|
MAY 23, 2005 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
<br />At the hearing, the BOCC referred the proposed ordinance to the Planning Board for review and
<br />comment, The Planning Staff provided the Planning Board with a copy of the proposed
<br />ordinance at their regular meeting of July 13. At the regular Planning Board meeting of August
<br />3, 2005, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed ordinance, made several suggested
<br />revisions, which Staff has incorporated into the ordinance, and voted unanimously for adoption
<br />with designated changes as follows:
<br />1. Sec. 42-32 (b) warding changes,
<br />2. Sec. 42-33 moved forward and bolded for emphasis,
<br />3. Accessory Building definition -added additional examples,
<br />4, Areas of Shallow Flooding -differentiate between the AO and AH zones,
<br />5. Floodplain definition -provide better differentiation between the various "flood" terms,
<br />6. Post-FIRM /Pre-FIRM wording,
<br />7. Riverine definition refined,
<br />8. Salvage yard definition refined,
<br />9. Substantial damage definition refined,
<br />10.Sec, 42-40 warding, and
<br />11. Sec. 42-68 1. i, Additional wording provided,
<br />FORMAT OF CHANGES TO ORDINANCE
<br />Changes in various other Federal and State documents directly relate to the majority of the
<br />modifications fo the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. The type of change is indicated on
<br />the document itself, and below is a summary of the intent or source of the modification:
<br />1. Terminology changed from `flood hazard'to `flood prone,'
<br />2, Terminology changed from `Local Administrator' to `Floodplain Administrator' and made
<br />terminology gender-neutral,
<br />3, Language aligned with State and Federal definitions,
<br />4. Language deleted,
<br />5, Language aligned with North Carolina Flood Act of 2000 regulations,
<br />6. Terminology changed from `development permit' fo Yloodplain development permit, and'
<br />7, New FEMA terminology
<br />Staff has added some additional text (as indicated) for clarification and applicability to Orange
<br />County, In addition, Staff has added comments made at the May 23, 2005 Quarterly Public
<br />Hearing.
<br />FLOOD DAMAGE AND STREAM BUFFERS
<br />For the past several years, Orange County has enforced both the Flood Damage Prevention
<br />Ordinance and Section 6,23,7 -Stream Buffers of the Zoning Ordinance, Both regulate
<br />floodplain development, but for new development, the stream buffer standards are more
<br />stringent in that any area within the buffer "must remain undisturbed in its natural state," A
<br />stream buffer "is an area of land adjacent to a stream or FEMA-identified floodplain, which ever
<br />is greater, .,."
<br />In every case, the stream buffer restrictions exceed those of the existing and proposed
<br />floodplain standards regarding new development, This is because the buffer regulations push
<br />back new structure locations at least 65 feet beyond the floodplain boundary.
<br />
|