Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
38 <br /> 1 Michael Harvey said the comments from OWASA are valued but the actions of the State <br /> 2 are beyond the County's control. He said the County has achieved a reasonable solution to the <br /> 3 problem and puts the responsibility on the property owner to come up with a solution. He said <br /> 4 there may be exemptions to the State's potential changes as well as studies that the County can <br /> 5 complete to show the importance of restrictive stream buffers. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Michael Harvey said even though the State may modify the Stream Buffer Program it <br /> 8 does not invalidate the benefits of this process. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Michael Harvey said he has heard Commissioner Jacobs express concern that while this <br /> 11 may have universal application for protected watersheds there is concern that tinkering with the <br /> 12 impervious surface limit in the critical watersheds should be prohibited. He asked for both the <br /> 13 BOCC and the Planning Board to consider this comment. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Chair McKee said he is concerned with the odd shaped lots that have been developed <br /> 16 due to the configuration of the land. He said some have very long driveways that eat up the <br /> 17 impervious surface. He said he feels this option would allow people to build a larger house, <br /> 18 garage, or some other out building on their property which is currently difficult to do. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Chair McKee said one of the emails received concerned the ownership of a ten acre <br /> 21 property with a 1.8 or 2.3 percent impervious surface, which is well under the 6 percent <br /> 22 allowance. He said this particular configuration is affected by the way the developer assigned <br /> 23 the impervious surface and puts extreme limits on what a person can build on their property. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Michael Harvey said the Board has asked staff to look into whether the Subdivision <br /> 26 Ordinance needs to be amended to include a mandatory minimum percentage of impervious for <br /> 27 every lot, thus preventing developers from robbing Peter to pay Paul. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Chair McKee said the matter must be reviewed thoroughly. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Michael Harvey said both Planning and Erosion Control staff meet with individuals <br /> 32 seeking to develop property to try to identify alternative means to develop driveways. He said <br /> 33 one example is geoweb, a hard composite plastic that is buried subterranean and can support <br /> 34 the weight of a vehicle. He said it is not counted as impervious and would allow developers to <br /> 35 address the specific instance to which Chair McKee referred. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff, with regard to a maintenance agreement, is <br /> 38 suggesting that the homeowner pay for the additional inspections. She asked if such funds <br /> 39 would cover the additional staff required to conduct the inspections. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Michael Harvey said the funds could supplement the need for additional staff. He said <br /> 42 different options are being considered. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Commissioner Pelissier said ask the Planning Board or staff to consider giving home <br /> 45 owners up front notification about the repairs, their costs and the exact responsibility the home <br /> 46 owner incurs. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Michael Harvey said currently the Erosion Control staff clearly details the operations <br /> 49 agreement and does a detailed walk through of all expectations. He said cost is not currently <br /> 50 discussed but estimates could be provided. <br /> 51 <br />