Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-05-2000-8pORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 5, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Oran a Coun Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance Amendments DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) YES ATTACHMENT(S): Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Amendments INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren Faircloth ext 2586 Minutes from Public Hearing, May 22, 2000 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chap®I Hill 968501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To comply with state mandated amendments to the Sedimentation Control Act. To provide greater water quality protection within Orange County. BACKGROUND: The attached Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance amendments conform to the amended Model Ordinance of the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission. These changes are the result of legislative changes, the State's staff enforcement experience and the recommendations of their attorneys. The amendments include changes such as: • increase to a $5000 per day civil penalty for violations, • penalty assessment from the date of detection instead of the delivery date of the notice of violation, • extension of the plan approval expiration date from twelve months to eighteen months. • land disturbing activity defined vs grading • adhere to state and federal water quality laws • plan denial if past fines are not paid • inspectors' right to investigate • restoration required after sediment control breach Location Lands within Orange County jurisdiction which presently includes Carrboro, Mebane and Hillsborough (excludes county governmental projects). Chapel Hill has their own ordinance, but inspections and enforcements are performed by Orange County. Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: Erosion and Sedimentation Control, and Water Supply Watershed Requirements currently in place. • Ordinance contains lesser enforcement actions and restorations requirements Proposed: • Increased per day civil penalties • Change in starting day of civil penalties • Requires restoration in cases where off site damage has occurred. Develo ment Process Schedule and Acti n • Public Hearing held May 22, 2000 ' • Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioner's, amendments will be incorporated into the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing Erosion Control staff will implement the attached amendments. RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration recommends that the Board close the public hearing and further recommends approval of the attached amendments. Amendments to the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Apri114, 2000 NOTE: The underlined text will be added to the Ordinance and the struck-through text will be deleted. The amendments (with only one exception as noted) are being made so that the County Ordinance conforms to the amended Model Ordinance of the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission. These changes are the result of legislative changes, the State's staff enforcement experience and the recommendations of their attorneys. Section 3 Definitions Affiliate - a erson that directl or indirectl throw hone or more intermediaries controls is controlled b or is under common control of another person. Pareut - an affiliate that directl or indirectl throw one or more intermediaries controls another erson. Subsidia - an affiliate that is directl or indirectl throw hone or more intermediaries controlled b another erg son• Commentary: These new definitions will be placed within the current list in alphabetical order. Section 5 Scope and Exclusions (County-wide) This Ordinance shall not a 1 to the followin land-disturbin activities: A. Agriculture Activities includin the breedin and in of livestock undertaken on a 'cultural land for the roduction of lants and animals useful to man includin but not limited to: 1. fora es and sod cro s gins and feed cro s tobacco cotton and eanuts• 2. dai animals and d ' roducts• 3. poultry and ~oultrrUroducts: 4. livestock includin beef cattle shee swine horses pies mules or oats includin the breeding and $razine of an~or all such animals 5. bees and. apiary products: 6. fur animals. B. Forestland Activities undertaken.on forestland for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products and conducted in accordance with best mana ement radices set out in Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality as adopted by the Depar~ent. Ifland-disturbing activity undertaken on forestland for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products is not conducted in accordance with Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply to such activity and any related land-disturbing activity on the tract. C. Mining . Activities for which a ermit is re uired under the Minin Act of 1971 Article 7 of Cha ter 74 of the General statues. Cammentary: The changes above will be made in this Section to conform to amendments to the Model Qrdinance. Section 1T Permits C. 6~a~g Land- Disturbine Fen!nit Before starting gland- disturbing activity greater than 20,000 square feet, the owner or his agent shall obtain a i~g Land- Disturbin Permit from the Erosion Control Officer. Erosion Control Plans must be approved before a ~adi~g Land- Disturbing Permit will be issued. ~ Land- Disturbin Permits may be obtained when the Plan is approved or prior to the start of the land disturbance. Commentary: This text change will occur throughout the Ordinance. The purpose of this change is to clam that the Permit is to be obtained before am, land-disturbing activity. D. Expiration of Permits Flan Approvals The Coun ma establish an ex iration date for erosion control lans a roved under this Ordinance. Erosion Control Plan Approvals expire ei hteen months eaewyaa~ after the approval date unless the land disturbance is started as defined below. Commentary; The text wild be added to conform to the Model. Sta,,~`is proposing that the time period of expiration be extended to give reasonable time for applicant to obtain ald approvals and permits necessary to construct the project, which can take considerable time in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. - Section 18 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans A. Plan Requirement An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared for all land-disturbing activities subject to this Ordinance whenever the proposed activity is to be undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered. Three (3) copies of the Plan shall be filed with the Erosion Control Officer, one~c___~y of which will be sinnultaneously forwarded to the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the proposed activity. One co of the Plan must be forwarded to the Director of the NC Division of Water uali for an land-disturb' activi that involves the utilization of ditches for the u ose of de-waterin or lowerin the water tabs, ._.-r.~ B. Review by the Soil & Water Conservation District The Orange Soil and Water Conservation District, ' ,shall review such plan and submit its ~ comments and recommendations to the Erosion Control Officer within 20 da s after the Soil and Water Conservation District received the erosion control lan or within an shorter eriod of time as ma be a eed u on b the District and the Coun .Failure of the District to submit its comments and recommendations to the Erosion Control Officer within ~e-~esar~e~ 20 da,~ or an a reed-u on shorter eriod of time ~•1 shall not delay final action on the plan. 2 C. Review and Response to Plans The Erosion Control Officer will review each complete plan submitted and within 30 days of receipt thereof will notify the person submitting the plan that it has been approved, approved with modifications, approved with conditions, approved with performance reservations, or disapproved. Examples of conditions of approval are, but not limited to: channel stabili2ation must be successful or another type of lining must be used; delineating certain areas to be graded and stabilized within a specified number of days to reduce the potential for erosion and protect critical areas; providing a performance security to provide permanent ground cover; and requiring the person financially responsible to retain the services of a professional engineer or architect to supervise implementation of the approved erosion control plan. Deadline for Reviewing Plan Failure to approve a rove with conditions a rove with modifications or disapprove a complete erosion and sedimentation control plan within 30 days of receipt of the complete plan shall be deemed approval. Disarmoval l~enael of a plan must specifically state in writing the reasons for disapproval ~. The County must approve a rove with conditions a rove with modifications or deFr3t disapprove a revised plan within 15 days of receipt, or it is deemed to be approved. If, following commencement of aland-disturbing activity pursuant to an approved plan, the County determines that the plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of this Ordinance, the County may require any revision of the plan as~re that is necessary to comply with this Ordinance. Failure to approve, a rove with conditions a rove with modifications or disa rove a revised erasion control lan within 1 S da s of recei t shall be deemed a royal of the lan. G. Review of Other Environmental Documents Any plan submitted for eland-disturbing activity for which an environmental document (either an assessment or impact statement) is required by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1, et seq.) shall be deemed incomplete until a complete environmental document is available for review. The County shall promptly notify the person submitting the plan that the 30 day time limit for review of the plan pursuant to Section 18(C) of this Ordinance shall not begin until a complete environmental document is available for review. The a royal of the erosion control lan is conditioned on the a licant's com liance with Federal and State Water uali laws re lations and rules. H. Consideration of Applicants Fast Performance Oran a Coun ma disa rove ~r Erosion Control Plan ~~eve~ upon a finding that an applicant, : or a aren subsidi or other afl_iliate of the applicant:. 2. has failed to-pay a civil penalty assessed pursuant to the Act or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act ; b the time the a ent is due. - Commentary: The changes above will be made in this Section to conform to amendments to the Model Ordinance. Section 21 Inspections and Investigations A. Site Inspections 3 Agents, offtcials, or other qualified persons authorized by the County will periodically inspect the-sites ^Fs°=~~ '''°+"''^^ ^^'~'•~*~• land-disturbing activities to ~~;„~ ensure: compliance with the Act, this ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance; whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing activity. Notice of the right to inspect shall be included in the letter of a royal of each erosion control plan eppFeva~. BG. Authority to Enter Property and Conduct Investigations and Ins ections No erson shall willfull resis dela or obstruct an authorized re resentative em to ee or a ent of Oran a Coun while that erson is ins actin or attem tin to ins act a land-disturbin activi under this section. The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to conduct such investigations as he-n~}~ deem deemed reasonabl necessary to carry out ~ the duties as prescribed in this Ordinance, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable times upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the sites of any land-disturbing activities. No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative or agent of the county who request entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such representative while in the process of carrying out ~ their official duties. 1~C. Notice of Violation If, et~e~ it is determined that a person engaged in land-disturbing activity has failed to comply with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules, or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, ee a notice of violation shall be served upon that person. The notice ma be served b an means authorized under G.S. lA-1 rule 4. .The notice shall s eci a date b which the erson must com 1 with the Act or this Ordinance or rules or orders ado tad ursuant to this Ordinance and inform the erson of the actions that need to be taken to com 1 with the Ac this Ordinance or rules or orders ado tad ursuant to this Ordinance. .However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an erosion control plan for approval or for obstructing, hampering or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out their official duties. An erson who fails to com 1 within the times ecified is sub'ect to the civil and criminal enalties rovided in this Ordinance. Comrraentary: The following 3 subsections in this Section will be relettered to account for the added subsection _.._ Section 22 Penalties A. Civil Penalties 1. Assessment of Penalties Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or who initiates or continues aland-disturbing activity for 6 4 which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan, is sub~ect to a civil enal .The maximum civil enal for a violation is five thousand dollars ($5,0001 per dam A civil enal ma be assessed from the date the violation is detected if the deadline stated in the Notice of Violation is not met. Aone-time civil enal of five thousand dollars $5000 ma be assessed for the day the violation_ is first detected. However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an Erosion Control Plan far approval or for obstructing, hampering, or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out his official duties. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation under Section 22(A)(1). Demand for Payment of Penalty The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall make noti the erson who is assessed the civil penalty of the amount of the penalty and the reason far assessing the penal l~T..a'..,...F 4L.., .. .,* The notice of assessment shall be served by any means authorized under Section 21 C of this Ordinance and shall direct the violator to either a the assessment or contest the assessmen within 30 days after receipt of the notice of assessment. by written demand for a hearin;~. If payment is not received within 30 days after demand for payment is made, the Coun or town ma institute a civil action to recover the amount of the assessment. The civil action ma be brou tin the Su erior Court of the coon where the violation occurred or the violator's residence or rinci al lace of business is located: e~ pei Such civil actions must be filed within three (3) years of the date the assessment was due. An assessment that is not contested is due when the violator is served with a notice of assessment. An assessment that is contested is due at the conclusion of the administrative and iudicial review of the assessment. . f ~ Commentary: This penalty is deleted, The penalty of $S00 a day until the violation is corrected can be used instead 34. Use of Penalties Civil penalties collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be credited to the eeneral fund of the local government as nontax revenue. - ---' °- a~~'-••-°°a ~~ a:_e,.`°a i._. r c T T ~ ~ ce.... Section 23 Injunctive Relief B. Order to Cease Violation Upon determination by a court that an alleged violation is occurring or is threatened, the court ~ shall enter an order or ~ud ement that i ensure that restoration is performed or to prevent the threatened vi for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of this Ordinance. s necessary to abate the violation, to olation. The institution of an action s~ the proceedings from any civil Section 24 Restoration of Areas Affected b,~Failure to, Compxv The Coun ma re uire a erson who en a ed in a land-disturbin activi and failed to retain sediment enerated b the activi as re wired b G.S. 113A-57 3 to restore the waters and land affected b the failure so as to minimize the detrimental effects of the resultin ollution b sedimentation. This authori is in addition to an other civil or criminal anal or injunctive relief authorized under this Ordinance. Commentary: This section is added to require the restoration of areas damaged by the failure to contain sediment on the site of aland-disturbing activity. The remaining 3 sections will be renumbered to account for the addition of Section 24 above. 9 i 1 z MINUTES 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 AND S ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 MAY 22, 2000 7 s The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County 9 Planning Board on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, io Hillsborough, North Carolina. 11 12 COUNTY COMMIS510NERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret 13 W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, and Bany Jacobs 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis 15 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leo Allison and members 16 Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, Cranford D. Goodwin, Rachel Preston, Co-Chair James Selkirk, and 17 Robert Strayham is ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bony Katz, Theresa Nicole 19 Gooding-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Holtkamp, Runyon Woods, 20 COUNTY~ATTORNEY PRESENT: Harmony Whalen 21 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict 22 and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 23 z4 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT 2S AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL 26 BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. 27 ~ 2s A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR 29 Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair Moses Carey said that the Orange County 3o Planning Board Chair Leo Allison would be chairing the first two items on the agenda tonight and he 31 would be chairing the third item. 32 33 B. PUBLIC CHARGE 34 Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 3S 36 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 37 38 1. O. range Cvu Zonis Ordinance Text Amendments 39 a. Section 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof 4o Planning. Director Craig Benedict made the presentation. He outlined the items to be 41 discussed as stated on the agenda. a2 He summarized the two Zoning Ordinance amendments. He said that, consistent with the 43 goals that have been put forth from the County, staff looked at the public partiapation procedures that 44 are a requirement of the zoning code. They found that when a public hearing is called, the first time the 45 public hears about what will be on the public hearing is something in the newspapers. He said that a lot 46 of the public believes, from this advergsement, that all of the ideas have been created and decisions 47 have been made. He summarized the process of a public hearing. He said that the new process is 48 consistent with state law and includes notifications out to the public. He gave an example of changing 49 regulations within a watershed and said that the County would have to notify every person within the so watershed and every person within a 500-foot radius around the watershed. The proposal is that a sl notice will be sent out to have an open house or public forum prior to the public meeting. This would S2 give the staff an opportunity to meet with the public and explain the changes that are being made. 2 i There would also be another opportunity after the public hearing far mare comments from the public. 2 He said that the staff worked with the Institute of Government and an intern that was doing some 3 paperwork on decision making and public policy. He said that bringing in the public at an earlier time 4 usually leads to better understanding. He said that over the next 12 to 18 months, there would be a lot 5 of changes in the comprehensive plan and he hoped that the public participation procedures would 6 assist in making the changes more understandable. 7 s UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 9 Commissioner Brown asked what the new procedures would eliminate that are presently being to done. Craig Benedict said that instead of sending out 5,000 notices, the Planning Department would l i place ads in a newspaper far four consecutive weeks. In addition, they would have an open house 12 meeting at a residence or location in the specific area. These changes in notification would only be 13 when the County is changing major regulations. Anyone who petitions far a zoning change to make 14 their property commercial, or to build a tower, would have to fallow the other guidelines and every i5 person, within that 500-foot boundary would have to be notified. i6 Commissioner Brown asked if a public information meeting would be done each time. Planner i~ Robert Davis said that for regular rezonings this procedure would not be followed. There would also be 18 signs posted around the property announcing the public hearing. Craig Benedict said that the Planning 19 stafF Could consider some sort of neighborhood meeting. 20 Commissioner Brown clarified that the neighborhood meeting could be added and Craig Benedict 21 said yes, this is a suggested change that the Planning Board will consider. 2z Commissioner Gordon feels that this process is an improvement but she hesitates to eliminate the 23 letters and asked if the letters could be retained in the process. 24 Craig Benedict explained the reasons for no# retaining sending out of letters in the process. He 25 feels that it is a better investment in staff time to meet personally with people in the area where a zs change has been requested. 27 Commissioner Gordon feels that it would help if people received a letter because some people do 28 not read the newspaper. Craig Benedict said that the staff would consider keeping the letters as 29 proposals are brought back. 3o Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares the concerns of Commissioner Gordan about 31 eliminating the letters. He made reference to the advertising and Craig Benedict clarified that it would 32 be four weeks in one newspaper of .public record. He likes the idea of open houses and having the 33 meetings in the communities. He made reference to page five and questioned the posting of signs at 34 least ten days before the meeting and asked if peapfe could be given additional time and if the signs 35 could be posted more in advance. 36 ~ Craig Benedict said that the signs could be posted sooner than 10 days. 37 Commissioner Jacobs would like for the signs to be pasted longer than ten days. He made 3s reference to page six and the advertising according to state statute and the rationale behind placing 39 larger advertising. The state statute is less than % of a newspaper page in size. 4o Craig Benedict said that because Orange County sends out individual notices, that the ads have 41 been smaller in the past. He said that the staff is suggesting that the County put larger ads in the paper 42 than what is required by state law. He said that even though the larger ad is expensive, the increasing 43 amount of letters sent out is also expensive. 44 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page eight and asked if this was the explanation or the 45 verbiage that would be included in the ordinance. He feels that'adjacent' needs to be defined. He said 46 that he hopes this can be coordinated with developing a citizens guide for dealing with the planning 47 process. He suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board might want to initiate this project. 4$ He feels that citizens who have attended meetings to speak one way or the other should be included on 49 the committee. He volunteered to serve on the committee along with Commissioner Brown. 5o Commissioner Brown asked about the follow up process after the neighborhood meetings. Craig 51 Benedict said that follow up would occur. From the neighborhood meetings a mailing list will be 52 developed and follow up notices will be sent for each step of the process. 53 There were no questions from Planning Board members. 3 John Link made reference to page 1 a and comparing the old with the new procedure and asked 4 about the BOCC work session. Craig Benedict said that each item would be presented at a work s session before beginning the process of public input. John Link feels it is a good idea. However, 6 typically work session agendas are full. He wonders if this is workable. 7 Craig Benedict clarified that the notice of the public hearing would follow the item being introduced s at a work session. He wants, in some way, to notify the County Commissioners that the process has 9 begun on a specific item or issue. to A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer item 11 C-1-a to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be retumed to the Board of Commissioners no 12 sooner than June 29, 2oaa. 13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 14 15 b. Section 4.2.12 Existing Commercial - V (EC-5) 16 Craig Benedict explained that there were 113 separate existing commercial uses, known 17 as EG5. The Planning staff is suggesting that under extreme circumstances, small existing commercial is parcels, less than one acre, would be able to shift from one lot to an adjacent one. This would be 19 allowed under a list of ten criteria. The criteria are listed in the agenda. This would allow for the 20 continuation of the commercial use in the future. Any change in the operation would have to meet new 21 standards. He made reference to the criteria and said that if an EG5 district is wiped off the map, 22 reduced, or becomes non-functional based on some sort of right-of-way taking that is in excess of what 23 is required by the comprehensive plan, the property owner would not be able to purchase other land. Za 25 UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS x6 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12, item "C° that reads, "Existing district shall be 27 eliminated and retumed to the zoning of surrounding land. If the old district is adjacent to more than z8 one district, the tract shall be retumed to the lower use category." She asked far further explanation. 29 Craig Benedict said that it means that if a portion of the district is made non-functional and they will lose 3o the rights they have of a portion of the land, that portion of the land would have to revert back to the 31 use designation of the adjacent property. Craig Benedict said that this language would be reworded. 32 Commissioner Gordon asked about item "D" on the same page and asked why expansion would 33 be allowed. Craig Benedict said that this was in~response to a concern to encourage the property 34 owners to redo their building and this would provide an incentive for their potential conversion and 3s adherence to the strict regulations. 36 Commissioner Gordon suggested using an additional square footage allowance as an incentive. 37 She asked if the EG5 was allowed by right ar by condemnation and how it would be decided if the land 38 was condemned whether or not there was an impact on adjacent properties. Craig Benedict said that 39 the process for EG5 is that if the property owner wants to change the zoning district by purchasing ao additional property that notification would be given to the neighbors and the County Commissioners 41 would approve through the regular rezoning process. 42 Commissioner Brown asked of the 113 EG5 uses how many were operational and Craig Benedict 43 did oat know. He has received complaints on quite a few of these properties. 44 Karen Barrows said that it feels that something has happened to bring this item forward. Craig as Benedict said that the best way to address a regulatory change is to address it comprehensively 46 instead of doing it for one or two people who have requested that this be reviewed for changes. He 47 said that he has received requests from some of the owners of EG5 properties to expand or change as their business in same way. He said that right now there were not enough regulations in the code to 49 direct what the future building should look like. He hopes to have same standards for some so consistency. si Karen Barrows clarified that Craig Benedict has received some inquiries from businesses and alsc s2 some complaints from citizens and Craig Benedict verified this. 1. 1 Crauford Goodwin asked about the logic of this change and said that it seems that the concern is z the taking of the right and compensating the property owner in some way. Craig Benedict said that the 3 consequence would be that a neighbor would see that a business might move closer or adjacent to a 4 person's property line. He said that the neighbor would receive a notification of any changes made. 5 Commissioner Gordon asked about the question of what to do with abandoned property. Craig 6 Benedict said that the EC-5 standards do not follow the rule that after 180 days, the use would be lost. ~ It is hoped that road improvements would be made in Orange County that may involve a widening of a S road of the expansion of an intersection. He foresees this as a problem far some businesses in the 9 future. If a person abandons the business and later wants to reopen, they would have to meet the new 1o standards and setbacks. 11 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to'put in writing the impacts that would be 12 considered. 13 Chair Carey asked about a situation which prevents a property from being continued in its 14 intended use if it would revert back to the surrounding land use and Craig Benedict said that it would 1S revert back to the least intensive use. However, the applicant could ask for a rezoning. 16 Commissioner Brown clarified that what this would do is keep the small businesses. She feels it is 17 an improvement to offer an initiative far improving the property. is .. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer item C- 19 1-b to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no 20 sooner'than June 29, 2000. 21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 22 23 c. Orange. County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Amendments 24 Craig Benedict said that Christy Anspach of the Erosion Control Department is here tonight 25 and has contributed a large amount of work towards these changes. This ordinance is not part of the 26 zoning ,text or subdivision text. It is a freestanding ordinance. These rules are ones that have been 27 created at the state level and it is up to the County to put them into the ordinance. He summarized the 2s changes made to the ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to certain land disturbing activities 29 which have to do with agriculture. There are also exemptions for forest land and mining activities. He 3o said that the erosion control plan had to match other environmental issues that are attached to the site. 31 Some of the notices of violations and penalties have been amended as well. 32 33 UESTION5 f=ROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 34 Commissioner Gordon said that gender neutral language should be used throughout. She asked 35 about page one regarding forestlands and the forest practice guidelines that relate to water quality. 36 Craig Benedict said that there were different guidelines for the state because of th,e preservation of 37 agriculture and fares#ry., The County's guidelines are more stringent. 38 Commissioner Gordon asked about section 18 and the erosion control plan and about the 39 utilization of ditches for the purpose of de-watering ar lowering the water table. Craig Benedict said that 4o it was a notification provision so that the Division of Water Quality could know if this type of land 41 disturbance activity could lower the water table that might affect the farm operation or wells in the area. 42 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page three and the deadline for reviewing a plan. She 43 said that it seems that this language sounded very similar to the other language that was just revised. 44 Craig Benedict said that this refers to staff restrictions for a time frame versus an elected body. 45 Commissioner Gordon asked that the issues about the ditches and the forestry be brought to the a6 Commission far the Environment for their information. 47 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff analyze the forest practice guidelines related to 48 water quality and share comments with the boards before they are submitted. 49 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 16, item h, "Consideration of applicant's past 5o performance", and made an editorial change. S1 Crauford Goodwin asked for a definition of plants and animals use for the man. Craig Benedict 52 feels the list is wide open -any plants and animals useful to humans. 13 1 Commissioner Brown asked Craig Benedict to be specific about what these amendments would 2 do. Craig Benedict said that most of the changes will benefit the ordinance and that there would be a 3 clearer process for enforcement of the ordinance. a A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the s Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control amendments to the Planning staff to receive 6 further input from the public prior to it being returned to the County Commissioners for consideration of ~ adoption no sooner than June 29, 2000. s VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 10 ~ d. Consideration of the Neuse River Basin Storm Water Control Ordinance 11 Craig Benedict presented a summary of the information in the agenda. He said that this was 12 the start of a process that would continue for the next six months. These are rules that have been 13 developed by the state to be enforced by the County. These rules were put forward over the last four 14 or five years primarily for nitrogen control within the water basin. He said that if the County does not 15 adopt its own rules, the state would review all applications for subdivisions within Orange County. The 16 staff is suggesting that there be a storm water program to implement at the local level, reducing the 17 amount of nitrogen that goes into the water basin. The staff is evaluating some storm water 18 management programs with Chapel Hill and Carrbaro to talk about how best to manage erosion control 19 and the amount of nitrogen that gets into the water basin. He said that the County could hire Triangle J 20 Council of Governments to help in the outreach programs. In August he will bring back a document in zl ordinance format. At that time, the Planning Staff will ask for permission to transmit this to the state for 22 review and comment. z3 Commissioner Gordon said that this program was the same one that she heard about at a 24 Triangle J Council of Governments meeting. She asked for an analysis of what affect this program 25 would have on Orange County. She feels that it will have a profound effect vn the amount of 26 development. She also asked for a bigger picture of how the standards are stricter upstream. 27 Craig Benedict said that he would put an analysis together on the program's effect on Orange 2s County's development. 29 Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a discussion at Triangle J about impervious surFace 30 storm water runoff per acre and whether or not this might mitigate against infill. There was also a 31 discussion about whether or not there could be an average across the jurisdiction as apposed to per 32 acre, and having a transfer of storm water rights from a rural area to an urban area so that there could 33 be infill and provide the same impervious surtace in the County. 34 Chair Carey clarified that this program submission was not due to the state until August 19'". 35 The state will then review it and return it. The program will be implemented in Orange County by March 36 1, 2001. 37 Chair Carey said that the Cape Fear Storm Water Control Ordinance might have a greater 3s effect on Orange County than this one. He feels that this ordinance should be monitored very closely. 39 Craig Benedict explained the process that would be followed. The model program will be 4o refined over the next few months. 41 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to transmit a2 the Neuse River Basin Storm Water Control Ordinance to the State NCDENRNVQ for review and 43 comment prier to being returned to the County Commissioners for consideration of final adoption no 44 sooner than June 29, 2000. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 47 D. ADJOURNMENT 48 With no further items far the County Commissioners to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the 49 meeting. so The next meeting on the regular meeting calendar will be held on Thursday, May 25 at 7:30 p.m. s1 in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Catalina. s2 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair 53 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk