Planning Board minutes 010219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.6.19 and second, updates outdated terminology. There have been changes in the names of state departments that 111 regulate this and there has been a change in nomenclature referring to stormwater features. These were formerly 112 known as Best Management Practices or (BMPs). They are now referred to as Stormwater Control Measures or 113 (SCMs). In the (UDO), all (BMPs) have been changed to (SCMs). Mr. Harvey advised that the text amendment has 114 been reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and by the Development Advisory Committee with no issues and the 115 staff’s recommendation is to approve the Statement of Consistency as attached in Attachment (1) and to approve the 116 actual amendment itself as contained in Attachment (2). 117 118 Mr. Harvey welcomed any questions. 119 120 Paul Guthrie questioned who had the ultimate final jurisdiction on Lake Jordan. 121 122 Michael Harvey replied that the state and the Army Corp of Engineers. 123 124 Paul Guthrie asked whether or not it was still a possession of the Army Corp of Engineers. 125 126 Michael Harvey responded that it is a water body of the U.S. meaning the Army Corp has jurisdiction, but the state is 127 addressing nutrient issues through the adoption of stormwater rules. This process means the state is working with 128 multiple entities. 129 130 Paul Guthrie commented as long as the Clean Water Act keeps that definition. 131 132 Michael Harvey confirmed to his knowledge the answer is yes. 133 134 Alex Gregory questioned whether the standards were being released as a best practice as they are currently being 135 studied and decided. 136 137 Michael Harvey stated, the state was re-evaluating the standards and attempting to develop new best practices with 138 respect to nutrient reduction. Mr. Harvey said he believed there is supposed to be an update to the General 139 Assembly in 2020. He added there is no estimated completion on the study or its submittable rules, and what we 140 know right now is that there are standards in the UDO that are unenforceable and need to be removed. 141 142 Kim Piracci mentioned that she had read something that said these rules are supposed to be passed, but aren’t 143 passed and asked whether this is a regulation that is going to be passed or is passed. 144 145 Michael Harvey clarified that the General Assembly has eliminated local government’s authority to enforce the 146 nutrient standards relating to water quality issues into a river basin. He reiterated that these are unenforceable 147 standards that will need to be removed from the UDO as the enforcement of same cause litigation concerns. 148 149 Lydia Wegman questioned whether the rules still apply in the Neuse River Basin. 150 151 Michael Harvey confirmed that enforcement of nutrient reduction standards within the Neuse has not been altered by 152 the state. He reminded the board that there are still stormwater regulations in the Cape Fear River Basin, just not 153 water-quality standards, but reasserted that there are water-quantity standards local development is still required to 154 abide by. He stated, for a lot of you that does not address the nutrient concerns you have, but hopefully, it is 155 resolved in the next year or two. Once the state adopts a final nutrient reduction strategy, the county will be able to 156 amend the UDP incorporating these new standards and enforce them. 157 158 Alex Gregory expressed that it seemed as though the current regulation was more about keeping water from flowing. 159 Water level like previously mentioned versus silt runoff, or something from disturbing the land. 160 161 Michael Harvey confirmed. 162 163 Alex Gregory commented that we would usually require a regulation on that, but now it’s just don’t block the water. 164 165