OCPB minutes 060315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/1/2015 6 developer’s not fairly dividing impervious surface and there doesn’t seem to be, from an environmental 247 statement, any benefit to making this change. We discussed if this were to go forward, trying to make sure 248 there are hooks to ensure that the BMP is properly maintained and potentially asking for a bond or some 249 kind of certification on a yearly or bi-yearly basis that in fact it is being properly maintained and having 250 provisions for inspection. 251 252 Michael Harvey: There will have to be an operations and maintenance agreement recorded with this 253 modification process that will spell out how the stormwater feature will have to be maintained, yearly 254 certification requirements, bi-annual inspections completed by the staff. If they fail to abide by these 255 standards, we either compel the property owner to remove not only the feature but also the additional 256 impervious surface area or install a whole new BMP and go through the process again. 257 258 Paul Guthrie: Are existing properties grandfathered in as they are or are they vulnerable when they come 259 in for any modification on that property to these standards? 260 261 Michael Harvey: If you have platted lot and you either have an impervious surface allotment that was 262 assigned as part of the subdivision process or, if it wasn’t, you have an impervious surface allotment based 263 on the provisions of Article 4 of the UDO. 264 265 Paul Guthrie: I was thinking about my own lot we bought in 2004 which was platted in the early 1980s and 266 I read those documents pretty closely and I don’t remember in any of the transfer documents any 267 discussion about impervious surface. 268 269 Michael Harvey: When a property owner has to get building permits or zoning permits that is when they 270 typically find out what their impervious surface allowances area. Orange County adopted its first 271 impervious surface limitation standards in 1989 in the University Lake area and we have moved on since 272 then with the most recent revision being done within the Upper Eno Critical area and that was 2010 so 273 there has been tweaking of impervious regulations since the original adoption in 1989. 274 275 Paul Guthrie: In subdivisions like this and the one I live in, the homeowners owns the roadways. It is not 276 state road but a private road with sidewalks, etc. Is that use of an impervious surface allocated to each of 277 the property owners or each of the owners of the street? 278 279 Michael Harvey: We require developers to identify what is the cumulative amount of allowable impervious 280 surface for the property and then to identify the amount of roadway infrastructure to be installed. This area, 281 specifically the impervious surface area intended for the proposed roadways, is subtracted from the 282 cumulative allotment of the parcel. Remaining impervious surface area is then div ided up between the rest 283 of the proposed individual lots so that no one lot is not encumbered by the impervious surface area in a 284 roadway. The flip side is instead of getting 6%, 12%, 24% on individual lots you are getting a reduction 285 because the developer has already backed out the roadway serving individual lots from the total allowable 286 impervious surface area for a given parcel. 287 288 Lisa Stuckey: If there are 20 lots, and the roads are part of the impervious surface, does each lot carry the 289 weight of 1/20th of the road? 290 291 Michael Harvey: Theoretically but that is technically up to the developer as there is no existing County 292 regulation mandating same. From my standpoint what happened at Triple Crown was an abomination and 293 did not represent the standard operating procedure we currently recognize within the Department in 294 addressing this issue. Because the developer wanted to allow and allot additional impervious area to 295