Agenda - 03-17-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

"....7r11-`747.4 • •; ..."1111"/"" - ... , , • . ?JvAN*40, - MOTION: Kizer motioned that 6.23.1 be reworded to reflect that the vertical rise is to be calculated far a dis- tance of 250 feet beyond the floodplain and that the average elevation of this area would be multiplied by 4 to determine the buffer. Kizer noted this would do away with the 50 feet factor, but that a problem remains with buffer minimums. He inquired about the source of the multiplier of 4. _ _. _ _ . .... . Shanklin expressed concern that the original buffer formula was not intended to apply to watersheds. General discussion followed. REVISED MOTION: Kizer revised his motion to read that the total width of the buffer shall be determined by measuring a dis- tance of 250 feet from the center of the stream deter- mining the average rise in elevation, multiplying that factor by four and adding that value to the minimum buffer of 50 feet. Luce noted Bob Tennan, the SCS officer, had given imput on the buffer calculation. Crawford and Laszlo felt this was a reasonable formula and should be included to avoid challenge to buffer req- uirements calculated on an ad-hoc basis. Shanklin again felt it was best to set a fixed buffer __ of 50 feet. . 4 _ . Kizer felt it was best to be cautious and err more strictly at first and then later changed. Shanklin felt citizens would object to the formula. Kizer suggested determining average buffer that would be required in the County. Polatty noted Carrboro had calculated setbacks at three sites in determining their watershed management plan. Kizer asked if there were any other formula sources. He again stated it was better to be conservative than liberal if corrections needed to be made. MOTION CARRIED; The buffer would extend from the edge of the flood- , plain. Crawford requested that staff calculate buffer require- ments examples prior to the Dublin hearina_