OCPB minutes 060315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/1/2015 7 support a huge roadway and an overdesigned traffic circle then also give additional impervious to some of 296 the smaller lots to make them more marketable for his specific development proposal we have the problem 297 we now have. From my standpoint most of the issues in Triple Crown were created to address 298 marketability and profit margin concerns of the developer. 299 300 Lisa Stuckey: Would that happen today? 301 302 Michael Harvey: No not from my standpoint. The staff is looking at the viability of requiring lots within a 303 given subdivision to have a set percentage of impervious but that will be difficult in all cases. 304 305 Lisa Stuckey: Going forward what is the rule? 306 307 Michael Harvey: There is no mandatory requirement in the UDO. 308 309 Craig Benedict: This is a negotiation staff is having with a developer. That occurs at the developer review. 310 311 Lisa Stuckey: I’m so skeptical that after I put down my pervious driveway and let it become impervious I 312 am very skeptical the county will dig up my swimming pool. 313 314 Craig Benedict: There is a balance. Some people have no restrictions of impervious in the county and 315 some people have 6% which is very low. Should people have the right to have normal accessory 316 structures on their property for personal enjoyment if there is no degradation to a standard that is accepted 317 by the state? In this case, we are allowing some leeway and allowing them to enjoy their land without 318 degradation to some very strict requirements we had. 319 320 Pete Hallenbeck: You are saying as a member of the planning board that you support the concept of the 321 performance bond. 322 323 Lisa Stuckey: Yes I am. Is the state developing other BMPs besides the impervious surface? 324 325 Michael Harvey: One of the reasons we changed the language to the proposed ordinance is to make it an 326 infiltration based storm water feature was an attempt to allow so something other than just permeable 327 concrete. Having said that the proposed feature required to take advantage of this allowance has to be a 328 infiltration based stormwater feature. The simple act of digging of a pond does not create a proper feature 329 in my mind as all the pond does is capture runoff. It is not necessarily treated before it is introduced into 330 either a second conveyance system or it absorbs into the ground. Requiring an engineered designed 331 stormwater feature that is based on an infiltration model, our hope is that the state would recognize the 332 system as being reasonable as it captures and allows the water to treated prior to its infiltration. The state 333 is revising the entire BMP manual but it is based on the notion that an engineer can design an innovate 334 infiltration based system that as long as it complies with state minimum standards it can still qualify for 335 additional allotment of impervious. I didn’t want to allow any storm water feature which I don’t think is 336 supported by the state’s BMP manual. 337 338 Lydia Wegman: It seems to me the county needs to protect its most resources and the problem is the 339 developer who mistreated the people who were buying the lot from the standpoint of impervious surface 340 allotment and that we are revising a rule that has been in place for some time. I don’t see that as a good 341 reason to revise this rule which has worked very effectively in the county. It seems if the problem is with 342 the developer then revising the UDO to put in place a rule that makes it clear what a developer establishing 343