CFE agenda 020816 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attachment 1 the Rural Buffer surrounding Carrboro and Chapel Hill. He noted applicants would need to provide additional site data, including hydrological and environmental information. Harvey asked the CFE to consider the draft rule changes and provide any comments. He noted further changes to the draft are expected, but comments at this stage would be helpful. He has also requested comments from the Economic Development Commission. • Sassaman asked if there is any reason to suspect a public airport is being planned for anytime soon. Harvey said there has been no indication of that. • Sassaman asked the status of the airport in Chapel Hill. Harvey said UNC's expansion at Carolina North is on hold; the existing airport remains in use and there are better accommodations for local air traffic at RDU airport. • Hintz noted that private airstrips can have grass runways with little or no impervious surfaces. Harvey said the type of surface is important for permitting. • Hintz asked if a local dairy producer would need a permit for an airstrip used for delivering milk for sale from the farm. Harvey said if the airstrip is for local farm products predominantly then it would not require a SUP or a conditional zoning permit. The same would be true for a crop dusting operation. Hintz suggested the CFE members mull it over until the next meeting. He said he is supportive of allowing private air strips in the Rural Buffer. Sassaman said he supports having the different rules and processes for airports and airstrips, and he supports the conditional use permit for public airports. He would not support there being an absolute ban on new airports in Orange County. Gronback thanked Harvey for sharing this information and said the CFE would consider the proposal and provide comments at a later date. V. Orange County Stream Buffer Requirements – Michael Harvey provided an overview of the County's plan to address 2015 legislation intended to curtail local governments' abilities to protect surface water quality (and riparian habitat) by requiring wider stream buffers for new and existing development. Harvey said Orange County has some of the most restrictive stream buffer requirements in the state. He said the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has provided three options for local governments to justify maintaining current rules. Harvey said the first option is to document that local rules were implemented prior to 1989, which was not the case for Orange County. The second option is to present scientific evidence that justifies the need for more restrictive stream buffers to protect water quality. Harvey said Orange County intends to pursue this option — perhaps in collaboration with other local governments in the Upper Neuse River Basin Association. Harvey said the County also plans to pursue a third option: to make the case that Orange County's stream buffer rules are implemented under a different enabling legislation than that which is addressed in the 2015 legislation. The Orange County standards were initially intended to protect water quality in so- called "critical areas" of public water supply watersheds, but were extended to provide further protection throughout those water supply watersheds. Harvey said the NC DEQ requires local governments to submit their justification by August 2016. The NC DEQ will provide its response by November 2016. Gronback thanked Harvey for sharing this information. There was no action required. 2