HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE minutes 041315
1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
Meeting Summary
April 13, 2015
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Tom Eisenhart, Lynne Gronback,
Loren Hintz, David Neal, Bill Newby, Jeanette O’Connor, Rebecca Ray, Gary Saunders, Sheila
Thomas, Lydia Wegman and David Welch
ABSENT: Donna Lee Jones
STAFF: Tom Davis, Rich Shaw, Brennan Bouma
GUESTS: John Richardson, Jesse Freedman, Michael Harvey, Craig Benedict
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. Call to Order – Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
II. Ad ditions or Changes to Agenda – None.
III. Minutes – Sassaman asked for comments on the March 9 meeting summary. Saunders
motioned to approve as written; seconded by Welch. Approved unanimously.
IV. Welcome New Member – Sassaman introduced Lynn Gronback, noting that the board
of county commissioners had appointed her to the CFE in March.
V. Chapel Hill’s Green Building Incentives – John Richardson (Planning Manager for
Sustainability) and Jesse Freedman (Energy Management Specialist) presented an
overview of the Town of Chapel Hill’s pilot program of providing financial incentives for
sustainable (or “green building”) design. Richardson noted that this pilot program
applies only for development within the Ephesus Church / Fordham Renewal District.
Freedman said the Town’s objective is to incentivize developers to build high-
performance buildings with better energy and water conservation performance than the
75th percentile of similar buildings. He noted that prior to this program the incentive was
to build the worst energy and water efficient buildings allowed by law.
Freedman described the Town’s process of choosing a green building standard for
energy use from among many options, including LEED certification, Energy Star, 2030
Challenge, and others. The Town chose the Energy Star program, which the staff
considers a neutral standard. The Town chose the State water performance standard.
Freedman said the intent was to create standard that are rigorous and achievable.
Freedman said in this pilot phase the financial incentive for builders is up to a 35%
reduction in their development permit fees. He reviewed the benefits of green building
versus conventional building in terms of energy use and water consumption. He noted
the tendencies for higher rental rates (+ 2% – 17%), greater resale value (+ 5.8% -
35%), higher market value (+ 13.5%), and lower operating expenses (- 30%) for green
buildings on average.
2
Richardson said the rebate could result in a potential total maximum reduction in
revenue from permit fees of about $600,000; however that level of activity is highly
unlikely. He said there have been only two applicants to date. Richardson said Town
staff will try to verify performance measures, likely through periodic field inspections.
Freedman and Richardson responded to questions from CFE members:
O’Connor asked if there were incentives for sustainable design of the outside
portions of the buildings, such as green roofs, xeriscaping, onsite water retention.
Richardson said yes, there are standards for the outside as well.
Neal asked if Chapel Hill had looked at examples of like programs in other
jurisdictions, such as Catawba County. Richardson said they consulted NC
State’s DESIRE database for suitable examples and found that Charlotte’s
program was most effective. The others reported low levels of effectiveness.
Sassaman asked if the Town used other incentives in addition to the permit fee
rebate. Richardson said the State has authorized the rebate incentive. For
buildings and development outside of the Ephesus Church / Fordham district the
Town uses other standards and requirements for approving special use permits.
Sassaman asked if the Town applies these standards to its public buildings.
Richardson said the Town has, by ordinance, a LEED Silver minimum for all
buildings. For example, the Chapel Hill Library was built to LEED Silver standard.
Neal asked if these standards applied to single-family residential development,
and might the Town consider expanding the incentives to other parts of the town.
Richardson said it is only intended for commercial and multifamily residential,
and said the council has not discussed imposing these standards elsewhere.
Hintz asked how much less the cost of utilities might be for buildings in the
Ephesus Church / Fordham district than in other parts of the town. Richardson
said it would depend on the building type; the staff has run some calculations.
Richardson said the Town of Chapel Hill will reassess the pilot program at the end of the
first year and the staff will work with the town council on making adjustments if needed.
Neal noted the CFE has recommended to the BOCC and the Planning Board that
Orange County consider adopting similar incentives for sustainable development, but
thus far nothing has resulted from those discussions.
The CFE thanked Richardson and Freedman for their presentation.
VI. Proposed Amendment to Impervious Surface Rules – Michael Harvey (Current
Planning Supervisor, Orange County Planning & Inspections Dept.) provided an
overview of proposed amendments to Orange County’s rules that limit the amount of
impervious surfaces for new development. Harvey said he was directed to initiate a
process to amend the ordinance to include additional opportunities for residents to
modify established impervious surface limits.
Harvey said under the current rules there are two processes for allowing changes to
impervious surface thresholds: 1) approval of a variance request (only one approved in
the past 10 years), or 2) transferring the allowable impervious surface area from an
adjacent property by way of a conservation easement.
3
Harvey said under certain circumstances the State of North Carolina allows a larger area
of impervious surfaces on a property through the installation and continued maintenance
of on-site stormwater retention measures, such as permeable pavement. Such a device
would be designed to capture runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil. Harvey said
permeable pavement is not counted as totally impervious, which translates to an
allowance for installing additional “impervious surface area.”
Harvey said the board of county commissioners has directed Planning staff to evaluate
how the County might incorporate language similar to what the State uses for the
treatment of permeable pavement in its impervious surface calculations. He said the
County considers gravel, asphalt, and concrete, along with more impenetrable building
surfaces (roofs, etc.), within its current definition of impervious surfaces.
Harvey said the proposed amendment to County rules would allow permeable concrete
and some other permeable surfaces to be counted as 50 percent toward the impervious
surface area. The County would require an engineer to certify there would be no net
increase in the stormwater runoff leaving the property. The County would also require an
operations agreement be signed and recorded at the Orange County Registry. The
County would also require there be annual inspections and reporting of maintenance.
Finally, Harvey said the County would obtain a permanent access easement to the
property in order for staff to monitor and enforce the UDO standards.
Harvey said it is his impression that a property with 8% impervious cover that includes
certain best management practices would result in less stormwater runoff than a
property with 6% impervious cover.
Craig Benedict (Orange County Planning Director) noted that the current watershed
overlay districts were established in 1994 and in many areas of the county the standards
are more stringent that the State guidelines for watershed protection areas. He agreed
with Harvey that the intent of the rule change was for there to be no net increase in
stormwater runoff from any permitted site.
Harvey and Benedict responded to questions from CFE members:
Hintz noted that such devices always fail at some point. Harvey said the County
would require a binding operations and maintenance agreement, and possibly
also a letter of credit with no expiration date.
Davis asked what would happen if a device failed after 10 years. Harvey said the
County would issue a notice of violation. If the landowner did not take corrective
action the County would remediate the site at the owners’ expense.
Welch asked what difference do 6% and 12% impervious limits have on water
quality. Harvey said he feels the proposed allowance of increased impervious
surfaces in the form of permeable concrete would not harm water quality.
Benedict added that Orange County is the most restrictive in the state in terms of
watershed protection.
Becker asked what is motivating the County to change the rules. Benedict said
many residents had complained that the rules are too stringent in some
watersheds, notably the University Lake, Little River, and Cane Creek districts.
He explained how quickly 6% of a property could be covered with impervious
surfaces—especially if roads and driveways are included. Benedict said he did
not expect a lot of extra staff time would be required to implement the proposed
rule change.
4
Neal asked if the rule applies to commercial developments, such as shopping
centers. Harvey said such developments are allowed up to 70% impervious
surfaces as long as there are stormwater BMPs installed to hold the runoff.
Benedict noted that his staff is also considering developing some variation of a transfer
of development rights program—or in this case a transfer of impervious surfaces.
Sassaman said he is aware of a product (“Ecoraster”) used for construction of
roads and driveways that requires little maintenance over 20 years. He showed a
small prototype model of the product. Harvey said he is familiar with “GeoWeb”
and other products that could be used if they were certified by an engineer.
Gronback asked what incentive would landowners and developers have to use
pervious concrete or similar products. Harvey said they would be permitted to
develop more parts of their property than would otherwise be allowed. He said
this rule change would provide landowners with more options. Harvey said the
intent is not to provide incentives to do the right thing for protecting water quality.
Harvey said Planning staff would be making similar presentations to OWASA and the
towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. They plan to take the draft rule change to the May
26 quarterly public hearing, then back to the Planning Board in June or July, and finally
back to the board of county commissioners for consideration and potential approval.
Harvey said he and the Planning staff would welcome comments from the CFE.
Sassaman asked staff to prepare a summary of this presentation and discussion for CFE
consideration and development of potential comments at the May meeting.
The CFE thanked Harvey and Benedict for their presentation.
VII. Public Outreach – CFE members reviewed plans to share information from State of
Environment report with the general public. Shaw reported that he had sent the initial
article about hydrilla in the Eno River to the Chapel Hill News and to The News of
Orange County. Shaw noted that the calendar (Attachment 10) was incorrect because
CFE had decided to change the subject of the May article from solar energy projects to
the County’s new electric vehicle fast charger stations. Sassaman asked staff to update
the calendar. Bouma said he will provide a draft of the article for review and approval.
VIII. Updates and Information Items – Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were highlighted for discussion: a) BOCC
response to CFE annual report and work plan, b) Earth Evening (April 24, Hillsborough),
c) hydrilla in the Eno River public meeting (April), d) The Nature of Orange photo
contest, e) solid waste recycling program fee options, f) Governor McCrory’s budget
request for NCDENR, and g) new research on nutrient pollution damage to streams.
IX. Adjournment – Sassaman adjourned at approximately 9:20 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff