OCPB agenda 070115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 Lydia Wegman: I would support doing something like Craig. I was at the BOCC where this was considered, Dr. Sexton 2 spoke and it’s clear that she was hurt by the way the developer divided the impervious surface. I wanted to flag that the 3 Commission of the Environment has not yet offered its view. I’m on the Commission for the Environment. We are very 4 concerned about this change and will be putting in a formal statement in before the BOCC hearing. The impudence 5 seems to be the consequence of the developer’s not fairly dividing impervious surface and there doesn’t seem to be, 6 from an environmental statement, any benefit to making this change. We discussed if this were to go forward, trying to 7 make sure there are hooks to ensure that the BMP is properly maintained and potentially asking for a bond or some 8 kind of certification on a yearly or bi-yearly basis that in fact it is being properly maintained and having provisions for 9 inspection. 10 11 Michael Harvey: There will have to be an operations and maintenance agreement recorded with this modification 12 process that will spell out how the stormwater feature will have to be maintained, yearly certification requirements, bi-13 annual inspections completed by the staff. If they fail to abide by these standards, we either compel the property owner 14 to remove not only the feature but also the additional impervious surface area or install a whole new BMP and go 15 through the process again. 16 17 Paul Guthrie: Are existing properties grandfathered in as they are or are they vulnerable when they come in for any 18 modification on that property to these standards? 19 20 Michael Harvey: If you have platted lot and you either have an impervious surface allotment that was assigned as part 21 of the subdivision process or, if it wasn’t, you have an impervious surface allotment based on the provisions of Article 4 22 of the UDO. 23 24 Paul Guthrie: I was thinking about my own lot we bought in 2004 which was platted in the early 1980s and I read those 25 documents pretty closely and I don’t remember in any of the transfer documents any discussion about impervious 26 surface. 27 28 Michael Harvey: When a property owner has to get building permits or zoning permits that is when they typically find 29 out what their impervious surface allowances area. Orange County adopted its first impervious surface limitation 30 standards in 1989 in the University Lake area and we have moved on since then with the most recent revision being 31 done within the Upper Eno Critical area and that was 2010 so there has been tweaking of impervious regulations since 32 the original adoption in 1989. 33 34 Paul Guthrie: In subdivisions like this and the one I live in, the homeowners owns the roadways. It is not state road but 35 a private road with sidewalks, etc. Is that use of an impervious surface allocated to each of the property owners or 36 each of the owners of the street? 37 38 Michael Harvey: We require developers to identify what is the cumulative amount of allowable impervious surface for 39 the property and then to identify the amount of roadway infrastructure to be installed. This area, specifically the 40 impervious surface area intended for the proposed roadways, is subtracted from the cumulative allotment of the parcel. 41 Remaining impervious surface area is then divided up between the rest of the proposed individual lots so that no one lot 42 is not encumbered by the impervious surface area in a roadway. The flip side is instead of getting 6%, 12%, 24% on 43 individual lots you are getting a reduction because the developer has already backed out the roadway serving individual 44 lots from the total allowable impervious surface area for a given parcel. 45 46 Lisa Stuckey: If there are 20 lots, and the roads are part of the impervious surface, does each lot carry the weight of 47 1/20th of the road? 48 49 15