CFE agenda 051115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Harvey said it is his impression that a property with S% impervious cover that includes certain best management practices would result in less stormwater runoff than a property with 6010 impervious cover. Craig Benedict (Orange County Planning Director) noted that the current watershed overlay districts were established in 1994 and in many areas of the county the standards are more stringent that the State guidelines for watershed protection areas. He agreed with Harvey that the intent of the rule change was for there to be no net increase in stormwater runoff from any permitted site. Harvey and Benedict responded to questions from CFE members: • Hintz noted that such devices always fail at some point. Harvey said the County would require a binding operations and maintenance agreement, and possibly also a letter of credit with no expiration date. • Davis asked what would happen if a device failed after 10 years. Harvey said the County would issue a notice of violation. If the landowner did not take corrective action the County would remediate the site at the owners' expense. • Welch asked what difference do 6010 and 120/o impervious limits have on water quality. Harvey said he feels the proposed allowance of increased impervious surfaces in the form of permeable concrete would not harm water quality. Benedict added that Orange County is the most restrictive in the state in terms of watershed protection. • Becker asked what's motivating the County to change the rules. Benedict said many residents had complained that the rules are too stringent in some watersheds, notably the University Lake, Little River, and Cane Creek districts. He explained how quickly 6010 of a property could be covered with impervious surfaces especially if roads and driveways are included. Benedict said he did not expect a lot of extra staff time would be required to implement the proposed rule change. • Neal asked if the rule applies to commercial developments, such as shopping centers. Harvey said such developments are allowed up to 700/o impervious surfaces as long as there are stormwater BMPs installed to hold the runoff. Benedict noted that his staff is also considering developing some variation of a transfer of development rights program or in this case a transfer of impervious surfaces. • Sassaman said he is aware of a product ( "Ecoraster ") used for construction of roads and driveways that requires little maintenance over 20 years. He showed a small prototype model of the product. Harvey said he is familiar with "GeoWeb" and other products that could be used if they were certified by an engineer. • Gronback asked what incentive would landowners and developers have to use pervious concrete or similar products. Harvey said they would be permitted to develop more parts of their property than would otherwise be allowed. He said this rule change would provide landowners with more options. Harvey said the intent is not to provide incentives to do the right thing for protecting water quality. Harvey said the Planning staff would be making similar presentations to OWASA and the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. They plan to take the draft rule change to the May 26 quarterly public hearing, then back to the Planning Board in June or July, and finally back to the board of county commissioners for consideration and potential approval. Harvey said he and the Planning staff would welcome comments from the CFE. Sassaman asked staff to prepare a summary of this presentation and discussion for CFE consideration and development of potential comments at the May meeting. The CFE thanked Harvey and Benedict for their presentation.