Agenda 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Enforcement of Nutrient Standards within the Jordan Lake Watershed

Browse Search

9 Approved 2.6.19 219 Michael Harvey replied, no. If a developer wants to do it,that is their personal decision. We cannot hold them to it. 220 The county cannot mandate they abide by it. There is no longer any legal basis allowing for the enforcement of 221 nutrient reduction standards in the basin. He reiterated the standards need to come out of the LIDO. 222 223 Lydia Wegman questioned whether that could be something that the public and neighbors might ask of the 224 developer, and the developer could look into it on their own. 225 226 Kim Piracci asked if farming practices was the bigger problem with this particular issue. 227 228 Michael Harvey replied I think the totality of development activity, meaning the disturbance of land, is responsible for 229 these issues. He reminded the Board farming is not regulated by these standards as such operations are exempt 230 from zoning. 231 232 Lydia Wegman asked for any other questions or comments. 233 234 Hunter Spritzer remarked that it seemed like this is the county's only recourse. 235 236 Michael Harvey commented regrettably, but it is necessary. 237 238 MOTION by Hunter Spritzer to recommend the Statement of Consistency and approve the UDO Text Amendments. 239 Seconded by Alex Gregory. 240 VOTE: Passed 9-2(Guthrie, Piracci opposed) 241 242 Kim Piracci remarked if this isn't my drinking water than it is other people's drinking water. It is getting polluted, and 1 243 am on the on the planning board and feel we need to take a stand and address the issue head on. 244 245 Paul Guthrie explained that this encourages something that has been going on at Lake Jordan since the day it was 246 first considered, it's a big federal project or it's a big state action and we can't act right now on this particular problem, 247 you can't get anywhere with that over the long haul. He asserted that what this is doing aside from water quality is 248 reducing the ability of the lake to protect the downstream and quantity of water that goes in heavy rainfall. He stated 249 that he thinks it goes beyond Orange County and therefore votes, no. 250 251 Lydia Wegman commented that she wanted clarification that there were still water quantity regulations. 252 253 Michael Harvey replied, yes. We enforce water quantity standards through erosion control and through stormwater 254 permitting, but we can't require compliance with water quality standards which are the removal of nitrogen and 255 phosphorus. 256 257 Craig Benedict explained that since all of the comments were out, he wanted to give a post log to the discussion. He 258 reported that in North Carolina many of the regulations are setting limits about what can be enforced. In the past, 259 there was no problem in exceeding what was being asked to be more restrictive or cleaner. He explained that we are 260 in a modified Dillion Rule State, and we only have the authority to enforce things that the state gives the authority to 261 enforce,so we are not independent. Until we get back to mode with some of the creativity and progressiveness we 262 have tried to do in the past,we are having to roll back some of our regulations that we had intact for 20 plus years. 263 264 Lydia Wegman contributed that she felt the same indignation that Kim had expressed but understood the legalities of 265 why this route was being taken. She explained that she voted in favor because she thinks it is the best process to 266 keep us out of litigation. 267 268 Craig Benedict agreed and recommended that the amendment be passed. 269 270 Lydia Wegman questioned whether as citizens they could voice their indignation to the other leaders in an effort to 271 make the North Carolina policy different and exclude Orange County from this position. 272 273 Hunter Spitzer asked if they could defer recommendation on the amendment until 2020.