Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br /> <br /> 2 <br />the Rural Buffer surrounding Carrboro and Chapel Hill. He noted applicants would need <br />to provide additional site data, including hydrological and environmental information. <br /> <br />Harvey asked the CFE to consider the draft rule changes and provide any comments. <br />He noted further changes to the draft are expected, but comments at this stage would be <br />helpful. He has also requested comments from the Economic Development Commission. <br /> <br /> Sassaman asked if there is any reason to suspect a public airport is being <br />planned for anytime soon. Harvey said there has been no indication of that. <br /> <br /> Sassaman asked the status of the airport in Chapel Hill. Harvey said UNC’s <br />expansion at Carolina North is on hold; the existing airport remains in use and <br />there are better accommodations for local air traffic at RDU airport. <br /> <br /> Hintz noted that private airstrips can have grass runways with little or no <br />impervious surfaces. Harvey said the type of surface is important for permitting. <br /> <br /> Hintz asked if a local dairy producer would need a permit for an airstrip used for <br />delivering milk for sale from the farm. Harvey said if the airstrip is for local farm <br />products predominantly then it would not require a SUP or a conditional zoning <br />permit. The same would be true for a crop dusting operation. <br /> <br />Hintz suggested the CFE members mull it over until the next meeting. He said he is <br />supportive of allowing private air strips in the Rural Buffer. <br /> <br />Sassaman said he supports having the different rules and processes for airports and <br />airstrips, and he supports the conditional use permit for public airports. He would not <br />support there being an absolute ban on new airports in Orange County. <br /> <br />Gronback thanked Harvey for sharing this information and said the CFE would consider <br />the proposal and provide comments at a later date. <br /> <br />V. Orange County Stream Buffer Requirements – Michael Harvey provided an overview <br />of the County’s plan to address 2015 legislation intended to curtail local governments’ <br />abilities to protect surface water quality (and riparian habitat) by requiring wider stream <br />buffers for new and existing development. <br /> <br />Harvey said Orange County has some of the most restrictive stream buffer requirements <br />in the state. He said the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has provided <br />three options for local governments to justify maintaining current rules. Harvey said the <br />first option is to document that local rules were implemented prior to 1989, which was <br />not the case for Orange County. The second option is to present scientific evidence that <br />justifies the need for more restrictive stream buffers to protect water quality. Harvey said <br />Orange County intends to pursue this option—perhaps in collaboration with other local <br />governments in the Upper Neuse River Basin Association. Harvey said the County also <br />plans to pursue a third option: to make the case that Orange County’s stream buffer <br />rules are implemented under a different enabling legislation than that which is addressed <br />in the 2015 legislation. The Orange County standards were initially intended to protect <br />water quality in so-called “critical areas” of public water supply watersheds, but were <br />extended to provide further protection throughout those water supply watersheds. <br /> <br />Harvey said the NC DEQ requires local governments to submit their justification by <br />August 2016. The NC DEQ will provide its response by November 2016. <br /> <br />Gronback thanked Harvey for sharing this information. There was no action required.