Agenda - 08-26-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT These exemptions would be approved on a case -by -case basis by the EMC. As discussed above in the proposed rules, .if a local government permits a non - conforming activity after reclassification, it would be required to offset the impacts by implementing more stringent rewire mcnis somewhere else in the watershed. 1.7'hottgh ati exetttlttioti procedure is needed, pctil ioning the .EMC for every mirror exemption will pose an administrative burden for the EMC (arid backlogs) and be cunibersoinc for, local governments. ?. The of fs:rt provisions do not require equal water quality protection. 3. Local gavermmnels can not require developers to cong7ly with regulations prior to adoption by that jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION Delegate authority to local governments to make minor exemptions based on criteria adopted by the EMC, Require the local government to notify other potential interested local governments and pro - Ode an appeals procedure. The EMC would continue to have complete authority over major exemp- tions. Revise the rules as follows: .0104 (1) Exemptions may be allowed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis for occurrences of non - conforming uses prior to reclassification in order to obtain a higher classification or by the Commission at the request of local government on a case -by -case basis after reclassification. f..ocal ;ovcrnn►ents may 4ly ��q x�mp i i } . anclaxd� rQntall)ed herein bastd u 1 Qn criteria approved by the EMC. The xxc tlon criteria END include all,..j)_utjj9 c limited j!D flit' followin"Ahe -W 1 cause p praCtIcal _Dn.tl}e rop r • 2 ) jhC c2ndition Is 32cguliar to the RlopuLy :3) the condition could not hie been foreaeen bythc, f.MS1n.,�lippting th cs I ules: And9), the propose tionin}tgs to meet the si�ir 1t��llrp,. &Vsi Intent of these rules. N'VbgZM gXCa =jjjProposed. the local governilimt rdiall- notify and allow a reasonable coinmeutgerjQd for u,ers of the wafer sup 121v and oflj!�r jqrhdlctl on s YAJ th In Ib e w atershe area v rn d by c arsons ma, anneal the Exemn�,�ecisinns to the EMC. .0104 (t) Commencement of new activities ... as ofjjgj;y„j„ 19921 or [the date the local c =rnment ,&pfs watershed protection regulations cojUl with these, rulesl ..shall comply with the requiremeent of these rules. (Note: Again, the Committees recommend the earliest possible legal date.) Since some areas of a watershed influence water quality more than others, we recommend that the EMC -evise the offset provision to require that local governments adopt more stringent land uses in similar areas of the N, rshc. to provide no net loss of water quality protection. ;3) Agriculture, Silviculture, and Transportation The existing rules reflect gPntral policies, encouraging best iruanagement practices for agricultural, 3ilvicultural, and transportation activities in drinking water supply watersheds. The proposed rules are more specific. For instance, "The Department of TriuLsportation shall use EMP's -3utlined in its document entilled, "Water Supply Watershed BMP's." This document indicates that the Department shall provide sufficient areas for containment of hazardous spills within critical areas, ?romolc infiltration by using riprap instead of concrete ditches, limit grading operations, inspect, clean