ORC minutes 060618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8/1/18 for the watersheds can change. While there are provisions in the UDO to address that change, there are still older subdivisions from the 1970s through the 1990s where impervious surface was not really thought about. For example, David Turner on Grady Brown School Road wants to build a shed but because of these rules, he can’t because he has road on three sides of his property. That example falls under Part 1 of these proposed text amendments. Part 2 of the text amendments is that the county has a procedure that allows the transfer of impervious for lots adjacent to each other. While researching Mr. Turner’s inquiry, the Planning Department decided this transfer procedure should not just be for adjacent properties but rather within the watershed boundary. Michael Harvey noted there are two proposals before the committee. Attachment 2 contains the first proposal, which is to amend subsection F, Page 4-3 of the UDO, (Page 10 in the agenda packet). This says roadways do not count as part of the impervious surface of a lot for subdivisions prior to 1994. He reviewed that impervious surfaces include roof structures, concrete, asphalt, gravel, storage sheds, carports, the building including the two-and-a-half-foot eaves and gutter, and walkways. The state does not count pools but does count the concrete around pools. Lydia Wegman asked whether any analysis had been conducted regarding the effect this amendment would have on stormwater runoff if every subdivision built prior to 1994 decided to increase impervious surface. Michael Harvey answered if land is disturbed, a property owner may have to meet stormwater standards and install a stormwater feature. It has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Planning Director Craig Benedict said he thinks there will not be a flood of requests. Randy Marshall asked what taking road surfaces out of the calculation does to an entire area like Cane Creek. Michael Harvey answered that the Planning staff believes it will be a negligible increase. The county chose to be more restrictive than the state. For example, at University Lake the state said choose a density limit of one dwelling per 2 acres and have a 12 percent impervious limit or choose no density limit and a 6 percent impervious surface limit. The county chose the most restrictive in most instances throughout the planning jurisdiction. University Lake was going to be at a density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres and chose 6 percent impervious. The county chose to be more restrictive than the state. Cane Creek critical watershed is limited to 6 percent impervious surface. Cane Creek protected used to be 12 percent. In the mid-1990s, it was changed from 12 to 6 percent. Little River, with a density of one dwelling unit per 2 aces, has a limit of 6 percent impervious surface instead of the state’s allowed 12 percent. Michael Harvey said these changes do not sabotage those efforts.