OCPB minutes 030415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/1/15 3 109 Michael Harvey updated on issues the County staff is dealing with on impervious surface issues. 110 111 Tony Blake: We just went through this with the fire department at White Cross. The water garden required an 112 easement. We didn’t know that until after we had completed everything so we had to pay for a second full survey of 113 the property. My suggestion would be that if you are going to reference BMPs and the DENR in the UDO, you need 114 to make that clear. The second issue was you said something that peaked my interest, what watershed is this 115 property that is complaining? 116 117 Michael Harvey: University Lake Protected. It is the most protected watershed in the County. 118 119 Craig Benedict: Our rules are more restrictive than the state requires. Discussed the example of Cain Creek. 120 121 Tony Blake: When you do this transfer between two lots that has to be deeded? 122 123 Michael Harvey: If you are talking about the conservation easement, you have to record the easement deed 124 language in the Register of Deeds formalizing the transfer yes. 125 126 Tony Blake: Why isn’t the quarry in here? 127 128 Craig Benedict: It may when the operation is complete. 129 130 Paul Guthrie: How do you interlock your analysis with waste disposal, septic systems, etc.? 131 132 Craig Benedict: We have been looking at that with Environmental Health because part of the water quality that runs 133 off lots is due to the nutrients that come off based on the impervious surface. 134 135 Lydia Wegman: Can you help me understand why the County would want to change to the state provisions? 136 137 Craig Benedict: You could put more impervious. It would create more tax base. And there are water quality issues. 138 The less the better, impervious surface. 139 140 Tony Blake: Isn’t most of the effect downstream? 141 142 Craig Benedict: The question you ask may be asked by the BOCC and some of the members of the community. 143 Someone will need to show the benefits. 144 145 Tony Blake: The state is not suggesting that you get rid of the more restrictive requirements? 146 147 Michael Harvey: The state isn’t mandating we do anything with respect to this item but there has been legislation 148 that has been reviewed at the state level basically indicating local governments cannot be more restrictive than the 149 state allows. The state is also considering modifying its definition of built upon area which translates to impervious 150 surface. State officials are looking to add gravel areas, that are compacted to serve as vehicular access roads, to the 151 definition of built upon area thereby making them count as impervious. 152 153 Tony Blake: How does an easement affect this? Does that count against my impervious surface? 154 155 Michael Harvey: Yes. 156 157 Lisa Stuckey: Is there a social cost in terms of affordable housing, it makes it more expensive. 158 159 Michael Harvey: I don’t know if it is the impervious limit in any watershed that creates a higher cost for the 160 development of housing. It is the totality of the regulations. One example would be University Lake. There is a 161 density limit indicating you can only have a specific number of units per acre, specifically 1 unit for every 5 acres of 162