Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> 166 Michael Harvey explained that erosion control standards are not being impacted by this ordinance amendment. <br /> 167 What is being impacted is the quality of the water leaving the site. <br /> 168 <br /> 169 Lydia Wegman asserted the total amount of water leaving the site is still regulated. <br /> 170 <br /> 171 Michael Harvey agreed. <br /> 172 <br /> 173 Lydia Wegman responded with but not the quality of that water. <br /> 174 <br /> 175 Michael Harvey confirmed. <br /> 176 <br /> 177 Carrie Fletcher sought clarification on whether the quality issue would be addressed within one to two years. <br /> 178 <br /> 179 Michael Harvey advised that that's the hope but it was up to state officials to complete work on this before local <br /> 180 governments could take action to implement and enforce new nutrient reduction standards. <br /> 181 <br /> 182 Carrie Fletcher responded with is there any teeth to get it sooner. <br /> 183 <br /> 184 Michael Harvey replied, no. We are at the whim of the General Assembly and the entities that are studying the issue <br /> 185 and trying to come up with a solution to address the concerns which forced the descending of the Jordan Lake rules. <br /> 186 <br /> 187 Carrie Fletcher commented so, it could be nudged with popularity from citizens. <br /> 188 <br /> 189 Michael Harvey acknowledged that it could be nudged, but stated you are also relying on several different entities <br /> 190 studying the matter to respond to nudging. <br /> 191 <br /> 192 Paul Guthrie mentioned that the water quality issue,what is in the water, is on the public mind. In the long term,the <br /> 193 erosion and fill-in is the biggest threat because over time that will reduce the capacity of Jordan Lake. Mr. Guthrie <br /> 194 reminded the Board the lake was originally developed and intended to serve as a flood control project. He <br /> 195 questioned if anybody had looked at that context at both of those at the same time. <br /> 196 <br /> 197 Michael Harvey responded that he did not have an answer. He said the county still enforces erosion control <br /> 198 standards and reminded the Board this amendment did not impact that program. <br /> 199 <br /> 200 Paul Guthrie questioned whether the Army Corp of Engineers under federal law have the ability to look into it. <br /> 201 <br /> 202 Michael Harvey informed that ultimately, they do, but whether or not it is their priority is a different question. <br /> 203 <br /> 204 Kim Piracci sought clarification and asked Mr. Harvey to reiterate the downside of not amending the ordinance. <br /> 205 <br /> 206 Michael Harvey explained that we are unable to enforce nutrient reduction standards within the Cape Fear river <br /> 207 basin. If we attempted to enforce these standards we subject ourselves to possible litigation,which staff and the <br /> 208 Attorney's office believe we would lose. He suggested it is cleaner to remove something that has no legal basis in <br /> 209 the law to have in the ordinance anymore rather than to potentially subject yourself to possible legal action for <br /> 210 attempting to, or not attempting to, enforce your ordinance. He reminded the board that property owners cannot <br /> 211 currently be held to this standard. He explained that there have been attempts to remove these provisions when <br /> 212 state law was modified approximately a year-and-a-half ago. Unfortunately the current Engineering and Erosion <br /> 213 Control supervisor was unable to complete the assignment as mandated by the Director. He said Mr. Benedict <br /> 214 assigned him the task to complete the project approximately six months ago and it is now coming to a conclusion. <br /> 215 <br /> 216 Hunter Spitzer stated there is a reason why we can't recommend a developer voluntarily adhere or adopt the <br /> 217 standard, is that correct. <br /> 218 <br />