Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
house, we discovered we only have 1.9% of an impervious allocation--no where near the 6% <br /> which we should have. This is unreasonable, unfair, and simply unacceptable. We have a right <br /> to use our land, to enjoy our land--the land we pay taxes on--in a typical, reasonable way that <br /> would be expected of a single family dwelling. As I stated in my last letter, we were aware of <br /> impervious restrictions when we purchased our house, however we had no way of knowing at <br /> the time how restrictive Orange County is in its definitions and practices. The state on North <br /> Carolina not only has more generous impervious allotments, but also does take into account <br /> best management practices (BMPs). Please vote to move Orange County forward, to bring this <br /> issue to public hearing as soon as possible, and reward residents who employ BMPs. We <br /> need to protect water purity using good science rather than status quo measures. <br /> Thank you. <br /> Respectfully, <br /> Dr. Janel D. Sexton <br /> Chair McKee said he felt it was important to go back and look at this issue. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the <br /> Board to: <br /> 1. Approve the attached Amendment Outline form; <br /> 2. Direct staff to proceed accordingly; and <br /> 3. Provide feedback on the need to establish a County wide impervious surface limit in those <br /> areas of the County not located within a watershed protection overlay district. <br /> 4. Insure input is received from peers and the entities referenced by Commissioner Jacobs and <br /> Commissioner Pelissier, prior to the quarterly public hearing. <br /> Commissioner porosin asked about the provision of input and whether this should be in <br /> the resolution. <br /> Michael Harvey said this Board is going to be looking at this twofold and he would <br /> interpret the motion as the Board will provide appropriate feedback on that specific question at <br /> a future date, but they have authorized staff to move forward with the amendment process. <br /> Chair McKee said he interpreted this as having feedback from discussions held outside <br /> of the Board of Commissioners, and this would come back to them at a future date. <br /> Commissioner porosin said he has not weighed in, and he is reluctant to expand <br /> impervious surface restrictions in other areas of the County. <br /> Michael Harvey said there should be additional discussion at a future meeting, and that <br /> is included in the motion. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 8. Reports <br /> a. Presentation of Manaqer's Recommended FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan <br /> — �� <br /> The Board considered the presentation of the Manager's Recommended FY 2015-20 <br /> Capital Investment Plan and provided direction to staff in preparation of the April 9, 2015 <br /> Budget work session. <br /> Bonnie Hammersley said Paul Laughton would be giving a brief presentation of this <br /> plan and there will be two work sessions coming up in April and May. <br />