Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />DRAFT MUTES <br />8 <br />people are held to who have disturbed the stream buffer or for property that may have been in a <br />forestry program or part of a bona fide farm that is seeking to develop into another use where <br />stream buffers would be required. The present standards would require the planting of 436-681 <br />trees per acre. Staff's concern is that this does not establish a viable or pertinent buffer within <br />the required time to guarantee water quality. The second problem is that there is a lack of <br />appropriate mitigation standards. Another problem is that there is no flexibility within the <br />ordinance allowing for minor encroachment into the required stream buffer for non-invasive, <br />passive uses of the property. Finally, staff is concerned that there is no effective way to work <br />with a property owner to address changes in location and size of stream buffers resulting in a <br />change. <br />Staff is proposing that a comprehensive replanting standard be established in cases <br />where the stream buffer has been disturbed. The proposal is that the standard be ten trees for <br />every 1,000 square feet of disturbance and also that a property owner could install bushes on a <br />ratio with the required trees in order to reestablish the buffer. Staff is also recommending that <br />formal mitigation standards be established to regulate development 'of the stream buffer. <br />Finally, the staff is recommending expanding on the types of uses allowed within a regulated <br />stream buffer to include such uses as: archaeological activities, drainage ditches, water <br />dependant accessory structures (i.e. decks, piers, etc.), accessory structures intended to allow <br />properly owners to enjoy scenic views of a water feature (i.e. gazebos), trails and walkways, <br />and other similar uses/activities consistent with current DWQ regulations. <br />Planning staff submitted this proposed ordinance change to several internal departments <br />and external agencies (Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough; OWASA; Commission <br />for. the Environment). There has been some feedback from Erosion Control, Division of Water <br />Quality, Environmental Health, and other County departments requesting clarification of <br />revisions. The recommendation is for this to be forwarded to the Planning Board for <br />consideration and also that the Planning Board solicit input from Commission for the <br />Environment. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that she was present at the Commission for the Environment <br />meeting and there were several comments about wanting to provide input. <br />Chair Jacobs made reference to page 9 and. the Table of Allowable and Allowable with <br />Mitigation Uses/Activities, and he read, "Functionally dependent structures that are water <br />dependent such as docks, piers, public and private boat ramps, boat houses over the water, <br />walkway." He asked if boat ramps and boathouses are allowed with mitigation and it was <br />answered yes. He said that he does not understand the statement on page 6, item b, "No <br />matter the classification of the proposed activity, all uses/activities shall observe a 25-foot <br />setback from the top of the banks of the stream of water feature. This setback area shall remain <br />in a natural, vegetative state." He asked how a dock could be set back 25 feet. <br />Michael Harvey said that the intention is that water dependent structures would -not have <br />to meet the setback requirement. He said that the staff could provide an exemption on the <br />activities and Chair Jacobs agreed. <br />Chair Jacobs asked why there would not be a differentiation of mitigation based on <br />illegal activity between mitigation on someone that has to do an activity that disturbs the stream <br />buffer. Michael Harvey said that there would still be disturbance of the stream buffer and the <br />interest is to reestablish it in the quickest time possible. <br />Geof Gledhill said that the legal answer is that there can be a differentiation. <br />Chair Jacobs encouraged discussion with Forestry. <br />Chair Jacobs made reference to page 12, "Temporary roads intended to allow access to <br />a property for development purposes." He asked who permits a temporary road and who <br />makes sure that when the development is completed that the road no longer exists. Michael <br />Harvey said that this was added because of a recommendation from the Division of Water <br /> <br />