Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-05-2000-8p
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Agenda - 09-05-2000
>
Agenda - 09-05-2000-8p
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2008 10:00:50 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 11:20:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/5/2000
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8p
Document Relationships
Minutes - 09-05-2000
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2000
ORD-2000-134 Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance Amendments
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1. <br />1 Crauford Goodwin asked about the logic of this change and said that it seems that the concern is <br />z the taking of the right and compensating the property owner in some way. Craig Benedict said that the <br />3 consequence would be that a neighbor would see that a business might move closer or adjacent to a <br />4 person's property line. He said that the neighbor would receive a notification of any changes made. <br />5 Commissioner Gordon asked about the question of what to do with abandoned property. Craig <br />6 Benedict said that the EC-5 standards do not follow the rule that after 180 days, the use would be lost. <br />~ It is hoped that road improvements would be made in Orange County that may involve a widening of a <br />S road of the expansion of an intersection. He foresees this as a problem far some businesses in the <br />9 future. If a person abandons the business and later wants to reopen, they would have to meet the new <br />1o standards and setbacks. <br />11 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to'put in writing the impacts that would be <br />12 considered. <br />13 Chair Carey asked about a situation which prevents a property from being continued in its <br />14 intended use if it would revert back to the surrounding land use and Craig Benedict said that it would <br />1S revert back to the least intensive use. However, the applicant could ask for a rezoning. <br />16 Commissioner Brown clarified that what this would do is keep the small businesses. She feels it is <br />17 an improvement to offer an initiative far improving the property. <br />is .. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer item C- <br />19 1-b to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no <br />20 sooner'than June 29, 2000. <br />21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />22 <br />23 c. Orange. County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Amendments <br />24 Craig Benedict said that Christy Anspach of the Erosion Control Department is here tonight <br />25 and has contributed a large amount of work towards these changes. This ordinance is not part of the <br />26 zoning ,text or subdivision text. It is a freestanding ordinance. These rules are ones that have been <br />27 created at the state level and it is up to the County to put them into the ordinance. He summarized the <br />2s changes made to the ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to certain land disturbing activities <br />29 which have to do with agriculture. There are also exemptions for forest land and mining activities. He <br />3o said that the erosion control plan had to match other environmental issues that are attached to the site. <br />31 Some of the notices of violations and penalties have been amended as well. <br />32 <br />33 UESTION5 f=ROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS <br />34 Commissioner Gordon said that gender neutral language should be used throughout. She asked <br />35 about page one regarding forestlands and the forest practice guidelines that relate to water quality. <br />36 Craig Benedict said that there were different guidelines for the state because of th,e preservation of <br />37 agriculture and fares#ry., The County's guidelines are more stringent. <br />38 Commissioner Gordon asked about section 18 and the erosion control plan and about the <br />39 utilization of ditches for the purpose of de-watering ar lowering the water table. Craig Benedict said that <br />4o it was a notification provision so that the Division of Water Quality could know if this type of land <br />41 disturbance activity could lower the water table that might affect the farm operation or wells in the area. <br />42 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page three and the deadline for reviewing a plan. She <br />43 said that it seems that this language sounded very similar to the other language that was just revised. <br />44 Craig Benedict said that this refers to staff restrictions for a time frame versus an elected body. <br />45 Commissioner Gordon asked that the issues about the ditches and the forestry be brought to the <br />a6 Commission far the Environment for their information. <br />47 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff analyze the forest practice guidelines related to <br />48 water quality and share comments with the boards before they are submitted. <br />49 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 16, item h, "Consideration of applicant's past <br />5o performance", and made an editorial change. <br />S1 Crauford Goodwin asked for a definition of plants and animals use for the man. Craig Benedict <br />52 feels the list is wide open -any plants and animals useful to humans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.