Planning Board minutes 010219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2.6.19 Michael Harvey explained that erosion control standards are not being impacted by this ordinance amendment. 166 What is being impacted is the quality of the water leaving the site. 167 168 Lydia Wegman asserted the total amount of water leaving the site is still regulated. 169 170 Michael Harvey agreed. 171 172 Lydia Wegman responded with but not the quality of that water. 173 174 Michael Harvey confirmed. 175 176 Carrie Fletcher sought clarification on whether the quality issue would be addressed within one to two years. 177 178 Michael Harvey advised that that’s the hope but it was up to state officials to complete work on this before local 179 governments could take action to implement and enforce new nutrient reduction standards. 180 181 Carrie Fletcher responded with is there any teeth to get it sooner. 182 183 Michael Harvey replied, no. We are at the whim of the General Assembly and the entities that are studying the issue 184 and trying to come up with a solution to address the concerns which forced the descending of the Jordan Lake rules. 185 186 Carrie Fletcher commented so, it could be nudged with popularity from citizens. 187 188 Michael Harvey acknowledged that it could be nudged, but stated you are also relying on several different entities 189 studying the matter to respond to nudging. 190 191 Paul Guthrie mentioned that the water quality issue, what is in the water, is on the public mind. In the long term, the 192 erosion and fill-in is the biggest threat because over time that will reduce the capacity of Jordan Lake. Mr. Guthrie 193 reminded the Board the lake was originally developed and intended to serve as a flood control project. He 194 questioned if anybody had looked at that context at both of those at the same time. 195 196 Michael Harvey responded that he did not have an answer. He said the county still enforces erosion control 197 standards and reminded the Board this amendment did not impact that program. 198 199 Paul Guthrie questioned whether the Army Corp of Engineers under federal law have the ability to look into it. 200 201 Michael Harvey informed that ultimately, they do, but whether or not it is their priority is a different question. 202 203 Kim Piracci sought clarification and asked Mr. Harvey to reiterate the downside of not amending the ordinance. 204 205 Michael Harvey explained that we are unable to enforce nutrient reduction standards within the Cape Fear river 206 basin. If we attempted to enforce these standards we subject ourselves to possible litigation, which staff and the 207 Attorney’s office believe we would lose. He suggested it is cleaner to remove something that has no legal basis in 208 the law to have in the ordinance anymore rather than to potentially subject yourself to possible legal action for 209 attempting to, or not attempting to, enforce your ordinance. He reminded the board that property owners cannot 210 currently be held to this standard. He explained that there have been attempts to remove these provisions when 211 state law was modified approximately a year-and-a-half ago. Unfortunately the current Engineering and Erosion 212 Control supervisor was unable to complete the assignment as mandated by the Director. He said Mr. Benedict 213 assigned him the task to complete the project approximately six months ago and it is now coming to a conclusion. 214 215 Hunter Spitzer stated there is a reason why we can’t recommend a developer voluntarily adhere or adopt the 216 standard, is that correct. 217 218