CFE agenda 051115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE, PARKS AND RECREATION MEMORANDUM To: Commission for the Environment From: Rich Shaw Date: May 6, 2015 Subject: Proposed Changes to Orange County Rules that Limit Impervious Surfaces At your April 13 meeting the CFE received a presentation on proposed changes to the County's rules that limit construction of impervious surfaces on properties in water supply watersheds. CFE asked many questions as part of its discussion with the Planning staff (Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict). The CFE decided to reconsider the matter in May and decide whether to formulate comments for the Planning Board and BOCC consideration. On April 23, 2015 the OWASA Board of Directors received a similar presentation from the Orange County Planning staff. According to the OWASA's meeting summary, OWASA's comments on the proposed changes will be submitted by letter to the County, and they will include the need for the County to have adequate technical resources and enforcement. The following is a summary of the discussion at the CFE April 13 meeting: Michael Harvey (Current Planning Supervisor, Orange Co. Planning Est Inspections Dept.) provided an overview of proposed amendments to Orange County's rules that limit the amount of impervious surfaces for new development. Harvey said staff was directed to initiate a process to amend the ordinance to include additional opportunities for residents to modify established impervious surface limits. Harvey said under the current rules there are two processes for allowing changes to impervious surface thresholds: 1) approval of a variance request (only one approved in the past 10 years), or 2) transferring the allowable impervious surface area from an adjacent property by way of a conservation easement. Harvey said under certain circumstances the State of North Carolina allows a larger area of impervious surfaces on a property through the installation and continued maintenance of on -site stormwater retention measures, such as permeable pavement. Such a device would be designed to capture runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil. Harvey said permeable pavement is not counted as totally impervious, which translates to an allowance for installing additional "impervious surface area." Harvey said the board of county commissioners has directed Planning staff to evaluate how the County might incorporate language similar to what the State uses for the treatment of permeable pavement in its impervious surface calculations. He said the County considers gravel, asphalt, and concrete, along with more impenetrable building surfaces (roofs, etc.), within its current definition of impervious surfaces. Harvey said the proposed amendment to County rules would allow permeable concrete and some other permeable surfaces to be counted as 50 percent toward the impervious surface area. The County would require an engineer to certify there would be no net increase in the stormwater runoff leaving the property. The County would also require an operations agreement be signed and recorded at the Orange County Registry. The County would also require there be annual inspections and reporting of maintenance. Finally, Harvey said the County would obtain a permanent access easement to the property in order for staff to monitor and enforce the UDO standards.