OCPB agenda 100417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-8 Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura 9 Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel 10 Hill Township Representative; 11 12 Members Absent: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove 13 Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Allison Reinert, Staff Engineer; Meredith Kern, Administrative 16 Assistant II. 17 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 20 21 Tony Blake called meeting to order at 7:12pm. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – JORDAN LAKE NUTRIENT RULES – To 24 review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to Jordan Lake Nutrient 25 Rules. 26 Presenter: Allison Reinert, Staff Engineer 27 28 Allison Reinert reviewed the abstract. The overall purpose of this UDO amendment is to remove the Jordan Lake Nutrient 29 Rules from the UDO. These rules were brought about through state regulations and it was originally thought that they would 30 be promulgated into the NC Administrative Code as a way to help curtail the nutrients going into Jordan Lake, which would 31 then help water quality of the lake and the various functions that use it. Unfortunately, those rules have continuously been 32 delayed. Currently, there is a “collaboratory" at UNC assessing the nutrient load going into Jordan Lake. Until the 33 collaboratory completes its report in 6 years or so, the state will not enforce these Jordan Lake rules. Ms. Reinert said that 34 these rules were added to the UDO in 2012 but since they have been delayed, the County is unable to enforce them; the 35 County cannot go above and beyond state requirements enforcing nutrients in stormwater. The only focus of this amendment 36 is to align the County’s regulations with those enforced by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality per the 37 Department’s direction. The County cannot overstep with these regulations for water quality control. The Environmental 38 Management Commission reviewed the proposed UDO amendment and the Department of Environmental Quality gave its 39 support. Ms. Reinert asked if there were any questions so far. Hearing none, she reviewed the two sections subject to 40 changes. The first section in the UDO is 1.19, regarding the relationship of other laws, covenants or deed restrictions. There 41 is mention of the Jordan Lake Nutrient Rules within this section, so the section must be amended. The second section for 42 review is the Stormwater Management and Development Standards wherein the Jordan Lake Nutrient Rules are spelled-out. 43 Most of the text amendment will be in this section. As a side note, the “quantity” descriptions for stormwater regulations are 44 also related to the Jordan Lake Watershed. Note that there will be no changes to quantity, only to quality, based on these 45 rules. Attachment 2 provides specifics on what language is being removed from the two aforementioned sections. In 1.19 (F), 46 the proposal is to remove out verbiage on nutrient rules specifically related to Session Laws that mention or talk about the 47 Jordan Lake nutrient rules. Unfortunately, many of these Session Laws have been delayed and repealed. The Erosion Control 48 and Stormwater Department is still looking at riparian buffer protection rules, similar to what Michael Harvey said earlier during 49 the Planning Board Meeting, for protecting watersheds but the department can no longer require that development projects 50 meet specific nutrient loads. 51 52 Tony Blake asked if the effect of this proposed amendment would be on management practices as in not needing to have a 53 water garden or something of the like. 54 5