Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br /> current allotment of impervious surface area. <br /> Materials from the public hearing can be viewed utilizing the following link- <br /> http://www.orangecountync.gov/1 0526QP C.pdf <br /> June 16, 2015 - Receive Planning Board recommendation. <br /> d. Other <br /> N/A <br /> 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM <br /> Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and <br /> Orange County ordinance requirements <br /> a. Planning Board Review: <br /> April 1, 2015 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC). <br /> The ORC met on April 1, 2015 to review this item. There was general <br /> discussion over the implications of the proposed amendment and the <br /> process by which a property owner would obtain additional impervious <br /> surface area. <br /> June 3, 2015 — Recommendation. The Planning Board met on June 3, 2015 to <br /> review this item. During the meeting the following comment(s) were made: <br /> a. Board members indicated they were comfortable with the requirement that <br /> the stormwater feature had to be designed by a licensed engineer to local <br /> and State requirements in order to qualify for the impervious surface <br /> modification. <br /> b. A board member indicated the Orange County Commission for the <br /> Environment was not in support of the proposed amendment as it was <br /> seen as weakening the County's watershed management program. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff has not received any further information <br /> from DEAPR staff other than the May 6, 2015 memorandum included <br /> within the quarterly public hearing materials. <br /> It should be noted this material also included letters from OWASA and <br /> Town of Carrboro Planning staff indicating they believed the <br /> amendment was reasonable. <br /> c. Several board members expressed concern the amendment was <br /> designed to address a specific problem for 1 property owner and, while <br /> they were sympathetic, it could negatively impact local water quality. <br /> d. A board member suggested there needed to be additional effort taken by <br /> staff to ensure property owners knew the development limitations on their <br /> property. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff reviewed the various documents typically <br /> 4 <br />