Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> <br /> <br />4. New Statutes and Rules <br />This amendment is designed to reference compliance with recently adopted <br />modifications to the UDO related to stormwater management and nutrient reduction <br />standards consistent with the following State regulations: <br />• 15A NCAC 2B. 0277 Falls Lake Stormwater New Development Rule <br />• 15A NCAC 2B. 0265 and Session Law 2009-484 Jordan Lake Stormwater <br />New Development Rules <br /> <br />C. PROCESS <br /> <br />1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES <br />a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed <br />November 8, 2012. The BOCC voted unanimously to authorize staff to proceed <br />with the amendment. Board members also requested staff present the proposed <br />amendment to the Commission for the Environment (CFE) for its input. Staff <br />presented this item to the CFE at its January 14, 2013 regular meeting. The CFE <br />had no comments or concerns related to the proposal. <br />b. Quarterly Public Hearing <br />February 25, 2013. During the hearing the following comments were made: <br />1. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify the difference between impervious <br />surface and land disturbance limits. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Land disturbance limits identify the total <br />amount of land area that can be disturbed/cleared without the <br />benefit of a formal erosion control or stormwater management plan <br />being approved by the County. <br />Impervious surface limits establish the overall limit of ‘development’ <br />that can occur on a given parcel (i.e. driveway, house, shed, etc.) <br />based on its designated Watershed Protection Overlay District. <br />You can disturb more land area than you can actually develop. <br />Ultimately both regulations are an attempt by the County to address <br />water quality issues through limiting the overall amount of <br />‘impervious’ surface placed on a parcel and requiring stormwater <br />management devices in those cases where they are necessary. <br />2. A BOCC member expressed concern over the potential for increased costs <br />to be incurred by property owners seeking to develop single-family <br />residences with the submittal of professionally prepared site plan. <br />3. A BOCC member indicated she did not want existing regulations, <br />specifically the requirement of a professionally prepared site plan for <br />development within the University Protected and Critical Watershed <br />Overlay districts, to change. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Staff reiterated the amendment would not alter <br />development limitations (i.e. impervious surface limits) within <br />20