CFE 061499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

is required . The developer is required to reveal what is going to be developed on the land and how it will be protected . The development may continue with the protected area guidelines followed by planning around the natural areas and wildlife habitats . Stancil noted that the exemptions of the policy make it possible only to encourage the design sensitive to the natural areas in accordance with the Flexible Development Standards for preserving rural character program . The watershed restrictions were noted as broad in nature also and, have little protection measures for wetlands . Hinkley added that, as a result of compromise in developing the first of a kind impact ordinance in the state in September 1990 , the ordinance is strong in process but lack strong measures to protect the County ' s environmental issues . Kohorn asked about the percentage of actual protection enforced by the ordinance . Hinkley reported that previous enforcement was usually non- existent, with most developers being unable financially to complete their plans . A question was asked as to what would make the ordinance work more efficiently . The suggestion noted was for interested citizens and boards to compile a list of things that the ordinance could include to be more specific in addressing the protection of the environment . An example was given of an approved subdivision that damaged a wetland area that isn ' t protected by our current ordinance because it was less than two acres . The ordinance only authorizes the county to ensure that the landscaping requirements are met . Another suggestion was to change the ordinance ' s "two acre exemption" to allow the county to require protection of these small wetland areas . Also , Hinkley noted that a development review process involving the Commission for the Environment could better serve the environment protection issues . The intention of the ordinance was for environment protection and it needs revision . Dr . Gordon asked if we have anything similar to Durham ' s criteria of Environmental Affairs Board? Kohorn noted that it is " street tree protection" the requirement of leaving 20 % vegetation including components for protection of vegetation on slopes , protection of vegetation on lots possibly county wide . It would be worth investigating how it is working for them and, then possibly including some of those elements in future development of the ordinance . The Commission also discussed clearcutting . Hinkley noted that the ordinance doesn ' t provide enough regulations to stop desecration of the land unless it involves a stream buffer and then are allowed a year to replant . This issue needs to be addressed also . Dr . Gordon noted that the purpose of having the Environment Resource & Conservation Department and the Commission for the Environment is to heighten the awareness of environmental relation issues and do something about them . One simple idea that has come up is to buy the timber rights . The commission decided to charge the environmental/indicators committee to begin assessing the needed changes to the ordinance . Rafalow suggested that the CFE ' s responsibility would be how to influence the development ordinances so that they have environmental sensibility built in . Another issue to investigate was stated as to the time frame to complete subdivisions and streamline the process time . Last updated 06/02/99 2