OCPB agenda 080118 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

For example, David Turner on Grady Brown School Road wants to build a shed but because of these rules, he can’t 50 because he has road on three sides of his property. That example falls under Part 1 of these proposed text 51 amendments. 52 Part 2 of the text amendments is that the county has a procedure that allows the transfer of impervious for lots 53 adjacent to each other. While researching Mr. Turner’s inquiry, the Planning Department decided this transfer 54 procedure should not just be for adjacent properties but rather within the watershed boundary. 55 56 Michael Harvey noted there are two proposals before the committee. Attachment 2 contains the first proposal, which 57 is to amend subsection F, Page 4-3 of the UDO, (Page 10 in the agenda packet). This says roadways do not count 58 as part of the impervious surface of a lot for subdivisions prior to 1994. He reviewed that impervious surfaces include 59 roof structures, concrete, asphalt, gravel, storage sheds, carports, the building including the two-and-a-half-foot 60 eaves and gutter, and walkways. The state does not count pools but does count the concrete around pools. 61 62 Lydia Wegman asked whether any analysis had been conducted regarding the effect this amendment would have on 63 stormwater runoff if every subdivision built prior to 1994 decided to increase impervious surface. Michael Harvey 64 answered if land is disturbed, a property owner may have to meet stormwater standards and install a stormwater 65 feature. It has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. 66 67 Planning Director Craig Benedict said he thinks there will not be a flood of requests. 68 69 Randy Marshall asked what taking road surfaces out of the calculation does to an entire area like Cane Creek. 70 71 Michael Harvey answered that the Planning staff believes it will be a negligible increase. The county chose to be 72 more restrictive than the state. For example, at University Lake the state said choose a density limit of one dwelling 73 per 2 acres and have a 12 percent impervious limit or choose no density limit and a 6 percent impervious surface 74 limit. The county chose the most restrictive in most instances throughout the planning jurisdiction. University Lake 75 was going to be at a density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres and chose 6 percent impervious. The county chose to 76 be more restrictive than the state. Cane Creek critical watershed is limited to 6 percent impervious surface. Cane 77 Creek protected used to be 12 percent. In the mid-1990s, it was changed from 12 to 6 percent. Little River, with a 78 density of one dwelling unit per 2 aces, has a limit of 6 percent impervious surface instead of the state’s allowed 12 79 percent. 80 81 Michael Harvey said these changes do not sabotage those efforts. 82 83 A Planning Board member asked does the state care that Orange County is more restrictive. Michael Harvey 84 answered that he does not think so, especially with the Falls Lake rules coming into effect. Michael Harvey said data 85 shows nutrient levels from Orange County are significantly lower than other areas in the Triangle. 86 87 David Blankfard suggested reducing the count of the roadway by 50 percent instead of not counting the roadway in a 88 subdivision at all. 89 90 Patricia Roberts asked if there is time to figure out how much impervious surface we’re talking about. Michael Harvey 91 answered no. 92 93 7