Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 090617Approved 10/4/17 1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-8 Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura 9 Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel 10 Hill Township Representative; 11 12 Members Absent: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove 13 Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Allison Reinert, Staff Engineer; Meredith Kern, Administrative 16 Assistant II. 17 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 20 21 Tony Blake called meeting to order at 7:12pm. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – JORDAN LAKE NUTRIENT RULES – To 24 review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to Jordan Lake Nutrient 25 Rules. 26 Presenter: Allison Reinert, Staff Engineer 27 28 Allison Reinert reviewed the abstract. The overall purpose of this UDO amendment is to remove the Jordan Lake Nutrient 29 Rules from the UDO. These rules were brought about through state regulations and it was originally thought that they would 30 be promulgated into the NC Administrative Code as a way to help curtail the nutrients going into Jordan Lake, which would 31 then help water quality of the lake and the various functions that use it. Unfortunately, those rules have continuously been 32 delayed. Currently, there is a “collaboratory" at UNC assessing the nutrient load going into Jordan Lake. Until the 33 collaboratory completes its report in 6 years or so, the state will not enforce these Jordan Lake rules. Ms. Reinert said that 34 these rules were added to the UDO in 2012 but since they have been delayed, the County is unable to enforce them; the 35 County cannot go above and beyond state requirements enforcing nutrients in stormwater. The only focus of this amendment 36 is to align the County’s regulations with those enforced by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality per the 37 Department’s direction. The County cannot overstep with these regulations for water quality control. The Environmental 38 Management Commission reviewed the proposed UDO amendment and the Department of Environmental Quality gave its 39 support. Ms. Reinert asked if there were any questions so far. Hearing none, she reviewed the two sections subject to 40 changes. The first section in the UDO is 1.19, regarding the relationship of other laws, covenants or deed restrictions. There 41 is mention of the Jordan Lake Nutrient Rules within this section, so the section must be amended. The second section for 42 review is the Stormwater Management and Development Standards wherein the Jordan Lake Nutrient Rules are spelled-out. 43 Most of the text amendment will be in this section. As a side note, the “quantity” descriptions for stormwater regulations are 44 also related to the Jordan Lake Watershed. Note that there will be no changes to quantity, only to quality, based on these 45 rules. Attachment 2 provides specifics on what language is being removed from the two aforementioned sections. In 1.19 (F), 46 the proposal is to remove out verbiage on nutrient rules specifically related to Session Laws that mention or talk about the 47 Jordan Lake nutrient rules. Unfortunately, many of these Session Laws have been delayed and repealed. The Erosion Control 48 and Stormwater Department is still looking at riparian buffer protection rules, similar to what Michael Harvey said earlier during 49 the Planning Board Meeting, for protecting watersheds but the department can no longer require that development projects 50 meet specific nutrient loads. 51 52 Approved 10/4/17 2 Tony Blake asked if the effect of this proposed amendment would be on management practices as in not needing to have a 53 water garden or something of the like. 54 55 Allison Reinert said that this refers to Best Management Practices, stormwater control measures – 56 57 Tony Blake asked if all of that is going away. 58 59 Allison Reinert said that yes, as long as the developer can still meet the quantity rules. 60 61 Tony Blake asked if the quantity rules have changed. 62 63 Allison Reinert replied that they have not changed but that some developers need to retain some of the water so there is not 64 too much over land flow and other stormwater retention features. 65 66 Tony Blake commented that runoff issues would still be considered. 67 68 Allison Reinert confirmed this. 69 70 Tony Blake thanked her for the clarification. 71 72 Allison Reinert continued going over the proposed changes to the UDO. She said that another change is to get rid of section I 73 as there is no Jordan Water Nutrient Supply Strategy because it is directly correlated to the nutrient rules. 74 75 Randy Marshall said that he presumed that Orange County has stormwater regulations. A part from anything related to Jordan 76 Lake, are regulations related to Jordan Lake proposed to be more or less restrictive than what we already have? 77 78 Allison Reinert replied that the current UDO language is more restrictive and since the County cannot be more restrictive than 79 the state on this matter, the current language needs to be changed. 80 81 Randy Marshall followed-up by asking if the County could not be more restrictive whether it has to do with Jordan Lake or not. 82 83 Michael Harvey answered that what state law now says is that counties cannot enforce nutrient standards in the Jordan Lake 84 area without expressed permission from the state, and the state has removed all expressed permissions until the study is 85 done. Until the study is done, there cannot be nutrient regulatory standards enforced in the Jordan Lake river basin. 86 87 Allison Reinert said that the County still has rules for the Falls and Neuse river basins; those are not being touched in any 88 way. 89 90 Randy Marshall asked if the county has a split watershed. 91 92 Allison Reinert said yes. 93 94 Tony Blake echoed that this only applies to the Jordan Lake Watershed. 95 96 Allison Reinert continued going over the proposed amendment for section 6.14.6 in the UDO. This section has been 97 reorganized into 3 sections per recommendation of the County Attorney. The 3 sections are on new development, Falls Lake, 98 and Jordan Lake. There are still nutrient regulations in certain areas of the County, but they cannot be applied unanimously. 99 The section on new development applies to how the department will handle everything, regardless of the watershed. For 100 example, 1(C) regarding the handling of new stormwater systems designed to control the treatment of stormwater runoff 101 generated. This refers to the “10 percent rule,” which is the state standard for quantifying stormwater runoff pre-and-post-102 development; there cannot be more than a 10 percent increase, otherwise there must be a control measure to prevent 103 negative effects to downstream communities and ecosystems. 104 105 Approved 10/4/17 3 Tony Blake said that he was confused by this section. He sees the section on new development but there is not a blanket 106 runoff statement there. The Falls Lake section seems to be completely different than Jordan Lake. Why doesn’t Falls Lake 107 have a similarly-worded rule regarding “no net increase in peak flow less than 10 percent?” This seems harder to read and 108 understand. 109 110 Allison Reinert replied that Falls Lake has a pre-existing rule about the 1 year 24 hour storm. Since the old language for the 111 Jordan Lake section does not apply anymore, the department must refer to the Environmental Management Commission’s 112 (EMC) recommendation as a minimum which is design criteria for new development, the 10 percent rule. She said that if this 113 wording is confusing, she could look into changing it. 114 115 Tony Blake responded that he was trying to put himself in the position of someone doing development in Falls Lake and may 116 not understand why the sections are different, but he understands the reasoning now. 117 118 Allison Reinert reviewed that new development has to meet the state minimum requirements related to stormwater control 119 measures and the North Carolina low impact development (LID) guide book. LIDs are promoted within the sections in 120 accordance with state law. The 10 percent rule is defined in the North Carolina Administrative Code and allows the counties to 121 set a regulatory requirement on the quantity of stormwater but does not allow them to impact quality. Ms. Reinert moved on to 122 review proposed changes to 6.14.7, which continue to remove mention of nutrient requirements in the Jordan Lake 123 Watershed. She pointed out some nomenclature updates in this section such as Department of Environmental Quality 124 formerly known as the Division of Water Quality. 125 126 Tony Blake said that he read this section and noticed no restriction on the Haw River Watershed at all. 127 128 Allison Reinert said that was correct because the section is just on Jordan Lake Watershed. She continued reviewing other 129 proposed changes. Since Best Management Practices (BMPs) are no longer being used in the industry, they are being 130 removed per the state department’s recommendation and will be replaced with “Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs)” as the 131 new lingo/nomenclature of Best Management Practices. 132 133 Dave Blankfard asked for the reason for the change. 134 135 Allison Reinert said she was unsure on the background but that the most recent minimum design criteria manual (released 136 about a year ago) referenced this change. 137 138 Tony Blake asked if this was on a state or federal level. 139 140 Allison Reinert said that this change was made on a state level and that the manual was created by a collaborator-style work 141 effort. 142 143 Tony Blake asked why there was not a reference to the author and would it be possible to have a link to get to the reference 144 from this document. 145 146 Allison Reinert said that she knew Chapel Hill had a link within the document for reference purposes, which is useful. 147 However, the links have to stay active which also requires the updating of the UDO more frequently. She continued her 148 presentation on subsection D regarding offset payments for developers regarding nutrient requirements in the Jordan Lake 149 watershed. This language is being removed. Subsection E also deals with nomenclature changes per the minimum design 150 criteria manual (not linked). Ms. Reinert said that she is open to talking about adding links within the UDO to reference 151 aforementioned manuals and guides related to these proposed changes. Next, she addressed peak runoff volume and noted 152 that the Falls Lake Watershed and Jordan Lake Watershed are distinct and are no longer the same in the requirements, 153 referencing the 10 percent rule. In 6.14.10 C (4) there is another nomenclature change from BMP to SCM. She asked if 154 anyone had any questions. 155 156 Kim Piracci commented on some language in the section that suggested methodologies on computing pre-and-post 157 development conditions. Is there an expert the County hires or someone from the department to define this? 158 Approved 10/4/17 4 159 Allison Reinert answered that each development requires that there is some sort of stormwater analysis that must be done by 160 a professionally-licensed engineer or stormwater professional. The department requires this analysis and calculations as part 161 of the application for development. This part of the application is reviewed by the Erosion Control Officers in writing and is 162 checked as part of on-site review in the field. 163 164 Randy Marshall asked if it was now the case in Jordan Lake Watershed that there are no restrictions of what can runoff a 165 piece of land into the watershed. 166 167 Allison Reinert answered that at the moment, yes, this is the case. She said there was a glimmer of hope in an upcoming 168 gathering called the Jordan Lake Summit that will bring together all municipalities, jurisdictions, counties, developers working 169 within the watershed, and others to figure out what they can do while science is deciding what is wrong with Jordan Lake and 170 the politics behind implementing rules on nutrients. This group may form into an association with the ability to preserve land or 171 regulate to help with nutrients. The framework would be based on the Upper Neuse River Basin Authority in which Orange 172 County is heavily involved, specifically in regards to using different methodologies to figure out how to deal with nutrients in 173 Falls Lake, also a highly impaired water body. Methods encompassing land conservation, agricultural information and 174 educational outreach are employed in working with neighbors downstream of the watershed to work on improving water 175 quality. These would not be enforced at the state level but methods involving land conservation could help prevent runoff 176 downstream. 177 178 Randy Marshall commented that anything that such a group could come up with could be contradicted by a developer who 179 goes to the state to ask for reprieve. 180 181 Allison Reinert agreed that this could happen. 182 183 Tony Blake likened this hypothetical situation to a story in Durham wherein a developer was curtailing rules resulting in 184 sewage problems. 185 186 Randy Marshall recalled that not too long ago people expressed similar concerns about Burlington. 187 188 Tony Blake said yes, Burlington had certain companies dealing with hazardous waste that would discharge byproducts into 189 the Haw River. 190 191 Allison Reinert said that it is not just the nutrients but also personal care products and pharmaceuticals that are making their 192 way into the Jordan Lake water supply. This is a big concern for large communities using Jordan Lake as their main water 193 supply. 194 195 Tony Blake and Allison Reinert noted that Chatham Park is being developed and would use Jordan Lake as the water supply. 196 197 Kim Piracci asked if it was true that Chatham Park was really using Jordan Lake as its water supply. 198 199 Tony Blake said that Cary uses Jordan Lake as its water supply. 200 201 Allison Reinert said that Cary and Apex use Jordan Lake as their water supply, and there is a plan for the future to have a 202 western intake into Jordan Lake which OWASA, Durham and Chatham County would all use, perhaps as partners. 203 204 Tony Blake said that Chapel Hill still has water rights to Jordan Lake that they do not use. 205 206 Allison Reinert agreed that OWASA has rights to millions of gallons of water in Jordan Lake which they do not use currently. 207 208 Tony Blake wondered if these rights would be taken away once Chatham Park is built because it will need a great amount of 209 water supply. 210 211 Approved 10/4/17 5 Allison Reinert said that Chatham County also has rights to Jordan Lake water based on the most recent round of Jordan 212 Lake water supply allocations. She expects Chatham County to do major renovations on the Pittsboro water plant as Chatham 213 County and Pittsboro will likely have to partner to share water supply sources. 214 215 Kim Piracci said that she is dumbfounded that there can be motor vehicles allowed in public drinking water supply. 216 217 Tony Blake said that large amounts of antidepressants have been found in the brains of fish in the Great Lakes. 218 219 Allison Reinert said that the Water Research Foundation has some very interesting information on what pharmaceuticals and 220 personal care products might be in your drinking water. 221 222 Randy Marshall said that there are a lot of happy fish in the Great Lakes. 223 224 Tony Blake initiated discussion of the next agenda item. 225 226 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FLOOD REGULATIONS 227 To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to flood regulations 228 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 229 230 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract (page 19). This UDO text amendment is 70 pages in length addressing modifications in 231 the floodplain management program. He discussed the baseline for the County’s involvement in this program which started in 232 1976. Entry into this program requires that the County adopt a minimum model ordinance to address the basic tools in dealing 233 with development to ensure when and if there is a flood event, you will not lose unnecessarily property or endanger the 234 general health, safety and welfare of the residents. The County has approx. 80 parcels where existing structures are located in 235 the floodplain. There are 4,000 – 5,000 parcels within Orange County that are encumbered by floodplain. Mr. Harvey pointed 236 out that Orange County is not the coast nor is it Wake County; both areas have significant areas in floodplain. Flood damage 237 prevention and flood management are not necessarily a huge problem for the County, but the County has always made a 238 conscious effort to be proactive in going beyond the minimum model. For example, the County requires buffers around 239 floodplain to prohibit development within the floodplain; if there is nothing built within the floodplain, it will not get destroyed 240 when it floods. The buffer rule also provides a recharge area to help with stormwater inundation and other factors, some of 241 which Ms. Reinert noted in her presentation. The County also adopted other standards included a freeboard requirement. Mr. 242 Harvey reviewed briefly how floodplain regulation works. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) creates maps 243 based on engineering studies of floodplain to examine the questions like – how high is water going to go? Even though no one 244 really knows the answer to this question, FEMA provides reliable data. If someone is going to build in the floodplain, the first 245 floor of habitable living space has to be out of harm’s way. If the Base Flood Elevation is 500 feet, the minimum model 246 ordinance says that the first floor of habitable space, including utilities, has to be at 500 feet to prevent destruction in a flood 247 event. Orange County adds 2 feet of freeboard (502 feet in this example) to ensure more safety in a major flood event. 248 Additionally, the County prohibits development or “activities” in the floodplain, specifically no houses, no industrial areas, and 249 related activities, roads and utilities excluded. In 2007, the County adopted a Flood Hazard Overlay District based on flood 250 map data by overlaying this data onto the County’s zoning atlas map, and updated what activities were allowable and 251 prohibited based on FEMA guidelines. Mr. Harvey asked if anyone on the Board had heard of a Community Ratings System 252 (one person raised a hand). The Community Ratings System (CRS) is an independent assessment of a community’s 253 compliance with flood regulation and provides a ranking from 1-10 (1 is the best). Flood insurance premiums are based off of 254 this ranking. Residents living in a community with a ranking of 10 could face $1,000 a year in flood insurance premium. 255 Orange County has a current ranking of 6, a good rating which provides a 25% reduction in annual floodplain insurance 256 premiums for residents. The Planning Department does a lot of outreach, upholds regulatory components, and has a close 257 working relationship with the Erosion Control and Stormwater department, all helpful in promoting floodplain regulation 258 education to the public. At this juncture, the County is about to adopt a new set of floodplain maps. During the review process, 259 the current administration and County Attorney’s Office were shocked that there is a Flood Hazard Overlay District. As a 260 participating community, Orange County has to adopt the maps because they are utilized to show current floodplain and will 261 help guide development throughout the County. 262 263 Kim Piracci asked if the maps show that the floodplain has gotten worse. 264 Approved 10/4/17 6 265 Michael Harvey answered that in some cases, there are dramatic changes, and in other instances, areas are no worse off. Mr. 266 Harvey said that the maps are kind of a wash. Some residents who were unhappy with the results of the map went through the 267 appeals process with FEMA. However, the maps were supposed to have been adopted 3 years ago. The delay has been due 268 to several reasons, namely that some of the data changed with successful appeals from residents and that FEMA found 269 mistakes in its own model and re-did the models on numerous occasions. It is now time to adopt these maps. In the case of 270 the Overlay District, the County is obligated to update its Zoning Atlas and notify the 2,500 or so property owners who have 271 parcels in the floodplain that the floodplain maps are being updated to include their property. Additionally, property o wners 272 within 1,000 feet of the Overlay District must be notified of the floodplain map changes as well. In total, 20,000 letters will have 273 to be mailed. The budgetary outlay for this update to the proposed Flood Hazard Overlay District amendment is about $18,000 274 - $20,000 to cover the mailings, posting the signs, and advertising with a public notice or “legal ad” in local papers. Staff 275 recommended that the Flood Hazard Overlay District concept be abandoned, since it is not a federal requirement, and focus 276 on just flood regulation. This is what the proposed amendment aims to do – eliminate the Flood Hazard Overlay District and 277 work on administering flood regulations without the Overlay. Mr. Harvey said that the amendment is very lengthy but called 278 members’ special attention to page 26 of the packet or page 1-1 in the UDO. This effort amends the administrative portion of 279 the UDO to spell-out the basis for establishing of flood regulatory standards, including new floodplain maps (effective 280 November 17, 2017) and referencing past maps. Staff is also proposing that language be included that is consistent with state 281 law that says that if you are a farmer in the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of a municipality (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, 282 Hillsborough, Mebane) and you are encumbered by floodplain on your property, the local municipality does not have 283 regulatory authority over your property, per state law as revised in 2012. However, the County may have regulatory authority. 284 285 Kim Piracci asked for further clarification on this dynamic of regulatory authority with farmers. 286 287 Michael Harvey illustrated his point using this example: Say you are a farmer and your farm is in the ETJ of Chapel Hill 288 wherein Chapel Hill has extended regulatory authority and zoning of your property, but your property is not in the town’s 289 corporate limits. State law says that the town cannot enforce its flood standards on your farm; you, as a farmer, are subject to 290 the County rules. In some cases the County rules are more restrictive than a town’s or city’s. Mr. Harvey continued the 291 presentation. To review, the proposed text amendment deletes the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District ; removes the 292 language contained in Article 4 regarding the purpose, intent and other content; and all the standards in Article 6 dealing with 293 new residential construction, non-residential construction, mobile homes, etc., are moved to a standalone provision on flood 294 regulations. The Special Flood Hazard Area is defined as an area within the 100 year flood zone (1 percent change of flooding 295 at any given year) or within the 500 year flood zone (0.2% chance of getting flooded at any given year). It should be noted that 296 the term “Special Flood Hazard Area” will still be used because it is a universally-used term employed by FEMA to identify the 297 whole flood program with respect to the floodway (i.e. the water source). The definitions in the UDO are consistent with 298 FEMA’s minimum model. The proposed text change also goes about eliminating certain sections, sections originally included 299 by Mr. Harvey’s predecessor per a directive. See page 67 of the packet and section 6.21 in the UDO for the layout of the new 300 section with additional objectives added per FEMA’s model. Regulatory components are laid out within the Special Flood 301 Hazard Area’s provisions for flood hazards reduction (page 69). Mr. Harvey next asked the Board to review the fuel and 302 chemical storage language in the packet (page 70). Currently, fuel and chemical storage is prohibited within the Special Flood 303 Hazard Area. However, the UDO, following FEMA’s minimal model, allows for the BOCC to waive certain provisions for the 304 Special Use Permit (SUP) – Class A process, to allow for landfills, water treatment plants and other activities within the 305 floodplain. While Mr. Harvey does not believe this was the intent - to allow for these activities to occur in the floodplain, though 306 utilities often go through floodplains, there should not be a way for buildings or hazardous processes to go on in the floodplain. 307 These activities need to be conducted far outside the flood zone. Thus, the proposed amendment removes the mechanism for 308 the BOCC to issue a Class A SUP to engage in these activities. If certain hazardous chemicals are banned, they cannot be 309 used for an activity in the flood zone; otherwise, Staff would have to consider a variance or a waiving of the ban, which is 310 contradictory, as is FEMA’s minimum model in this case. This proposed amendment does not alter floodplain buffers or 311 development criteria for substantially damaged or improved structures (i.e. damaged more than 51% of market value or have 312 to be improved over 50% of market value) to bring them into compliance with the code. These changes would not hinder 313 hazard mitigation planning efforts for relocating certain structures outside of flood zones, which Staff used to do more often 314 when funding assistance was more available to property owners for this cause (land without structures within the floodplain 315 would then become designated Open Space). The proposed change would not impact the current subdivision processes that 316 require flood area to be kept as Open Space. Staff would also still be able to prevent temporary uses from being moored in the 317 Approved 10/4/17 7 flood zone since activities are not allowed in this area. Mr. Harvey said that these regulations do impact farm operations, 318 meaning that Staff could prohibit a farmer from putting a barn in an area with floodplain. If Staff tried to prevent a barn from 319 being erected in a floodplain buffer, he thinks he may lose the battle. 320 321 Tony Blake asked about temporary storage for hay within the floodplain buffer. 322 323 Michael Harvey answered that he did not think Staff could prevent a farmer from storing hay in the buffer or from planting trees 324 for harvest within a floodplain, even though the act of harvesting can destroy the groundcover within the flood zone. Mr. 325 Harvey continued with the general discussion of the amendment, specifically that with the elimination of the Overlay District, 326 there will not be massive advertising efforts and comprehensive reassessment every time flood maps are amended, which 327 usually occurs every 4 to 5 years. This does not mean that current advertising efforts are out the window; the County will 328 continue its practice of sending annual letters to all property owners (see example letters in the packet in Attachment 3) with 329 property encumbered by floodplain. Additionally, Staff will engage in activities such as holding open house events on 330 floodplain and flood zone information that give the County credit under the CRS program. FEMA has a process to allows a 331 person or entity to amend flood maps called a “letter of map review” or “letter of map amendment” that is a FEMA process, not 332 the County’s. A person could go to FEMA and provide data gathered by an engineer to debate a floodplain map. The Orange 333 County Planning Department could get an update 6 months later from FEMA with the updated data and the County would 334 have a 6-weeks turnaround time to adopt the change. The best available data has to be used and updated at all times. If the 335 average public hearing process takes 4 months, this update cannot be done in 6 weeks. The timelines given to local 336 governments by FEMA to change and update maps are getting shorter and shorter because FEMA is getting more dictatorial 337 with the process. The County does not have a lot of flexibility to do a simple text amendment because of the Overly District. 338 This amendment aims to address this problem while still upholding the County’s efforts to do outreach with the public on 339 floodplain education. To re-cap, this amendment puts floodplain regulations into one central section in Article 6; eliminates the 340 Overlay District; eliminates the aforementioned process of updating floodplain maps through massive and expensive 341 processes; and tweaking definitions to be consistent with the new minimum model; and adding objectives to be consistent with 342 FEMA guidelines. 343 344 Kim Piracci asked about the consequences of ignoring FEMA . Is the only consequence that homeowners would pay more for 345 their flood insurance? 346 347 Michael Harvey answered that the consequence of not passing this amendment by November 17, 2017 is that the County’s 348 program would be suspensed from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which means no resident of Orange County 349 would be able to buy flood insurance. 350 351 Kim Piracci asked how Houston got away with what they did. At least some of the residents in Houston had flood insurance. 352 353 Michael Harvey replied that in some instances, participation in the NFIP is voluntary. It is possible that Houston did not prohibit 354 development in a floodplain and that structures like houses had to be out of harm’s way, but they could be in the floodplain. 355 Development does not have to be prohibited in the flood zone; it just has to be done under required standards. Mr. Harvey 356 further discussed why development sometimes has to take place within flood zones, otherwise there would be no land area for 357 development in some regions, like in eastern North Carolina, for example. 358 359 Tony Blake said that it is different on the coast. He said that it is his understanding that FEMA came through Houston after the 360 last big storm before Hurricane Harvey to suggest improvements that would make it so people could get flood insurance. 361 Many people made those improvements and were able to get flood insurance. He further discussed potential issues in 362 Houston with development activities in flood zones. 363 364 Michael Harvey said that the proposed amendment does not change the County’s regulatory stance that the floodplain should 365 be untouched, but the amendment aims to eliminate elements to the flood management plan that cause great expense. The 366 County had to budget for the current floodplain map change notification effort for 3 years. 367 368 Tony Blake asked if there is a structure in the floodplain that is “grandfathered-in” and it is damaged, can this structure be 369 repaired? 370 Approved 10/4/17 8 371 Michael Harvey said that it would be conceivable that it could be repaired; it depends on how it was damaged. The definition 372 between substantial damage and substantial improvement would be applied to this case. For example, if a house was built 373 before a property owner entered the floodplain program; the house is considered “pre-FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Maps)”. 374 For purposes of example, the house is worth $100,000. There is a big storm and a flood event and the house is damaged to a 375 point that it would cost $50,001 to repair. The house would be considered to have sustained substantial damage (greater than 376 50% of the value of the structure is destroyed) and would need substantial improvement (it would take more than 50% of the 377 value of the structure to repair it). The homeowner is responsible for bringing the structure into compliance with flood 378 regulation, which could mean relocating the structure out of the floodplain, if possible. In other situations, a house may need to 379 be elevated or be flood-proofed to allow for water to pass through or under the house. Another option would be to install flood-380 venting in a house. 381 382 Tony Blake asked if flood-venting would qualify as grading. 383 384 Michael Harvey said that it would not because the process simply puts a vent into the house itself. The County’s proposed 385 amendment will impact 80 structures in the whole County. 386 387 Kim Piracci asked if the 80 structures are homes or government buildings or other structures? 388 389 Michael Harvey replied that there are some buildings within Orange County below Base Flood Elevation. There are efforts to 390 address this problem and to carry them out will be expensive. The Department of Elections is a prime example. Once a 391 structure starts to sustain repetitive damage due to flood events, the structure must be brought into compliance with the code 392 for the benefit of the owner and for the surrounding community. Orange County benefitted from long range planning efforts in 393 the ‘60s, ‘70s’, 80s’, 90s’ to today following the philosophy of not allowing development in the floodplain. 394 395 Tony Blake asked to which flood-related map Mr. Harvey was referring. 396 397 Michael Harvey answered that he is talking about the FIRM map. The FIRM map encompasses the previous discussion. 398 399 Kim Piracci asked when the new floodplain maps will available online. 400 401 Michael Harvey answered that the maps are already available on the state’s Public Safety Department - FEMA Division 402 website. 403 404 Kim Piracci said that a good deal of her property is in a flood zone. 405 406 Michael Harvey said that the areas where they are seeing massive changes are located within the northern part of the County. 407 FEMA may have been a bit off on its calculations in this area. He said that this is not a complicated amendment, just a lot to 408 get through. 409 410 Tony Blake recognized the heavy-lifting Mr. Harvey had already done to get to this point. 411 412 Michael Harvey noted that James Bryan, County Attorney’s Office, has provided helpful feedback. Mr. Harvey said that 413 because the County is following the model as closely as possible. 414 415 Randy Marshall asked Michael Harvey if he was talking about all of Orange County. Does this exclude any involvement with 416 municipalities? 417 418 Michael Harvey replied that the municipalities run their own floodplain management programs. The notable exception is for 419 farm properties located within their ETJs; those properties now fall under the County’s jurisdiction. The communities and 420 appropriate divisions coordinate together. However, there would be nothing the County could do for a resident living within t he 421 Town of Chapel Hill’s jurisdiction that was dealing with flood damage; the resident would request assistance from the 422 Approved 10/4/17 9 municipality. Chapel Hill has also developed within the floodplain in the past, like in the case of Eastgate Shopping Center 423 which is built on a floodplain. 424 425 Randy Marshall asked if the municipality’s regulations are not up-to-snuff, does Orange County have any oversight or 426 responsibility to encourage them to come into compliance? 427 428 Michael Harvey said that he thinks it is best to acknowledge that the municipality has adopted its own regulations and flood 429 damage management program. They have a different development model and different challenges than the County, and it is 430 not fair to say that its regulations are better or worse than the County’s. Chapel Hill’s model mirrors development interests, 431 opportunities and constraints and other realities in a condensed urban area. 432 433 Randy Marshall said that it appears to him that Chapel Hill’s regulations are inadequate or incompetent based on past history. 434 435 Dave Blankfard mentioned the Eastgate Shopping Center has done several things for flood mitigation like flood-proofing at the 436 Starbuck’s located there and re-doing the piping under some of the buildings. 437 438 Randy Marshall commented that these efforts were sort of like closing the barn door after the horses were already out. 439 440 Tony Blake said that it could be worse than that. He has heard talk about the Days Inn on Fordham Blvd being torn down and 441 that the area would be paved. 442 443 Randy Marshall said that that sort of move would likely be in violation of the County’s regulations. 444 445 Tony Blake said that outcomes of a move like that could affect the County’s emergency management vehicles. What can the 446 County do in these cases? 447 448 Kim Piracci asked for more information about the Days Inn. 449 450 Tony Blake explained that the Days Inn is going to be torn down and there will be a 7-story apartment or student housing 451 complex going in its place with 700-800 sq. ft. apartments. 452 453 Randy Marshall expressed concerns about how the stream in that area would be re-channeled. 454 455 David Blankfard commented that Bolin Creek will flood. 456 457 Tony Blake suggested putting in a large stormwater BMP (Best Management Practice) to manage the effects. He also said 458 that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill follows its own state regulations. 459 460 David Blankfard added that UNC works with the Town and developers on BMPs using a large-scale shared model that tracks 461 everything. 462 463 Michael Harvey noted that Chapel Hill is now charging a stormwater utility fee that has to be paid for development. The fee is 464 designed to be used to purchase property and make modifications to existing stormwater outfalls to make them more effective. 465 There have been some innovative projects that turn wetlands into rain gardens which helps issues associated with flooding. 466 The County has the benefit of not having to deal with these issues in the same way and the County has the luxury of doing 467 this with floodplain mostly being in compact area, whereas flooding can be a massive issue as it is nearby in Durham and in 468 Wake County. Additionally, the County has a planning program that strives to identify and locate high intensity development in 469 areas where there are not environmentally sensitive areas and floodplain, and the County has property that can fit this criteria. 470 The County benefits from many positives and the floodplain the County has is managed properly. 471 472 Tony Blake commented that Chapel Hill just used a chunk of budget for improving the Ephesus-Fordham area but will it be 473 enough. 474 475 Approved 10/4/17 10 Michael Harvey asked if anyone had any concerns about the amendment. 476 477 Tony Blake said that he wanted to discuss the amendment with some farmers who live around the Haw River who he would 478 be seeing soon. He wants to run this amendment by them. 479 480 Michael Harvey said that there is inherently no difference in what the County currently does, other than the elimination of the 481 Overlay District. 482 483 Tony Blake said that he suspected that the farmers would worry that they would be under more restrictions than they already 484 are, even though he knew that was not the case. 485 486 Michael Harvey said that this is not changing the level of complexity of the flood standards but just removing the Overlay 487 District. 488 489 Tony Blake said that he knew of a farmer who had grazing land within a floodplain along the Haw River. 490 491 Michael Harvey said that this amendment would not restrict his ability to use his property as a grazing area. 492 493 Tony Blake said that farmers may want to know if they can still keep storage, let their animals graze and mend fences on their 494 properties. 495 496 Michael Harvey replied that this would all still be allowed; they would not be allowed to build a barn in the floodplain, but he 497 thought that there would likely not be a farmer to build a nice barn in the floodplain. 498 499 Randy Marshall asked if OWASA was prevented from spraying in a floodplain areas. 500 501 Allison Reinert asked if he was referring to the spraying of bio-solids. 502 503 Michael Harvey said that if they would be spraying on farm property, he would have no legal authority to prevent them from 504 doing so. There is a measure in Article 4 on Watershed Protection Overlay Districts that prohibit bio-solid dispersal. However, 505 if the property is a farm, this measure would not be enforceable. 506 507 Tony Blake asked if OWASA would be allowed to spray on the land they own. 508 509 Michael Harvey said that since OWASA is a public utility company, he does not believe he would have the authority to restrict 510 this activity. Similarly, the Planning Department could not tell Piedmont Electric that they could not erect metal polls (instead of 511 the wooden polls) in their planning efforts for future use. Wrapping up his presentation, Mr. Harvey said that this amendment 512 was authorized by the public officials to move forward; they had no comments on the Overlay District elimination. 513 514 Kim Piracci asked if BOCC members were aware of the provision to take away BOCC authority from allowing hazardous 515 waste via SUP. 516 517 Michael Harvey said they did not have any concerns. He said that he does not see this as controversial but the biggest 518 challenge is getting this amendment change passed by November 17, 2017. The Planning Department was only notified of the 519 new maps in July. 520 521 Tony Blake asked if FEMA has contact residents that will be affected by flood map changes. 522 523 Michael Harvey replied that FEMA has already done public outreach and that the Planning Department also has already held 524 2 community meetings at different locations. Most of the issues identified were in the urban areas, though there was one at 525 Corporation Lake in Orange County’s jurisdiction where the data was wrong, but FEMA recognized the error and fixed it. 526 527 Approved 10/4/17 11 Allison Reinert shared that she has flood insurance that she received a letter from FEMA a couple of weeks ago notifying her 528 of the change with a reference to an online map. 529 530 David Blankfard shared that he also had received a letter. 531 532 Michael Harvey said that the Planning Department will be sending out letters to all affected property owners as well. Mr. 533 Harvey thanked the Board. 534 535 Tony Blake asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. 536 537 MOTION by Randy Marshall to adjourn the September 6, 2017 ORC Meeting. Seconded by Dave Blankfard. 538 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 539 540 541 ___________________________________ 542 Lydia Wegman, Chair 543