Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 4/3/13 <br />4 <br />language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater 163 <br />management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public 164 <br />hearing. 165 <br /> Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 166 <br /> 167 <br />Michael Harvey: This item begins on page 51 of the abstract. I would like to review what occurred at the Quarterly 168 <br />Public Hearing and get feedback. This item will come back at the April regular meeting once the comments from 169 <br />OWASA are obtained. 170 <br /> 171 <br />Larry Wright: On the BOA, we heard an application where they were dealing with impervious surfaces. . They 172 <br />couldn’t get the driveway to the house. I would like to know, translating it to this, this 6% is not 6% when someone 173 <br />buys a parcel and it is on a corner lot. The 6% is not their land. 174 <br /> 175 <br />Michael Harvey: I will respectively disagree. In the instance you are referring to, it is a 10 acre exempt subdivision, 176 <br />meaning it did not go through the formal staff review and approval process. They had easements for the various 177 <br />roadways placed on this property without thought of impacts associated with impervious surface limits. Roadway it 178 <br />does contribute to the 6% impervious surface limit but the problem was created through the process they went 179 <br />through in that the developer did not allocate impervious surface area from all of the lots to address roadway 180 <br />construction. 181 <br /> 182 <br />Larry Wright: Are there parcels that were purchased like that application for the BOA that would be in the same 183 <br />scenario? 184 <br /> 185 <br />Michael Harvey: I am sure there are. 186 <br /> 187 <br />Larry Wright: What would happen? 188 <br /> 189 <br />Michael Harvey: They apply for variances or make do with what they have. 190 <br /> 191 <br />Alan Campbell: I would like to get a sense of the current requirement is 6% and University Lake requires a 192 <br />professionally prepared site plan. What is the benefit having that versus a plot plan? Does it help you understand 193 <br />they are meeting that 6%? 194 <br /> 195 <br />Michael Harvey: We get with a certain level of specificity with a professionally prepared site plan versus a plot plan. 196 <br />Detailed are breakdowns of the impervious surface is just a prime example. 197 <br /> 198 <br />Alan Campbell: It sounds like you are proposing an automatic burden on a lot of people when there is no need for it 199 <br />when you always have the option of requirement and storm water to back you up. 200 <br /> 201 <br />Michael Harvey: That is not a wrong argument. 202 <br /> 203 <br />Lisa Stuckey: Is there a consensus among the group that “c” is the feedback we want to give. 204 <br /> 205 <br />Herman Staats: I understand based on that map that you have the 6% zones and they would have to have a 206 <br />professionally prepared plan. How does the storm water runoff criterion compare or what does that mean? 207 <br /> 208 <br />Michael Harvey: Basically, we wanted to avoid county planning staff looking at one set of drawings and Orange 209 <br />County Erosion Control looking at a totally different set. On page 54 for example, you can have ½ to one acre of 210 <br />disturbance. If ”c” were the option, regardless of the watershed you are in, if you exceed these thresholds; we need 211 <br />a professionally prepared site plan. 212 <br /> 213 <br />Herman Staats: If we used “c” these people in the 6% zones would not have to do it unless they met the storm 214 <br />water criteria. 215 <br /> 216