|
Approved 10/4/17
<br />
<br />6
<br /> 265
<br />Michael Harvey answered that in some cases, there are dramatic changes, and in other instances, areas are no worse off. Mr. 266
<br />Harvey said that the maps are kind of a wash. Some residents who were unhappy with the results of the map went through the 267
<br />appeals process with FEMA. However, the maps were supposed to have been adopted 3 years ago. The delay has been due 268
<br />to several reasons, namely that some of the data changed with successful appeals from residents and that FEMA found 269
<br />mistakes in its own model and re-did the models on numerous occasions. It is now time to adopt these maps. In the case of 270
<br />the Overlay District, the County is obligated to update its Zoning Atlas and notify the 2,500 or so property owners who have 271
<br />parcels in the floodplain that the floodplain maps are being updated to include their property. Additionally, property o wners 272
<br />within 1,000 feet of the Overlay District must be notified of the floodplain map changes as well. In total, 20,000 letters will have 273
<br />to be mailed. The budgetary outlay for this update to the proposed Flood Hazard Overlay District amendment is about $18,000 274
<br />- $20,000 to cover the mailings, posting the signs, and advertising with a public notice or “legal ad” in local papers. Staff 275
<br />recommended that the Flood Hazard Overlay District concept be abandoned, since it is not a federal requirement, and focus 276
<br />on just flood regulation. This is what the proposed amendment aims to do – eliminate the Flood Hazard Overlay District and 277
<br />work on administering flood regulations without the Overlay. Mr. Harvey said that the amendment is very lengthy but called 278
<br />members’ special attention to page 26 of the packet or page 1-1 in the UDO. This effort amends the administrative portion of 279
<br />the UDO to spell-out the basis for establishing of flood regulatory standards, including new floodplain maps (effective 280
<br />November 17, 2017) and referencing past maps. Staff is also proposing that language be included that is consistent with state 281
<br />law that says that if you are a farmer in the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of a municipality (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, 282
<br />Hillsborough, Mebane) and you are encumbered by floodplain on your property, the local municipality does not have 283
<br />regulatory authority over your property, per state law as revised in 2012. However, the County may have regulatory authority. 284
<br /> 285
<br />Kim Piracci asked for further clarification on this dynamic of regulatory authority with farmers. 286
<br /> 287
<br />Michael Harvey illustrated his point using this example: Say you are a farmer and your farm is in the ETJ of Chapel Hill 288
<br />wherein Chapel Hill has extended regulatory authority and zoning of your property, but your property is not in the town’s 289
<br />corporate limits. State law says that the town cannot enforce its flood standards on your farm; you, as a farmer, are subject to 290
<br />the County rules. In some cases the County rules are more restrictive than a town’s or city’s. Mr. Harvey continued the 291
<br />presentation. To review, the proposed text amendment deletes the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District ; removes the 292
<br />language contained in Article 4 regarding the purpose, intent and other content; and all the standards in Article 6 dealing with 293
<br />new residential construction, non-residential construction, mobile homes, etc., are moved to a standalone provision on flood 294
<br />regulations. The Special Flood Hazard Area is defined as an area within the 100 year flood zone (1 percent change of flooding 295
<br />at any given year) or within the 500 year flood zone (0.2% chance of getting flooded at any given year). It should be noted that 296
<br />the term “Special Flood Hazard Area” will still be used because it is a universally-used term employed by FEMA to identify the 297
<br />whole flood program with respect to the floodway (i.e. the water source). The definitions in the UDO are consistent with 298
<br />FEMA’s minimum model. The proposed text change also goes about eliminating certain sections, sections originally included 299
<br />by Mr. Harvey’s predecessor per a directive. See page 67 of the packet and section 6.21 in the UDO for the layout of the new 300
<br />section with additional objectives added per FEMA’s model. Regulatory components are laid out within the Special Flood 301
<br />Hazard Area’s provisions for flood hazards reduction (page 69). Mr. Harvey next asked the Board to review the fuel and 302
<br />chemical storage language in the packet (page 70). Currently, fuel and chemical storage is prohibited within the Special Flood 303
<br />Hazard Area. However, the UDO, following FEMA’s minimal model, allows for the BOCC to waive certain provisions for the 304
<br />Special Use Permit (SUP) – Class A process, to allow for landfills, water treatment plants and other activities within the 305
<br />floodplain. While Mr. Harvey does not believe this was the intent - to allow for these activities to occur in the floodplain, though 306
<br />utilities often go through floodplains, there should not be a way for buildings or hazardous processes to go on in the floodplain. 307
<br />These activities need to be conducted far outside the flood zone. Thus, the proposed amendment removes the mechanism for 308
<br />the BOCC to issue a Class A SUP to engage in these activities. If certain hazardous chemicals are banned, they cannot be 309
<br />used for an activity in the flood zone; otherwise, Staff would have to consider a variance or a waiving of the ban, which is 310
<br />contradictory, as is FEMA’s minimum model in this case. This proposed amendment does not alter floodplain buffers or 311
<br />development criteria for substantially damaged or improved structures (i.e. damaged more than 51% of market value or have 312
<br />to be improved over 50% of market value) to bring them into compliance with the code. These changes would not hinder 313
<br />hazard mitigation planning efforts for relocating certain structures outside of flood zones, which Staff used to do more often 314
<br />when funding assistance was more available to property owners for this cause (land without structures within the floodplain 315
<br />would then become designated Open Space). The proposed change would not impact the current subdivision processes that 316
<br />require flood area to be kept as Open Space. Staff would also still be able to prevent temporary uses from being moored in the 317
|