Agenda - 05-20-2003-8r - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Question regarding impacts of these rules on Orange County citizens • The Neuse River Basin Rules (North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 026.0100 & .0200) currently in effect in the Neuse River Basin require 50-foot stream buffers along identified streams (USGS, soil survey, field verified streams). • These proposed stream classification amendments would require that the same type of streams as those listed above have either 65-foot or 80-foot stream buffers. The buffer is dependent on the slope of the land over a 250-foc-t area adjacent to the stream. The 65-foot buffer applies to situations where the slope is 7.5 percent or less. The 85-foot buffer applies where the adjacent slope exceeds 7.5 percent. In rare instances would the buffer exceed 65 feet along soil survey streams due primarily to the minimally sloped areas that usually exist near the headwaters of streams. • There have not been major disputes regarding the enforcement of the Neuse River Basin rules and we would not anticipate an inordinate number of complaints as a result of these ordinance amendments. • These amendments do not `create' streams where none exist. These amendments require that steams that exist or have characteristics of streams be buffered in accordance with the County's stream buffer ordinance. • The variance procedure currently existing in Section 6.23.,,11 of the zoning ordinance for reduction of stream buffers will be fully applicable in situations where relief from the strict enforcement of the ordinance would be needed to prevent a complete taking of property. Process 1) Public Hearing held on February 24, 2003. Referred to Planning Board for recommendation to return to BOCC no sooner than May 20, 2003 2) Ordinance Review Committee reviewed amendments on April 2, 2003 • Referred amendments to Planning Board with no recommendation 3) Planning Board voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the amendments • Issues discussed • Vesting of existing structures • The same procedure in the zoning ordinance now is to be used for vesting. • Variance procedures to avoid complete takings of property • These rules exceed the State minimums, so the County could grant a complete variance on soil survey streams and not violate the State Watershed Rules. • Restoration of piped or destroyed soil survey streams • This may be a possibility on new projects or revisions to existing property, within reasonable limits. • Devaluation of property in general • This argument was used when the original Watershed Rules went into effect. No evidence has been presented proving that property values, in general, plummeted as a result of the watershed protection rules. 4) BOCC to make decision no sooner than May 20, 2003