Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 9a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2011
>
Agenda - 04-05-2011
>
Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 9a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2012 4:47:24 PM
Creation date
4/1/2011 11:45:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/5/2011
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9a
Document Relationships
Minutes 04-05-2011
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
27 <br />COMMENTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION <br />STDRMwATER MANAGEMENT AND GRDUNDUVATER <br />43. In the section concerning golf courses, Pollutant Monitoring Program, 1 would suggest <br />some thought be given to the locations of the sampling stations for surface water, <br />groundwater and sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient sampling <br />locations as well as sampling locations dawn-gradient of some potentially contaminating <br />source or specific location?? I think this section needs a bit of discussion as to what the <br />objective is. In addition, under ~3} Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that some <br />description of approved analytical methods and minimum detection limits would be <br />helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA HAL thresholds described in this section but 1 <br />would be willing to look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater <br />limits that may be worth considering forthis section. <br />44.5~b} of this section- Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring- I would recommend <br />that the responsible party also be required to contact appropriate state regulatory <br />officials if thresholds are exceeded, not just 4C do so. I also recommend that the <br />phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence -- Section 5.5. <br />45. Compare Durham's ordinance requirements far environmental review of subdivisions <br />with Qrange County's environmental review process. <br />46. Nutrient trading. <br />47. Low impact Design ~L1D}. <br />48, Review thresholds and processes associated with the permitting of wastewater <br />treatment facilities. <br />TRANSPORTATION <br />49. Section 7.8.2, Public roads need to be laid out in a manner that avoids significant natural <br />and cultural features. <br />50. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations need to be written. <br />COMMENTS RELATED TO PROCEDURES <br />STREAMLINING <br />51. Will staff be making recommendations to shorten any of the processes? <br />52. There is an unusual threshold requirement in the Subdivision Regulations -the 21st lot <br />of a subdivision kicks you into an Special Use Permit (SUP) process. Needs to be <br />looked at again -make part of future changes. Planning Board should be able to <br />approve 20 lots or less (without BOCC involvement). <br />53. Are there metrics and stats for approval time for each approval process? <br />54: After staff and advisory board review, project went through County Attorney review. <br />A-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.