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

Browse Search

186 Approved 2/2/11 299 Brian Crawford: Here is the confusion. You said initially the state has this list of permitted uses and we went through that list 300 and selected 24 and said we will do these or we are suggesting we do these. I think May is saying that it sounds like that of 301 those 100, we have none of those left and so why would we want to add these 24 when we are doing fine without them. I think 302 that is what we need help to figure out why we are making this change at this point when they UDOs purpose was to consolidate 303 and worry about change later but then we are confronted with 24 changes here. 304 305 Terry Hackett: It takes a couple of uses by right were already there in our existing ordinance. These are clarifications of those. 306 307 Craig Benedict: Orange County has been in process of acquiring land over the last 15 years and it is important that when we 308 purchase new lands, and Rich Shaw is here from Environment Resources, that we are able to enjoy those natural areas and 309 presently we cannot put a six foot pathway 30 feet away from the stream so we suggesting, for the money that Orange County 310 citizens have invested in the county to enjoy these beautiful natural areas, that we be allowed to encroach on these natural areas 311 with a six foot unpaved pathway by right. That we are allowed to have a fire truck go down next to a pond so that we have rural 312 fire control which we cannot currently do. If there is a nuisance species, like poison ivy, that we can go down there and remove 313 it. If we get money for environmental enhancement, funds, if someone gives us money for enhancements, we can't do that 314 because there is some disturbance but there is more enhancement and mitigation that comes forward. All these suggestions on 315 1 through 15 are for purposes of enjoying, restoring or enhancing that stream buffer. Trail crossings, associated bridges, docks, 316 presently we own lands that are on behalf of the public and we cannot put a dock on that pond. We have had requests from 317 citizens and our own departments to use the resources we have purchased by some access to the docks, etc. 318 319 Larry Wright: Uses permitted by right. You said these were uses that were listed for enjoyment. Can you say that phrase 320 again? 321 322 Craig Benedict: So that we can enjoy the natural areas we have purchased in the county. 323 324 Larry Wright: If this was a preamble to this section so they would understand the spirit of the section, I think a lot of this 325 confusion and discussion would be directed towards that- the recreational. 326 327 May Becker: I feel like there are two different things going on. I see Craig's point but I am also hearing that these ponds have 328 been viewed as a right in a sense. On one hand you have the ponds that potentially .... depending how it is regulated.... 329 additional buffers may be required that could work or they could not work. To me that is important to establish and when I read 330 this about ponds and we all ask what is analogous to this and is this analogous to something else. I think that is what we need to 331 understand and be comfortable with if these things are permitted by right, to me that tells the owner of a piece of property will 332 think I have a right to do this. 333 334 Brian Crawford: Does that still allow your department to inspect that? 335 336 Terry Hackett: Absolutely. The stormwater management pond would be covered under the stormwater management plans that 337 are required for development in a different section of the UDO. They were required to meet the stormwater standards. 338 339 Brian Crawford: Why does it have to be by right? Can it be mitigation or some other language that announces to the public that 340 you have the ability to do these things but you just can't do it the way you want to do it. If I am reading this as a private citizen 1 341 am going to think that I can hear dimensions, I am going to cut that hole and make the dimensions but it may not necessarily be 342 to the specifications that the Erosion Control Department would require. We need to make an announcement to the public that 343 they still have to go through a stringent process to allow this permitted use to be approved. 344 345 Michael Harvey: Could I direct your attention to 6.13.6c. There is a specific standard for stormwater ponds that the UDO is 346 subject to that. If there is a specific standard dealing with dam or reservoir maintenance mentioned in the UDO it has to meet 347 that standard. Stream restoration projects, stream buffer erosion control standards has to meet those standards. I think what 348 you are looking for is there. 349 350 Craig Benedict: Single family houses are permitted by right in agricultural areas but there are still standards to meet. I like 351 Larry's idea to further this preamble and the same introductory paragraph that says you have to meet standards but we could 352 also put in there that these permitted uses are being allowed as noted below are for the general enjoyment and maintenance of 353 these natural areas. These are all on behalf of the preservation of the resource. 354 355 Larry Wright: The mountains to the sea trail will be coming through Orange County and I understand if there are problems with 356 that trail coming through and I would like to see it come through this county. If we can do something to have this trail come next 357 to a stream buffer, I for one, would like to be able to see that happen. 358 6