the buffer. I don't know for sure about the specific details of 244 how, say woods versus material, went into that calculation. I am assuming that came from a method that has been developed 245 before this UDO has been presented so when I read it I moved on and said this is the method that has been used. Also, I want 246 to be clear on a few formatting things at the end followed by ... there were a couple of methods presented and later described as 247 to which method would apply to which area and I felt it wasn't .... 248 249 Pete Hallenbeck: Another reason for asking is we are at the point of merging the UDO and we said we will not change it but get 250 it all together, and then we will worry about change. I am also looking at this, are the definition of how much buffer you need 251 acceptable for this stage so we could focus solely on these new permitted uses and if that would be 80% of where we need to be 252 on water or is absolutely everything off and we have to look at both how we calculate the buffer size and the uses. 253 254 May Becker: I agree. I would like to understand better how the buffers are calculated. 255 256 Pete Hallenbeck: Are they acceptable at this stage? 257 258 May Becker: Yes. I would rather talk about new changes to understand where they are. 259 260 Brian Crawford: We are more restrictive. 261 262 Larry Wright: This would be 6.13.6 item 9, New Stormwater, I would like to know what that is and if this relates to a type of pond 263 that is used to mitigate with a built in wetland and then they build a pond without providing ... so they just build a pond in back of 264 the Harris Teeter on Martin Luther King, is this really a cesspool? It seems like it is mitigation. Stormwater that comes off the 265 parking lot. Is this the type of thing we are talking about on this item 13? 266 267 Terry Hackett: That is a yes and no. What you are referring to behind the Hams Teeter is a stormwater pond that was designed 268 to manage the amount of stormwater coming off those facilities. It was constructed before any of the newer stormwater 269 requirements. This is referring to, when we say stormwater management pond, is stormwater quality pond. It is a wet pond and 270 it will look like a pond but it is designed to treat the amount of stormwater in it and settle out pollutants from the runoff. Primarily 271 nitrogen and phosphorus. Those are the two we are most concerned with. The pond itself has to meet the design requirements 272 as we use the state's stormwater best management practices manual they have to meet. There are certain design guidelines 273 that a designer would have to meet. Basically, if we were to look at a development plan that proposed a stormwater management 274 pond such as this, our first suggestion is that we don't want it in a buffer at all. Unfortunately, because of site constraints, there 275 may be a reason it has to be in a buffer. This rule is saying you have to establish a riparian buffer around that pond just like if it 276 were a farm pond. 277 278 Larry Wright: So EPA has one of those? You can imagine all the guidelines but muskrats and beavers have made channels so 279 these are flowing directly into what they call the lake. What the EPA wanted to have for their holding ponds for their parking lots 280 doesn't seem to be working. 281 282 Terry Hackett: That really falls back on them because any engineered stormwater facility requires an operation maintenance 283 plan, requires to be recorded on the deed and that the owner of that pond would have to inspect that and provide a report. We 284 try to do it as we have time to go and inspect these. We don't have many in the county at this time. All that authority is in the 285 stormwater section of the UDO so there are provisions to take care of those issues. If you design something and it is not 286 maintained that is the problem because it not functioning. 287 288 May Becker: The way the ordinance reads now in terms of the new ordinance in red says this pond that we talked about is 289 permitted by right. What is it presently? What is the procedure if someone has a piece of property and said I am interested in 290 putting a storm pond close to the buffer or in the buffer zone? 291 292 Terry Hackett: I don't think we have anything in the existing rules that spells that out. Right now we have a stand alone 293 stormwater ordinance that includes the whole list of buffers that doesn't really apply because the zoning ordinance trumps that 294 but there are provisions in there. What basically with this particular use is just making clarification. Most of the time most of the 295 development we are seeing in the county, the stream buffer is just one tool we use to manage the stormwater runoff. We also 296 have impervious surface limits and open space requirements, etc. that also work together. We have very few of these types of 297 ponds out there now. 298