Agenda - 04-21-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

17 1 Michael Harvey said there have been comments over the years about this issue. He 2 said as part of their due diligence in responding to a property owner's petition, as well as 3 concerns from the Board, the question was brought up again. 4 Commissioner Dorosin said this is not necessarily integral to resolving this. 5 Michael Harvey said no, it is just comprehensive to the question of impervious surfaces. 6 7 PUBLIC COMMENT: 8 Simon Sexton lives in a home in a protected watershed area, and he feels that this 9 impervious rule is unfair. He said there are exceptions to what this rule is protecting. He said 10 he likes nature and he does not want to pollute the drinking water. He said he has 10 acres 11 and a ditch to prevent runoff. He encouraged the Board to allow people to have more 12 impervious space. 13 Bryan Sexton thanked the Board for their work on this issue. He said impervious 14 restrictions are important for the environment, but his impervious rights as a homeowner were 15 given away before he even moved into his home. He said he moved into a home with less than 16 2 percent of usable pervious surface. He said he has ten acres in which there is a driveway, 17 home and patio that already puts him over the limit. He said he cannot even put in a shed for a 18 mower. He said he pays $14,000 in taxes for his acreage, and he cannot install a shed or a 19 pool. He thanked the Board for their consideration of these issues. 20 21 Letter submitted via email from: Janel D. Sexton 22 Message: 23 Dear Board of County Commissioners: 24 We appreciate how receptive the Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County 25 Planning and Inspections Office have been in hearing our grievances regarding impervious 26 surface issues. It is my understanding that since I spoke at the December 2014 meeting of the 27 BOCC, the Planning and Inspections Office has done a great deal of work to address the 28 restrictions in accordance with current data and a consideration of BMPs. 29 We urge you to support this movement towards more reasonable impervious limits. The new 30 regulations should take into account current science about water quality and the use of best 31 management practices such as disconnected structures, pervious pavers, and having a swale, 32 which mitigate against runoff. 33 As Orange County residents whose 2015 property tax exceeds $14,000, my husband and I feel 34 entitled to use our property, provided it does not come at the cost of polluting a public water 35 source. Our proposal to have more impervious is well within reasonable limits. Furthermore, 36 after delving further into the allotment we received when we purchased our house, we 37 discovered we only have 1.9% of an impervious allocation--no where near the 6% which we 38 should have. This is unreasonable, unfair, and simply unacceptable. We have a right to use our 39 land, to enjoy our land--the land we pay taxes on--in a typical, reasonable way that would be 40 expected of a single family dwelling. As I stated in my last letter, we were aware of impervious 41 restrictions when we purchased our house, however we had no way of knowing at the time how 42 restrictive Orange County is in its definitions and practices. The state on North Carolina not only 43 has more generous impervious allotments, but also does take into account best management 44 practices (BMPs). Please vote to move Orange County forward, to bring this issue to public 45 hearing as soon as possible, and reward residents who employ BMPs. We need to protect 46 water purity using good science rather than status quo measures. 47 Thank you. 48 Respectfully, 49 Dr. Janel D. Sexton 50