Minutes - 20061120 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

forestry program or part of a bona fide farm that is seeking to develop into another use where stream buffers would be required. The present standards would require the planting of 436-681 trees per acre. Staff's concern is that this does not establish a viable or pertinent buffer within the required time to guarantee water quality. The second problem is that there is a lack of appropriate mitigation standards. Another problem is that there is no flexibility within the ordinance allowing for minor encroachment into the required stream buffer far non-invasive, passive uses of the property. Finally, staff is concerned that there is no effective way to work with a property owner to address changes in location and size of stream buffers resulting in a change. Staff is proposing that a comprehensive replanting standard be established in cases where the stream buffer has been disturbed. The proposal is that the standard be ten trees for every 1,000 square feet of disturbance and also that a property owner could install bushes on a ratio with the required trees in order to reestablish the buffer. Staff is also recommending that formal mitigation standards be established to regulate development of the stream buffer. Finally, the staff is recommending expanding on the types of uses allowed within a regulated stream buffer to include such uses as: archaeological activities, drainage ditches, water dependant accessory structures (i.e. decks, piers, etc.), accessory structures intended to allow property owners to enjoy scenic views of a water feature (i.e. gazebos), trails and walkways, and other similar useslactivities consistent with current DWQ regulations. Planning staff submitted this proposed ordinance change to several internal departments and external agencies (Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough; OWASA; Commission for the Environment}. There has been some feedback from Erosion Control, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Health, and other County departments requesting clarification of revisions. The recommendation is for this to be forwarded to the Planning Board for consideration and also that the Planning Board solicit input from Commission for the Environment. Commissioner Gordon said that she was present at the Commission for the Environment meeting and there were several comments about wanting to provide input. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 9 and the Table of Allowable and Allowable with Mitigation Uses/Activities, and he read, "Functionally dependent structures that are water dependent such as docks, piers, public and private boat ramps, boat houses over the water, walkway." He asked if boat ramps and boathouses are allowed with mitigation and it was answered yes. He said that he does not understand the statement on page 6, item b, "No matter the classification of the proposed activity, all useslactivities shall observe a 25-foot setback from the top of the banks of the stream of water feature. This setback area shall remain in a natural, vegetative state." He asked haw a dock could be set back 25 feet. Michael Harvey said that the intention is that water dependent structures would not have to meet the setback requirement. He said that the staff could provide an exemption on the activities and Chair Jacobs agreed. Chair Jacobs asked why there would not be a differentiation of mitigation based on illegal activity between mitigation on someone that has to da an activity that disturbs the stream buffer. Michael Harvey said that there would still be disturbance of the stream buffer and the interest is to reestablish it in the quickest time possible. Geof Gledhill said that the legal answer is that there can be a differentiation. Chair Jacobs encouraged discussion with Forestry. 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.