Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-23-2015 - Item E.1 - Abstract - Session Law Effects
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 11-23-2015 - Quarterly Public Hearing
>
Agenda - 11-23-2015 - Item E.1 - Abstract - Session Law Effects
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2015 2:15:38 PM
Creation date
11/13/2015 2:13:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/23/2015
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
E1
Document Relationships
Minutes 11-23-2015
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
53 <br /> (RFQ) to select a firm to complete this required scientific study. <br /> The RFQ will be released for peer review/comment by November <br /> 23, 2015. As part of this process staff will be reaching out to the <br /> Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) who may be able <br /> to provide assistance. <br /> At this time staff is unsure how much this study will cost but <br /> estimates range from approximately $40,000.00 to $80,000.00. It <br /> should be noted funds for this study do not exist within the <br /> Planning Department budget. <br /> This study needs to be completed and submitted to the EMC by <br /> August of 2016. <br /> The EMC has 90 days to take action on the request and should <br /> make a final decision by November of 2016. <br /> It has also been suggested by State staff we submit formal <br /> notification by February 1, 2016 of our intention to complete and <br /> submit a scientific study for review. <br /> This is the exception we are pursuing to maintain our current <br /> standards as written. <br /> 2. Local governments shall not treat land within identified riparian buffers area as if <br /> the land is: `the property of the State or any of its subdivisions unless the land or <br /> an interest therein has been acquired by the State or its subdivisions by a <br /> conveyance or by eminent domain'. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes we already comply with this <br /> standard. <br /> 3. Riparian buffer areas are required to be denoted on subdivision plats. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes we already comply with this <br /> standard. <br /> It should be known, however, State law does not require this area <br /> to be surveyed (i.e. established by actual field location/delineation <br /> by a surveyor). All the surveyor has to do is denote the <br /> approximate required buffer area. We may have to withdraw the <br /> survey requirement. <br /> 4. When riparian buffers are located within designated common areas or open <br /> space areas located within a minor/major subdivision each abutting parcel shall <br /> be viewed as having an equal interest in that buffer area. The County is required <br /> to allow adjacent lots to `count' this buffer area towards lot size, density, <br /> perimeter buffer, and conservation purposes. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes we already comply with this <br /> standard. <br /> 5. Staff interprets the Session Law as prohibiting the County from requiring property <br /> owners from voluntarily agreeing to more restrictive riparian buffer standards in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.