Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200809 Sept PBM Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 4, 2008 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner Richard Collier Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner Andy Heath Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Jay Williams Absent: Ken Wrangell Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Richard Collier made a motion to approve the August minutes. Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes. Item 1: Text Amendment (A-374, 8/08) - Request by staff to amend Section 67-9 of the zoning ordinance to discourage clear-cutting of land. The change would clarify that a 3-5 year waiting period is required before building permits may be issued if tree clearing occurs without obtaining a permit or an exemption. Jane Daughtridge introduced a modified version of the proposed text amendment, stating that the modified version includes an exemption for residential property less than one (1) acre. Ms. Daughtridge explained that the modified amendment reflects changes from the recent Planning Board work session including: a shortened Purpose section; the term "silviculture" changed to "forestry" in the Exemption section; the regeneration language was reworded using language from the statutes; an exemption for residential lots of record under 1 acre in size was added; and a definitions section was added. Ms. Daughtridge outlined the following text amendment: A-374 8/08: TEXT AMENDMENT As discussed at the June 18th work session, the August 7th regular meeting and the August 27, 2008 work session, the following amendment is suggested to address the loss of significant trees when timber is harvested prior to submission of development proposals. Our current requirements apply when a development proposal of some sort is advanced for consideration. There is no section that clearly prevents cutting of trees prior to a development proposal unless a land disturbance permit is required. Unfortunately, the pace of growth in recent years and the lack of adequate protection against clear-cutting have resulted in an escalated loss of significant trees in advance of development proposals. In accordance with implementation strategy 2.6.2 of the Land Use plan, in order to reduce the loss of significant trees during harvests in advance of development proposals, staff recommends the amendment. This new section DOES NOT ?Stop people from cutting trees to sell - it just requires them to get a permit, leave a perimeter buffer and save significant trees. ? Interfere with forestry activities for land that is use-valued for that purpose or that has a forestry management plan ?Change existing requirements associated with development proposals. The version below includes changes from the workshop version. The Purpose section is shortened, the Exemption section changes the term "silviculture" as in the statute to "forestry" as used by Tax Administration. We also reworded the regeneration language by using language from the statute and added an exemption for residential lots of record under 1 acre in size. A definitions section has been added as well. NEW SECTION (to be located in front of the current Landscaping Section 67. That Section would then be renumbered 676): Section 67A: TREE RETENTION 67A-1: Purpose. New Hanover County enthusiastically supports new development that protects and preserves the natural assets which make our area so desirable as a place to live, work and recreate. Old growth native species trees are an important natural asset. The County recognizes the value and benefit of mature trees in protecting, preserving and enhancing quality of life for present and future citizens. Some of the many benefits of tree preservation include: • Conservation of energy by shading buildings and paved surfaces • Filtering of airborne pollutants • Removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide • Reduction of stormwater runoff • Slowing of flood waters • Recharging of groundwater • Protecting the cultural and historic character of the area • Increasing the value of homes and businesses Certain trees have been determined to be "significant" to our area and therefore are protected. 67A-2 Tree Removal in General The removal of significant or regulated trees on any lot or parcel requires a tree removal permit or a letter of exemption from the County Zoning Administrator. For particular requirements when clearing occurs in conjunction with development proposals, see Section 6713-9 of this ordinance. When tree removal is proposed without a companion development proposal, the following shall apply: 67A-2.1 Application Application for a timber harvest permit must include a tree survey indicating the details outlined in 67B-8(4)(C) or proof of exemption in accordance with NCGS 153A-452 as outlined in section 67A-2.3. 67A-2.2 Regulated Trees to be retained Regulated trees must be retained and protected during the permitted tree harvest within a 50 foot perimeter of the property. All Significant trees shall be retained. 67A-2.3 Exemptions f^- Timhpr. HaFvest ^ , ^ F !aFge- (A)Exemptians will be granted enly to these properties which are use-valued for forestry or those for which a forestry management plan prepared by a registered consulting forester is presented. To qualify for exemption, a forestry management plan shall ensure the proper regeneration of forest stands to commercial levels after the harvest of timber. (B) Any lot of record as of the adoption date of this ordinance which is less than 1 acre in size and which is located in a residential zoning district shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. 67A-2.4 Tracking (A) The Zoning Administrator will forward copies of tree removal permits or letters of exemption to the Planning Director. (B) Any property proposal which requires subdivision approval, building permit approval or commercial or special use site plan approval, and all proposals for rezonings will be required to submit with the application, a copy of any approved tree removal permit or letter of exemption issued within 3 years prior to the application date. 67A-3 Penalty-Withholding of Permits. After the date of adoption of this section, failure to obtain a tree removal permit from New Hanover County prior to removal of any regulated or significant tree or any timber harvest on property will result in the following: (A) A building permit, site plan approval or subdivision plan approval shall be denied, subject to the following: (1) a period of three (3) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all regulated or significant trees from the tract; or (2) a period five (5) years after the completion of a timber harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the regulated or significant trees from the tract if the harvest was a willful violation of County regulations. (B) This enforcement provision shall apply to the property and not to the owner. Therefore, change of ownership does not alleviate the penalty for unauthorized cutting of trees. 674-4 Definitions: Forest Management Plan - a document that defines a landowner's forest management objectives and describes specific measures to be taken to achieve those objectives. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed forester and shall include silviculture practices that both ensure optimal forest productivity and environmental protection of land. (NC Division of Forest Resources and NC Cooperative Extension Service can provide educational materials and lists of licensed foresters.) Regulated trees - those trees of the size, species and location to be protected under the development provisions of the Landscaping section of the ordinance 67B-3(1)(A) and (B). Significant Tree - Any hardwood tree or coniferous tree with a DBH equal to or greater than 24 inches or any dogwood, American holly, or other flowering tree with a DBH equal to or greater than 8" (See Article II, Section 23) Timber Harvest -The felling, loading, and transportation of forest products, roundwood or logs (Source: NC Division of Forest Resources) Use Value - The North Carolina General Assembly enacted the "Land Use Program," which allows reduced tax values for individually owned property used for certain purposes, including forestry. Basic eligibility requirements are forestland consisting of one or more tracts, one of which consists of at least 20 acres that is in actual production and are not included in a farm unit. A forestry management plan is required.(Contact NHC Tax Administration for more information.) Richard Collier asked if ground clearing or bush hogging was covered in the new language. Jane Daughtridge stated no and explained that since bush hogging is not regulated; it does not require a permit. Jay Williams felt the proposal was inequitable to individuals owning multiple acres of property because they would be required to obtain a permit to clear one acre of their land whereas individuals owning only one acre of land and who wanted to clear their acre, would be exempt from obtaining a permit. Mr. Williams reminded the Board of his suggestion to modify the amendment so that permits would be required based on the amount of disturbed area instead of total lot acreage. Mr. Williams also asked if a tree survey would be required of the entire property or just the portion that was to be cleared. Jane Daughtridge reminded the board of the work session discussion in which the Chief Code officer expressed concerns that an exemption like that might allow people to "hopscotch" around the property clear-cutting one acre at a time. She said the key to all of these situations is simply that people need to get their permits. Keeping exemptions to a minimum will help with that message. In response to Mr. Williams' question regarding a tree survey, Ms. Daughtridge read from the zoning ordinance which stated that groves of regulated trees that are not removed or disturbed, only need to be labeled on the map by quantity and species, and not individual specific data such as tree diameter. Ms. Daughtridge emphasized that the tree survey is only concerned with those trees that will be removed or disturbed. Chris O'Keefe stated that in the penalty section of the zoning ordinance there is currently no real enforcement mechanism to address clear cutting one acre from a multiple acre tract unless a tree survey is shown which delineates all substantial or regulated trees. Melissa Gott asked if there was a specific reason one acre was selected as the threshold exemption. Jane Daughtridge stated that a one acre threshold was selected to prevent the sediment and erosion permitting process from being bypassed since their threshold for needing a permit is one acre. People could get into trouble if they think they are exempt on two acres and find out later they needed Sedimentation & Erosion Control authorization. Melissa Gott expressed concern that the proposed amendment would prohibit land owners from removing regulated trees from their property. Ms. Gott asked staff to confirm that the penalty for removing trees without a permit ran with the land and not with the person who cut the trees. Chris O'Keefe stated that the intent of the amendment is to protect significant and regulated trees; however if an individual wanted to remove significant trees in conjunction with a development proposal, then they would need to indicate the trees on the plan and apply for a tree removal permit. Mr. O'Keefe added that a tree removal permit would not be relevant if there are no plans for development within three to five years. Jane DauRhtridRe confirmed that if trees were removed without a permit that a three year waiting period would be enacted on the land. Tyler Newman, representing Business Alliance for a Sound Economy and the Home Builders Association suggested increasing the residential threshold exemption to two acres given property right issues. Mr. Newman stated that it is important to get the word out to the public regarding this proposal and that his associations would continue to notify the community. Mr. Newman added that this proposal should not apply to current proposals or current landscaping regulations. Melissa Gott asked staff how the public would be notified of the proposed amendment. Chris O'Keefe stated that the community would be notified through several methods including: emails to the sunshine list; televised meetings; and the meeting agendas are advertised in the newspaper. Mr. O'Keefe asked if the Board thought additional notification measures were necessary. Jane DauRhtridRe stated that she thought that the newspaper was helpful at doing articles on these issues. Ms. Daughtridge added that if the Planning Board was inclined, they could recommend a two acre threshold for tree removal permitting instead of one acre. Andy Heath stated that the public notification could be narrowed to include specifically a professional audience such as timber cutters. Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the item. Information Item-Summary information introducing the newly developed Low Impact Development Manual and tools. Staff may request support from the Board for a resolution relating to the use of LID practices. Shawn Ralston provided an overview of the new Low Impact Development manual and tools. Ms. Ralston gave a powerpoint presentation which discussed the concept and benefits of low impact development. Ms. Ralston showed photos of local projects which had incorporated low impact development techniques to illustrate the various methods and benefits. Tyler Newman stated that the Low Impact Development Manual is a good, voluntary tool for builders wherever feasible. Mr. Newman stated that he enjoyed a positive experience working with the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, and the North Carolina Coastal Federation in the manual's development. Richard Collier stated that it is a good manual and good for the environment. Mr. Collier applauded Ms. Ralston's work and recommended that the Planning Board support it. Jay Williams asked if there were low impact development resources for single family use. Shawn Ralston suggested that individuals seeking to adopt low impact development principles contact the North Carolina Cooperative Extension and the New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District. Ms. Ralston stated that the Cooperative Extension has a cost share program available. Sue Hayes applauded Ms. Ralston for her work on the low impact development manual and asked what the Planning Board could do to support it. Ms. Hayes asked if a resolution was appropriate. Sue Hayes made a motion to send a resolution in support of the Low Impact Development manual forward to the County Commissioners. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 in favor of a resolution to support the Low Impact Development manual. Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of August. 1. Dexter Division - The TRC voted 5-0 to extend the project for one year with all original conditions and terms. 2. Marsh Landing Place Phase II - The TRC voted 5-0 to extend the project for one year with all original terms and conditions remaining the same. 3. Winds Harbor @ Middle Sound- The TRC voted 5-0 to approve the preliminary extension for one year. 4. Village at Motts Landing Phase I - The TRC voted 5-0 to deny the developer's request changing the road designation from public to private because of the road connectivity and required sidewalk to Bellamy school. 5. Palm Grove -The TRC voted 5-0 to approve the request to redesignate the roads from public to private but stated that the private roads would be for public use. A statement on the preliminary and final plats in additional to language in the homeowner covenants indicating such a designation for the buyer to be aware of the situation. 6. Middle Sound Landing -The TRC voted 5-0 to preliminarily reapprove Middle Sound Landing for all 6 lots based on the developer's petition and also due to the fact that no regulatory changes had taken place since original project approval. 7. Sunset Reach -The TRC voted 5-0 to continue the request to redesignate the roads from public to private due to the fact that he wanted the project to be a gated community and a problem with vandalism, giving the developer the option of providing a road stub east of the proposed gate or wait for NCDOT to issue a Basic Letter. Mr. Burgess stated that the Technical Review Committee will meet next on September 10, 2008. Sue Hayes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.