|
MINUTES
OF SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
OF
THE EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THE
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 27, 2002 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL
Mayor Schools called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present were Mayor Schools, Commissioners McElraft, Eckhardt, Farmer,
Marks and Messer and Town Attorney Derek Taylor.
Staff members present were Town Manager Frank Rush, Town Clerk Carolyn
Custy and Inspections Department Head Carol Angus.
The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the draft of the Storm Water
Ordinance and any other items of interest.
Mr. Rush stated the primary concern of this ordinance is single family
and duplex residential development -
standards and requirements for multi family and commercial projects are not
significantly different.
Without an overall storm water plan for the subdivision when it was
platted, and without a requirement for storm water controls for single family
and duplex development, you essentially wind up with no storm water controls
except for the roads.
The
new Ordinance reorganizes the current ordinance - Clear statement that ordinance
applies to single family and duplex up front; spells out performance and design
standards first; and spells out storm water plan requirement after performance
and design standards. All
development must submit a plan; no waivers from plan requirement; Limited plan
requirements for projects with less than 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface –
do not need licensed professional to prepare plans; More detailed plan
requirements for projects with greater than 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface
– need licensed professional to prepare plans; Changes order of other sections
of ordinance – variances, off-site facilities, etc.
It provides a requirement for erosion and sedimentation control
activities if more than 5,000 sq. ft. of earth disturbed or 500 cubic yards of
earth disturbed. Will need approval from NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources for the town to take over erosion and sedimentation control
activities.
The draft ordinance provides a limitation on the amount of fill per lot.
Areas with more than 2 feet of fill will require a licensed professional
to prepare the storm water management plan, regardless of the amount of
impervious surface.
There are increased infiltration requirements from 1.5” in the current
ordinance to 2” in the draft ordinance and runoff from any impervious surface
draining into the infiltration area must be accounted for.
No part of a pond, wetland or low area exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. that serve
as temporary collection basins for storm water can be filled, unless a new
retention pond is built as a replacement.
Must seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment if this requirement
precludes reasonable development of the lot.
Must maintain a 2 feet separation between bottom of storm water
collection facility and water table. The
draft ordinance prohibits artificial recharge of natural ponds with groundwater
supplies.
Focus is single family or duplex development.
The need for a storm water management plan anytime the impervious being
developed exceeds 1,000 sq. ft. The
current ordinance does not require a plan for single family or duplex.
Additional information required for storm water plans for projects with
less than 5,000 sq. ft. is 2 foot contours must be shown on plan, indication of
locations of significant trees in the disturbed area and must show changes in
topography.
Additional information required for storm water plans for projects with
more than 5,000 sq. ft are, (1) it
must be designed by a licensed professional, (2)2 foot contours must be shown on
plan, (3)indication of locations of significant trees in the disturbed area and
(4) must show changes in topography – 25 x 25 grid.
A storm water management plan for a new subdivisions must consider the
projected storm water runoff volumes associated with full build-out of the
subdivision.
The new draft ordinance strengthens requirements for storm water
facilities to be maintained. Violations
to ordinance are subject to civil penalties only.
A copy of the draft ordinance is attached at the end of these minutes.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked, in reference to the artificial recharging of
a natural pond with ground water supplies, if that is retroactive and when the
term groundwater supply is used does that infer aquifer?
Mr. Rush answered yes it does include aquifer and it would be
retroactive.
Attorney Taylor commented that is the approach being taking by this
ordinance. It is up to the board as to how they wish to proceed with it.
He does believe that with the Police powers of this town, it would afford
the opportunity to have that kind of control.
Commissioner Farmer indicated she was the one who proposed this and was
not her intent to make it retroactive.
Commissioner McElraft said she would like to have the option of putting
in a fountain in a pond because all the ponds around her have a green slime on
them. Commissioner Farmer said this
would not prevent anyone from putting in aeration devices.
That is not the issue. The
issue is pulling aquifer water and adding it to surface water, which is adding
to the flooding problem. There have
been no ordinances in the past that prohibit people from doing that and it is
not fair to go back and say to those “get it out” but on the other hand she
does not feel people should be encouraged to do that either because it is just
adding more water to problems that already exist.
Commissioner Farmer made a motion to open discussion up to the
public. The board voted unanimously
with a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Ted Williamson, 205 Sandfiddler East, Lands End, stated listening to
the comments from the bench, he and a couple of other residents of Lands End,
were a little puzzled about the use of the word “retroactive”.
He said they had read the proposed ordinance and they are not unduly
troubled by it. Many on the board
know residents of Lands End have sharply moderated the practice in Lands End of
pumping significant amounts of new water from the aquifer into the ponds
recognizing that keeping the ponds low is an important move to protect against
storm water flooding in that area. He
knows this is the intent of the new ordinance.
He personally had assumed that the import of this ordinance, if passed as
now drafted, would ask them not to do that anymore.
He does not know now whether that is what it meant or whether is says
whoever you new guys are who have been thinking about doing this, don’t do it.
Commissioner Farmer said it was not her intent to say to Lands End
“don’t do it anymore”. She continued “if Lands Ends decided not to do it anymore,
she thinks the board would be happy”.
Mr. Williamson made it clear he was not speaking for the Lands End
Association. He most certainly was
not speaking for the board of the Lands End Association.
He was speaking as a single, private resident of the Lands End
Subdivision. He would like to see
the town board make this apply to Lands End if it is applied to others. It is a prudent move. He
would like to see the board let them freshen their ponds with extreme moderation
from the aquifer but if we are going to address storm water flooding in a
serious way, everybody should be invited, guided and directed not to exacerbate
the problem. Mr. Williamson
indicated a member of Lands End Board was present and he may or may not agree
with what Mr. Williamson has said. Mr.
Williamson continued that while nice full ponds are pretty, and nice fresh water
and the flow thereof is encouraging to everybody and has been for centuries and
centuries, it is foolishness to fill your ponds and then have to worry about how
to get rid of all of that storm water. The
need to be sensible exists and Mr. Williamson believes that is what the town
board is trying to do.
Mr. Pete Ellis, 9810 Outrigger Court, asked if he had missed a
revegatation plan as part of the draft ordinance?
He said Mr. Rush did a good job providing an overview but he didn’t see
any re-vegetation plan. He didn’t
see any replanting which needs to be put in.
Trees drink a lot of water. Mr. Ellis said trees are taken away, scrub is
taken away and some strong vegetation is taken and no trees are replanted.
Commissioner McElraft informed Mr. Ellis that the town has a
Reforestation, Re-vegetation Committee and that approximately 20,000 trees have
been planted since the hurricanes. She
invited Mr. Ellis to joint the committee.
Mr. Ellis suggested that re-vegetation be monitored by someone who rides
around looking for areas that are not re-vegetated and remind them that
replanting helps with the storm water problem.
Commissioner Marks noted that people need to be educated on
re-vegetation.
Commissioner McElraft said that in using dry wells, it was realized that
30 to 40 year old trees were being removed and now re-vegetation is part of the
storm water plan required.
Mr. Clint Routsen, 9721 Green Glen Road, said there are some specific
issues and some general issues he would like discussed.
He noticed that with respect to the outstanding resource water section
within the Ordinance, there is a provision that appears to exempt properties in
the 575.
Mr. Rush replied it does not exempt the properties in the 575 but it
makes a comment that it adheres to restrictions through CAMA.
Those properties would have to contain their water on site using swales
or a storm water collection. He also indicated he is trying to get an answer
from CAMA and Division of Clean Water Quality if dry wells can be done in the
575. Initially he was advised that
it could not and now it appears maybe some would be allowed. He is waiting for an answer.
Mr. Routsen said he did not see how that could be done.
Mr. Rush answered it would be done with swales.
Mr. Rush said CAMA has impervious surface at 25%.
In the case being discussed the downspouts coming off the house would be
funneled into the swale or perhaps the dry well system.
Commissioner Farmer said she dealt with this problem at her home where
her house is up high but the yard slopes down and swales up again and that is
where the storm water funnels.
Mr. Routsen said you are talking about limiting fill, you are talking
being able to create areas where you can have swales.
Commissioner Farmer said if the Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance is looked
at, you should not have any flat lots in Emerald Isle because the topography is
supposed to be maintained and it is not being maintained.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked Mr. Routsen if he foresees this as a problem
on some of the lots? Mr. Routsen
replied his concern is how it will be dealt with if CAMA says you cannot have
storm water retention, the town says you have to retain, he was unclear as to
what the homeowner is supposed to do?
Commissioner Eckhardt asked if Mr. Routsen did not think the swales that
Mr. Rush related to would take care of that?
Mr. Routsen replied the swales may but when talking about the storm water
retention required under the ordinance is probably greater than what you are
carrying right now on your lot because you are now putting the pencil to the
paper and talking about what the storm water retainage is.
If you look at that in relation to a decent size lot, you have a fairly
good size retention that is being required.
The issue of simply addressing it with one paragraph saying this one
governs is clearly a simple way of doing it but he is not certain how the
property owner will address it. It would seem difficult to apply.
Mr. Routsen said the other question would be in the discussions that have
occurred with the engineers in the past that were looking at the flooding
problem, and what they have been discussing is the flooding problem is a ground
saturation problem and not really a water on top of the surface problem.
The groundwater floods and that result in the ground water staying
around. The issue is, if we turn
around and start dumping all of the storm water into the groundwater quicker
than it would otherwise get there, it that going to result in the flooding
problem being worse and also occurring quicker because now the water that was
not there is going to be there. Mr.
Routsen asked if the board had talked to the engineers?
His feelings are since they are looking at the issue they should be able
to address it.
Mr. Routsen continued the engineers have indicated, in prior studies,
that they did not see the full build out of Emerald Isle in the Coast Guard Road
area as being a problem with additional flooding.
What you are now imposing are these requirements upon the property owners
and all of Emerald Isle that may not have any significant effects upon the
problem, which you are proposing or attempting to alleviate.
He questioned if the cost is justified for all of the property owners for
what the end result will be? He
asked again that the board consult with the engineers before an ordinance is
enacted that may not have any justifiable benefit other than for them to say
they enacted that ordinance to address that problem.
Commissioner Farmer commented that Coast Guard Road is not the only place
where flooding occurs. This was not
tailored to Coast Guard Road. Archer’s Creek has flooding problems, and there
are ocean front areas on Ocean Drive with flooding problems.
Mr. Routsen replied he was not saying it was tailored to that.
What he is saying is that the town has an engineer looking the issue
data. The topography is similar
throughout the town so he suspects their information is going to be fairly
compatible to turn around and say, although not identical, it would also be
pretty applicable to the rest of the town.
Commissioner Marks remarked the topography may have been comparable at
one time but it is no longer. She
related to a lot, where there was no flooding on Conch Court, until it was
cleared of most of the trees and now every time it rains there is heavy standing
water all the way around the corner. Since
that time, the town has installed some drainage systems that have helped.
Mr. Routsen agreed with imposing of trees, which is not an undue burden
upon property owners because it is beneficial to them as part of their
vegetation and their landscaping packing, which they would otherwise have to do
anyway.
Mr. Routsen says we are talking
about a system that may or may not have any benefit and it is not going to,
unlike a tree continue to suck up water whether or not it is raining today or
not raining. All the dry well is going to do is take the rain water at
that given moment and dump it into the ground water system.
It is not going to suck it up or does anything with it other than just
dump it back into the system. According
to the engineers it is the ground saturation that is a problem with the
continued flooding in the Coast Guard Road area.
This is not the proposal the engineers are talking about to help
alleviate this problem. They are
not talking about dumping it into the ground water, they are talking about
running it above ground into the wet lines and then if there is excess dumping
it into the sound.
Commissioner McElraft commented that when it was realized that 30 to 40
year old trees were being cut, the town went to the natural vegetation item.
There were cases where dry wells had to be put in.
There are many many places where natural vegetation can take care of it.
She thinks this can be used as a storm water option.
Commissioner Farmer noted if they can show that the vegetation existing
will handle the 2” inches, it can be used.
Mr. Routsen next questioned the paragraph dealing with new subdivisions,
Page 15, (d). What is being said is
that regardless of the use, the developer of the subdivision has to calculate
and design storm water retention for the full build out of the subdivision. What a developer has to do is provide a storm water plan for
the whole development at that point in time.
What is also being said is that the lot owners individually have to do it
also.
Commissioner Farmer said she caught this too and her feeling is that in a
subdivision, where the developer has done this, she would have no problem
waiving the plan.
Mr. Rush commented that if in a subdivision, certain areas are designated
within that subdivision as retention facilities, and all the storm water is
routed into these areas, the town does not require the homeowners to come up
with an infiltration system.
Commissioner McElraft asked if the storm water would go down the street
to a retention area and she asked for clarification?
Mr. Rush replied what is being said is that the storm water system is
designed up front and whether it be a system of curb and gutter on the street or
whether it be a retention in ditches behind homes within the subdivision, that
would be the design of the storm water system up front before the development
occurs based on average driveway, average foot print sizes, and possibly reserve
the low areas in the subdivision for retention facilities. If that were the
case, the homeowner would not have to put in a dry well or whatever application
he needed.
Commissioner Farmer noted that is the way it should be done.
If this Ordinance were in place 15 years ago, the big ticket for the
storm water problems that exist now would not have occurred. The developer should be taking care of the storm water that
would be created by his development in the beginning.
Mr. Rush made note that back 15 years ago, some of the wetlands were
probably designated as storm water retention.
Dr. Almedia, Planning Board Chairman, commented that when a subdivision
design is done, a provision is made for storm water and the impervious area is
taken into account. At the time the lot is sold, it is pretty level so you know
pretty much which way the water is going. You
do not have much option for change.
Commissioner Eckhardt gave a hypothetical situation where a plan had been
done and the buyers came along, not knowing what they were doing and this is the
case, he bought the problem. He is
rectifying it now but can only rectify about 80 per-cent of the problem. Why should he not be subject to the same types of things that
his neighbors would be subject to? He
can see doing it on a subdivision level but then to come along and let him flood
his neighbor because he has a huge drive that is running down onto and across
the street does not make any sense. He
feels it has to be on both ends, as a subdivision level and then at the lot
level.
Mr. Routsen commented on the 2-feet on the fill.
It is his understanding that if you want to do more than 2-feet fill you
have to have an engineers design retention plan for your lot and asked if this
is the understanding.
Commissioner McElraft said you could bring in more than 2-feet of fill if
you are trying to even out your lot but you cannot raise the elevation of the
whole lot more than 2-feet without having a storm water plan.
Mr. Routsen said it is written that the maximum amount of fill at any
location shall be limited to 2-feet. He
understands this to mean at any location, he has 2-feet, he has to have a plan.
Dr. Almedia suggested a little cleaning up of this statement.
Mr. Routsen said in reference to surface water, when it is said
“interferes with the natural and normal flow of surface water”, if you are
talking about rain water, if you put 1-foot of fill on the lot it will affect
the flow. Are you then dumping it
on your neighbor? He feels this
language should be revised. You can contain the 2” on your lot. This is being required through the ordinance.
If you retain the 2” you would have done what the ordinance is setting
out to do, even if the slopes would otherwise result in water running a
different way than it otherwise would.
Commissioner Marks spoke of instances she has seen where the water runs
off one property onto the neighbor’s property, damaging it.
Mr. Routsen thanked the board for taking his comments.
Art Daniel, 5128 Bogue Sound Drive, engineer and Planning Board member,
helped draft this ordinance. One of
the focuses is to maintain a status quo in Emerald Isle as far as storm water
problems are concerned. It is not a
flood control ordinance. It is a
storm water management proposed ordinance. He related to number (1) on page 7
under (b) Design standards. “Instead, runoff shall be routed through swales
and other systems designed to increase time of concentration, decrease velocity,
increase infiltration, allow suspended solids to settle and remove pollutants”
is a very descriptive and has a lot of meaning. Mr. Daniel said when you are
looking at pre-planning a storm water management plan for a subdivision, it is
difficult where
you are attempting to maintain vegetation and not clear-cut a lot, to go in and
do anything in one swoop for a subdivision development.
In past years, a piece of land was taken, the best circulation pattern
for the street system and get as many lots as you could was figured out, and
then came easements along all lot lines. These
easements took care of your utilities and your storm water.
You cannot go out and do wholesale land clearing in order to have a ready
made storm water management plan for the person who builds a house for himself
or buys one already constructed. Mr.
Daniel thinks the roof runoff and driveway runoff should be applied.
Each lot is a different site; each has its own characteristics.
Therefore you are going to have to take the best of what is there for
development of your house, and then you will have to do a few other things. Some have to do more on their lots than others.
In response to some of the previous comments, a status quo is trying to
be maintained, things are not going to be made worse than they are.
Mr. Daniel said one way of looking at what 2” of water is – for
Wilmington 2” for the first hour, for a 24-hour storm event was a 5-year
reoccurring storm. This is 2” in a 24-hour period but it happens in the first
one hour. People are going to be taking care of the nuisance storm water at the
2” level rather than 1 ˝”.
Commissioner Farmer asked Mr. Daniel to expand on dry wells and the
difference between 1 ˝” and 2”. Mr.
Daniel said for a motel site being developed,
for 2” of water, one more 50-foot pipe would have to be added in
addition to the several hundred feet of pipe already required.
For a roof type runoff, it would add another 4 feet.
Mr. Daniel discussed several different dry wells and explained how they
work.
Dr. Phil Almedia, 103 Barracuda Court, said retention of water is
required under the current ordinance. All
that is being done is increasing it from 1 ˝” to 2”.
The problem is it was not enforced until last year.
He went on to say saturated ground does not necessarily correlate to a
high water table. The water table can be very low.
It takes quite a while for the water table to rise.
The moment you change the configuration of the ground you are going to be
dumping on the neighbor.
Commissioner McElraft asked if you are going down closer to the water
table, it that not taking it further down?
Dr. Almedia said it takes a long time for rain water to reach the water
table. A Dry Well is much lower.
It is lower down and you have a separation of 2-feet between the bottom
of the dry well and the top of the water table.
It allows the water to percolate down.
For the water on the surface to reach the water table, it would take much
longer than water from the dry well. What you are doing is preventing flooding
of surface water by holding the water from the impervious areas.
Mr. Daniel explained that on a dry well, you have a filter fabric so when
you dig the trench, you put the filter fabric in and when you get through it is
covered, you have a perforated drain pipe inside of that, you have observation
wells (PVC with screw caps) that come up every so often so you can check and see
if any maintenance is needed. The
filter fabric is going to slow down the filtering of water.
There is rock in the dry well also.
The water is going to sit in a 40 percent flood stage.
Mr. Rush asked
for clarification on the changes.
A change was made in design standards (3), where
the maximum amount of fill at any average build-able area shall be limited to
two (2) feet, in disturbed area, unless - - - - - -
Mr. Rush said the control on this, he thinks, is in the Dunes and
Vegetation Ordinance.
Mr. Routsen suggested looking at it on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Marks remarked the intent of this is to try to keep the lots
as natural as they are and if this had been done all along, the present board
would not be dealing with it now. There is a need to try to keep the topography
of a lot as natural as it is and to keep the vegetation as natural as it is.
Past practices are what have caused this problem. Ordinances have not been
adhered to that are on the books. This
has to be forgotten, start fresh and look at the Island and try to see what it
would take to save what is remaining.
Mr. Routsen said he wants to understand what the rule is and he does not
understand it as it is.
Commissioner McElraft said she thinks he is right.
She gave an instance of an ocean front lot.
You have a dune that is high. This
person wants to have you behind that dune.
As long as they are not going to dump storm water on you, an engineered
plan is required, they should be able to fill up to that dune if they want to.
Commissioner Marks remarked that enclosing the underside of the houses is
not allowed, so why are they on pilings?
Ed Dowling said the Planning Board initially said on all sites, plots and
lots, other than commercial zone areas, the committee initially increased the
minimum of natural area from 45 percent of the dune or dunes systems that must
be left in place to 50 percent Rational is disturbed land which is void of trees
and vegetation and original topographical features is not esthetically pleasing
and encouraging protection of the natural system so as to better utilize them in
a way that does not impair their beneficial system and functions.
It is difficult to lay out a foot print for a built upon area or lot and
at the same time accommodate the septic system without disturbing the natural
area. A means must be found to
restore or re-vegetate the disturbed area other than by encouraging restoration.
The committee is working diligently to increase it from 45 percent to 47
or 48 percent natural area.
Debate continues over the adjustment of the remaining 55 percent of the
total area or square foot of the lot except for the built upon area which is
covered by building, pavement, roads, parking areas, etc. which is required to
have vegetative cover. A new
adjustment percent would be between 52 and 53 percent of total square foot.
Adverse environment impact in this area must be minimized.
Commissioner McElraft related to one of her houses, oceanfront, has
beautiful vegetation and she has added some.
There has never ever been a storm water problem there. She thinks anyone
who has the money to bring in a lot of fill has the money to do a storm water
engineer plan. She does not object to it.
The second situation she has had with fill, she had a septic system and
wanted to prevent taking out trees in the back so she wanted to put her septic
system in the front. She left her
lot 57 percent vegetated. She would have had to put a pump system in, no view
and she is not trying to put storm water on anyone else. She has no problem doing an engineering storm water plan, but
she does think the board needs to make sure that fill for good reasons be
allowed.
Commissioner Farmer said she thinks the whole issue is whether buildable
or the whole lot is being talked about. Personally
she thinks it is buildable.
Mrs. Carol Angus, Building Inspections Department Head, noted if the
house is built, they would have to put gutters on it and use a dry well system
in order not to dump on neighbors.
Mr. Rush interjected that if there is a house that has a low area behind
the house, 20 x 10 and 6 feet deep and they want to fill it in just to level off
the yard, the house was built 15 years ago, then this is the kind of thing you
want to prohibit someone from filling in that hole that is 5 feet deep and is
going to require 3 loads of fill.
Mr. Frank Ellis said there are some situations you have to look at on a
case-by-case basis. He related to a
neighbor who had a sloping area adjacent to wetlands.
That sloping area, in time, is causing the backside of the lot to sink.
Her lot is shifting and adjusting. She would like to be able to do
filling or bulk heading or whatever it takes to be ecologically correct.
By the same token, all these things are constantly going on. The Board, unfortunately, has the task of trying to make some
boundaries so everyone can live on this island without everything sinking. He
suggested starting out tough, evaluating it on a case-by-case basis and then
look to see if too much is being done. No
one is trying to make this a bad place to live.
Efforts are being made to try to balance nature so the island is not
washed out by a hurricane and 7” of rain falls in two hours.
The water is going someplace.
Mr. Ellis continued if you start worrying about 2-feet of fill and start
to try to make everybody happy with the rules without actually looking at what
is being done. You have to look at the natural flow, where the water is
going.
Mr. Rush clarified, for the board, to allow 2-feet of fill across the
disturbed area. Anything greater than 2-feet would require an engineered
storm water management plan. All of
the board agreed this was correct.
Mr. Rush also commented that (20) on page 9, there is not much to be
changed in the ordinance now until clarification is received from Division of
Coastal Management and Division of Water Quality on whether or not dry wells are
allowed in the AEC. If they were
allowed, that would be an acceptable storm water practice
In reference to the fresh water charging of ponds, Commissioner Farmer
indicated she would be interested in hearing what Lands End thinks about this.
They are the only ones that do fresh water charging.
Commissioner McElraft asked if Lands End could make their systems
aeration systems. The answer she received was “yes”.
She then feels that is absolutely should be made retroactive.
Commissioner Farmer disagreed saying she would like to hear what their
board says.
Mr. Rush said he would send a letter to the Lands End Homeowners
Association asking for some feedback on this matter.
Commissioner McElraft clarified the board was saying that they can put in
more than 2-feet of fill as long as they can retain the storm water.
Mr. Bill Reist, citizen, asked if in the case the lady where the lot was
sinking, could she come in for a hearing? Commissioner
Eckhardt thinks the answer is “yes”.
Commissioner McElraft said the town has Jimmy Taylor who knows pretty
much what is going to happen with storm water and he could use his judgment on
that. Mr. Rush said if someone is
bringing in more than 5 loads of fill, they should get a permit.
Mr. Routsen said there is no provision for applying for a variance in the
ordinance.
Mr. Rush suggested he be allowed to come up with some language to address
those minor issues. All of the
board was in agreement.
Mr. Rousten also said the property owner would have to prove a hardship
and asked what would the hardship be if you just don’t want to do the plan.
Attorney Derek Taylor agreed that the standards are high.
You could apply for a variance, but whether you could get one would be an
entirely different story.
The cost of an engineered plan was discussed and Mr. Daniel said it would
cost around $600 to get one done or maybe more depending on what would have to
be done.
Mr. Eckhardt went back to the retroactive thing and he leans toward
retroactive based on the feedback received from Lands End.
Mr. Rush clarified what he was hearing from the board, was if Lands End
was comfortable with that, make it retroactive.
Proposed change to Design standards (21) were changed to not allow future
fresh water charging for aeration of ponds.
Mr. Rush turned to Page 11, Requirements for Storm water Management Plans
for Residentiaol Projects With Less Than 5,000 Square Feet of Impervious Surface
(3) (1), to change that in a more general language, general characterization for
storm water runoff on the existing site.
The change for this section is Requirements for Storm Water Management
Plans for residential projects with Less than 5,000 square feet of impervious
surface (3) (1) was changed to read; the direction, flow rate, and runoff of
storm water under existing conditions; general characteristics of lot.
Page 15 (d) New Subdivisions – previous discussion took place about
also requiring new homes built in that subdivision, that has a storm water plan
for the entire subdivision, it would require dry well systems as well when the
home is actually built.
Commissioner Messer interjected you have to require some sort of system.
You can design the whole subdivision without looking at each lot
individually. They will take care
of themselves.
Commissioner Farmer thinks what will be received from a new subdivision
is a general idea of the amount of storm water that will be generated but she
does not think the idea will be specific enough that you can get away with not
allowing a plan to the individual lots.
Mr. Routsen said this was double planning on any subdivision.
The developer has to retain it, and then the homeowner has to retain it.
They are paying twice.
Commissioner Messer said that if what the subdivision has done as a
subdivision will accomplish the purpose then it would not require anything else.
Commissioner Marks commented the burden should be passed along to the
subdivision and that homeowner. It
does not belong on all of the taxpayers in Emerald Isle.
Commissioner Messer said he does not see how you can design a storm water
plan for a subdivision or how ever many houses you would build on it.
If the board is going to say that new subdivisions have to have a storm
water plan that is fine but he does not think one can be designed that will take
care of every situation. What he
was saying is each individual lot, whether it be vegetation that would take care
of it, whether it would be a dry well that would take care of it.
He does not see how a subdivision storm water plan can take care of the
whole area.
Mr. Routsen argued the subdivision plan is not going to addressretension
on each individual lot. It may say
a retention area is going to be in a specific place.
Everybody would drain to that area.
Commissioner Messer argued if you have a pond, you have houses built
around that pond; theoretically the storm water could be drained to that pond
through swales or whatever. If there is a house across the street that cannot
drain to that pond. Something would
have to be done.
Mr. Rush, trying to clarify, said what Commissioner Messer is saying, if
you have a storm water plan for the entire subdivision that designates the area
designated for storm water retention, when the individual comes in and wants to
build their house on a lot, if the plan they present is relying on that
previously designed storm water system, the requirement of putting in a dry well
system would not be required. If at
the time, additional concerns are present with that lot, a dry well or some
other augmentation of storm water on site may be required.
The board was unanimously in agreement with what Mr. Rush presented and
a general discussion between board members ensued on this issue on different
ways storm water could be handled.
Mr. Daniel said if this ordinance is adopted, it will send a wake-up
call to the design professionals and tell them that they are going to have to
start doing some land planning, some landscaping and some architecture as well
as surveying for storm water management which would come through the engineer.
Another general discussion ensued on systems, how they looked when they
are being installed, when would you inspect them, and who.
Mr. Routsen returned to the 2-foot issue. He said the town is telling him he cannot do something with
his property. He cannot fill an area of his property. Attorney Taylor interjected “If the State tells you you
cannot fill a wetland, then you don’t fill it”.
Mr. Routsen replied “but this is not the State.”
Commissioner McElraft indicated she has a problem with that because the
United States Supreme Court has twice ruled against the Corps of Engineers when
they tried to prevent private people from filling isolated wetlands.
They ruled in favor of the property owner.
Commissioner McElraft thinks this needs to be allowed.
Commissioner Eckhardt said the Corps was jurisdictional. Its whether or
not the federal government can.
Attorney Taylor said they can’t with isolated wetlands because they
get into issues of what they have jurisdiction over. That is what those cases were about. The State, obviously, because they have certain rules about
disturbance of certain areas. They
are always being challenged and so far have survived it. The body in this area, as are all areas, is variable.
It will depend somewhat on the findings and what decisions are asked to
be made. Attorney Taylor continued
that the main thing that cannot be done is to remove all economic viability of a
piece of property. If what is being done with this ordinance makes it worthless,
there is something in here that says you can go for a variance.
If it is a hardship on the property that is such a great nature it would
take all of the use of the property, then he believes you hit the hardship
criteria to go for a variance. You
cannot fight too much on this until a variance is denied and then you have to
take the responsibility. The
ordinance, he thinks is ok.
Mr. Ellis said, if, adjacent to your property your neighbor has an
established wetland that has been there and they fill it in and it captures your
lot. He asked what then? Is the
water going to go on your property? What
is being said is it is my property and I do with it what I want and it doesn’t
matter what is on the books.
Commissioner McElraft said in the ordinance it says they have to
maintain the water on their property. If
they fill and the water starts flowing on their neighbor’s property it will be
caught in the 2”. Mr. Ellis disagreed saying that is not known.
Commissioner Eckhardt would like to keep it as it is written at this
time.
Commissioner Marks said the most important thing is to convey to the
owners that they have to take care of the storm water problems right up front.
As long as this is conveyed to the inspections office the building
inspectors will have a clear picture and the problems had in the past should not
be present.
Commissioner Farmer commented, that what is being said in (18) is, if
you have to fill these things, we will let you, but don’t.
Try not to. Avoid them.
It doesn’t mean the board is saying ultimately you can’t.
We are making it harder for you to fill them.
Mr. Rush is to come up with the proper language for the changes that
were mentioned.
Mayor Schools called for adjournment at 12:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn K. Custy
Certified
Municipal Clerk
A copy of the Storm Water Ordinance is attached to these minutes.
|