OCPB agenda 070115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey: Theoretically but that is technically up to the developer as there is no existing County regulation 1 mandating same. From my standpoint what happened at Triple Crown was an abomination and did not represent the 2 standard operating procedure we currently recognize within the Department in addressing this issue. Because the 3 developer wanted to allow and allot additional impervious area to support a huge roadway and an overdesigned traffic 4 circle then also give additional impervious to some of the smaller lots to make them more marketable for his specific 5 development proposal we have the problem we now have. From my standpoint most of the issues in Triple Crown were 6 created to address marketability and profit margin concerns of the developer. 7 8 Lisa Stuckey: Would that happen today? 9 10 Michael Harvey: No not from my standpoint. The staff is looking at the viability of requiring lots within a given 11 subdivision to have a set percentage of impervious but that will be difficult in all cases. 12 13 Lisa Stuckey: Going forward what is the rule? 14 15 Michael Harvey: There is no mandatory requirement in the UDO. 16 17 Craig Benedict: This is a negotiation staff is having with a developer. That occurs at the developer review. 18 19 Lisa Stuckey: I’m so skeptical that after I put down my pervious driveway and let it become impervious I am very 20 skeptical the county will dig up my swimming pool. 21 22 Craig Benedict: There is a balance. Some people have no restrictions of impervious in the county and some people 23 have 6% which is very low. Should people have the right to have normal accessory structures on their property for 24 personal enjoyment if there is no degradation to a standard that is accepted by the state? In this case, we are allowing 25 some leeway and allowing them to enjoy their land without degradation to some very strict requirements we had. 26 27 Pete Hallenbeck: You are saying as a member of the planning board that you support the concept of the performance 28 bond. 29 30 Lisa Stuckey: Yes I am. Is the state developing other BMPs besides the impervious surface? 31 32 Michael Harvey: One of the reasons we changed the language to the proposed ordinance is to make it an infiltration 33 based storm water feature was an attempt to allow so something other than just permeable concrete. Having said that 34 the proposed feature required to take advantage of this allowance has to be a infiltration based stormwater feature. 35 The simple act of digging of a pond does not create a proper feature in my mind as all the pond does is capture runoff. 36 It is not necessarily treated before it is introduced into either a second conveyance system or it absorbs into the ground. 37 Requiring an engineered designed stormwater feature that is based on an infiltration model, our hope is that the state 38 would recognize the system as being reasonable as it captures and allows the water to treated prior to its infiltration. 39 The state is revising the entire BMP manual but it is based on the notion that an engineer can design an innovate 40 infiltration based system that as long as it complies with state minimum standards it can still qualify for additional 41 allotment of impervious. I didn’t want to allow any storm water feature which I don’t think is supported by the state’s 42 BMP manual. 43 44 Lydia Wegman: It seems to me the county needs to protect its most resources and the problem is the developer who 45 mistreated the people who were buying the lot from the standpoint of impervious surface allotment and that we are 46 revising a rule that has been in place for some time. I don’t see that as a good reason to revise this rule which has 47 worked very effectively in the county. It seems if the problem is with the developer then revising the UDO to put in 48 16