Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br /> <br /> 2 <br /> Bouma pulled up the County building permit webpage and described some of the <br />information needed for a building permit, such as the amount of existing <br />impervious surfaces and how much additional impervious area is proposed. <br /> <br /> Thomas-Ambat noted the City of Raleigh Stormwater is considering a text <br />change to its impervious area exemptions for active stormwater control <br />requirements. She said this change will limit these exemptions to a maximum <br />impervious area based on residential zoning. Based on the recommended <br />revisions, properties that exceed these limitations will be required to provide <br />either a flood study or volume control for the 90% storm. <br /> <br /> Hintz made a motion that the CFE go on record of supporting the proposed rule <br />change as long as procedures are established and implemented for monitoring <br />and enforcement , and as long as property owners are made aware of the rules. <br /> <br /> Becker said she does not believe this rule change would benefit the environment <br />because the CFE’s role is not to allow for more development. She recommended <br />the CFE not support the rule change, but perhaps not object to it either. <br /> <br /> Hintz withdrew his motion. <br /> <br /> O’Connor said an increase in impervious surface could result in a greater loss of <br />habitat and carbon sequestration even with no net increase in water runoff. <br /> Cada agreed, noting also that although the volume of runoff may not increase, <br />the water quality of the runoff could be worse. <br /> Sassaman agreed; more development will result in greater nutrient loading. He <br />said the problem is the cumulative effects of these incremental changes. <br /> O’Connor said BMPs can be expected to fail in the future. The environment is <br />already not doing well; the CFE should not support being less restrictive. <br /> Cada said the County ought to require a letter of credit or a process for the <br />removal of excess impervious surfaces. There should be strict enforcement. <br /> Shaw reminded members that Planning Director Craig Benedict said the intent of <br />the amendment was to allow for no net increase in runoff from developed <br />properties to receiving water bodies. <br /> <br />Wegman reviewed the comments thus far. She said Becker suggested the CFE not <br />support or endorse the proposed rule change. Sassaman proposed sending a memo to <br />the BOCC indicating the CFE is neutral or does not object to the proposed rule change, <br />but the CFE wants the County to establish an enforcement process with yearly <br />inspections that sets a certain amount of time for the landowner to remedy the site when <br />the BMP fails to work properly. Hintz noted BMPs would be difficult to design and <br />enforce without resulting in an incremental loss of habitat. He reviewed the reasons the <br />CFE cannot endorse this amendment because of the loss of habitat quantity and quality, <br />loss of carbon sequestration, and reduced water quality despite no expected increase in <br />water quantity. Cada suggested the CFE recommend there be some sort of permit <br />renewal process. <br /> <br />The CFE agreed to have staff prepare a draft memo based on the discussion and to <br />circulate the draft memo to CFE members for review and approval via email. The final <br />memo will be submitted to the Planning Board and BOCC for consideration. <br /> <br />