[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[7:57] Thank you. All
[8:02] right, so I'm going to call this meeting to order if we're all ready. It's 830, so we'll call it.
[8:13] Oh,
[8:16] I'd like to say all Lexington County committees are being broadcast live on Lexington County Spectrum Channel 1302 and Lexington County's website meeting portal. The committee meetings film today will be available for viewing anytime on demand at our county website.
[8:35] By the end of today,
[8:36] purposes meetings to review the land available manual in regards to the proposed text and ultimately make a recommendation to plan a commission.
[8:43] In Council's plan to retreat in March, concerns are raised about the impacts of new development areas surrounding Lake Murray.
[8:50] So as part of that discussion, Council asked staff to explore better focus planning efforts and provide additional
[8:56] additional protections that make the lake.
[9:00] So when response staff has drafted this proposal to provide additional protections for areas
[9:05] around Lake Murray with particular attention to the watersheds and drainage areas that
[9:09] flow into the lake.
[9:11] And so that's what we're reading on this yesterday.
[9:14] Changes were buffers.
[9:15] We're going to be increased by 40 percent.
[9:19] Identity curtains are going to be required for
[9:25] all those projects that were 25 acres or
[9:28] less to.
[9:29] Now,
[9:32] after-year-old stream protections. Right now, we got intermittent and perennial.
[9:39] I'll let you all discuss what we got in red. Red text is the change text. Black
[9:43] text is already in the Land Development Manual.
[9:49] I'm hoping everyone has had an opportunity to read those. I know David, you had some
[9:55] comments and maybe we could just start with whoever wanted to.
[10:00] Make some comments or open up, we'll just open up that discussion. Or actually, if I may, was I supposed to call out, is there any old business that we need to talk about? We're going to have anything on the agenda, but I don't know.
[10:17] Now we'll move into the discussion of this proposed ordinance, 2016.
[10:24] 16.
[10:31] As I said in an email but I wanted to present it here was that I believe the overall
[10:37] direction of the ordinance will provide stronger protection for Lake Murray. I did have some
[10:45] comments that I don't know if they would be considered over the next quarter and brought
[10:52] back, but I can go over those comments.
[10:58] I've
[11:02] proposed to define the act of the disturbance
[11:07] areas and final stabilization if it's not already, and if I've missed it in other portions,
[11:14] forgive me, but I added some language to define the disturbance, also prevent phasing from
[11:23] being used to bypass disturbance limits. Established watershed mapping procedures and forgive
[11:32] me if that's already in there. It might be. Add clear limits and approval criteria for
[11:40] the viewsheds. Add measurable standards for buffer mitigation and replacement plantings.
[11:47] to find what constitutes a development that immediately joins.
[11:54] Add specific protection measures for the ephemeral streams.
[11:59] Make enhanced PMP requirements measurable and objective.
[12:04] Add inspection and maintenance requirements for enhanced BMPs.
[12:09] Require written justification for approvals, waivers, and exceptions.
[12:12] provisions, add long-term maintenance and enforcement provisions, clarify that the
[12:19] more protective requirements govern if conflict exists, and add severability, language
[12:25] to protect the ordinance if a provision is challenged.
[12:29] So, what's the best way to submit the specific red lines that, um, considering?
[12:39] If you have specific red lines, we just need to walk through what those are.
[12:44] We have your comments, but yeah, what specifically need to change we can talk about and at some point if we in the discussion
[12:53] I guess we
[12:54] Got a recommend if if we all
[13:02] define changes that would you want us to take?
[13:06] Let's let's put a pin in your comments and get everyone else's comments and then wait we can
[13:10] Thank you.
[13:11] Thank you.
[13:17] Our recommendations are one.
[13:19] F needs to go back rework those in.
[13:22] Is that act to us or is it going to
[13:35] any adjustment to the writing?
[13:39] Right.
[13:40] It should
[13:43] and they would tell us if they want to change anything in the text based off of these recommendations.
[13:54] With that, Alan, I see you've got some markups.
[13:56] I may just call you out and say, why don't you go next?
[13:58] but first paragraph under section 3.7 where it defines the Lake Murray special protection area,
[14:10] it states that these design requirements shall specifically apply to still want to run off
[14:17] for all new development within 75 feet of the three.
[14:25] I'm reading that to me that means everything
[14:27] under that this zone, this section, limited to 75 foot of 3.61.
[14:35] And if the discharge is within.
[14:40] Correct.
[14:40] If it is discharging within 75 foot of 3.61,
[14:48] the additional text below goes into all of
[14:53] the water shed's listed,
[14:56] most of which.
[15:00] All of them, majority of those watersheds aren't with them.
[15:07] I read that as, typically, within 75 feet, you have those provisions, and then once you go into the watershed definition, or talked about, and everything below that would be additional. I would, I would think there would need to be some level of break. So a 3.7.2 should start the section about the watersheds. So that breaks it apart in the two separate
[15:32] special settings instead of the.
[15:35] Have the intention, they're Matt.
[15:48] So what you're probably circling back to David's exact word changes, but you recommend
[15:55] a 3.6.2 be right here at lower camping creep.
[15:59] Three, seven, two, yeah, that way it's creating two separate special section here.
[16:05] And a special specific, these specific design requirements are for the ones that discharge
[16:11] 75 feet and closer and then 3.7 point two is talking about all the things you do if you're in
[16:18] any of these watersheds.
[16:20] Because essentially if you're within 75 foot lake both will apply, but
[16:28] but if you're if you're right here
[16:32] 3000 feet away but you're in that watershed, these will apply, the water quality erosion prevention
[16:41] So there is a lot of language in this new section that is Lake Murray specific.
[16:47] That's what this is intended to protect.
[16:50] But I can't have one.
[16:53] One is governed by 75 feet the other.
[16:58] I
[17:02] know we've had a lot of discussion on the maximum disturbance.
[17:06] A bridge will have a lot of heartburn when we cap it without any chance to go
[17:14] above and beyond, whether it's further design, more requirements, more buffering.
[17:20] Just for an example, the Amazon facility over in Casey, that's a million square foot
[17:26] building.
[17:27] That's 23 acres, plus or minus, under a roof.
[17:31] But to say, a project can't disturb more than 25 at a time, that's
[17:46] sending the project
[17:46] through us, additional planning, additional engineering requirements, just a hard cap.
[17:53] With that,
[17:59] because when you limit it to 25 acres, it actually slows down the development
[18:03] process.
[18:03] You actually have more potential, four more run-off, so there needs to be some level of additional
[18:07] BNPs or engineering involved to follow the standard 50-acre maximum disturbance.
[18:13] You can have a size project, especially in these areas where you've got several creeks that
[18:17] kind of come together.
[18:18] you could have multiple discharge points in the project. It would make
[18:26] more sense to have it per
[18:29] discharge point, where if you've got a ridge in the middle and you limit 25 acres, well, you're
[18:35] limiting what you can do to protect the backside of a project.
[18:46] Where would that, well, we can circle
[18:49] to it, but I got you no hard cap as was one thing you're correct.
[19:01] If we're going to require an additional
[19:03] increase in buffers I'd be or a port of a we can say what that buffer is instead of saying it's
[19:13] 40% of something else to have to go hunt that down especially if we're talking about a potential
[19:18] code rewrite in general down the road maybe that chapter is not the same chapter in a code rewrite
[19:25] but the source all in one location for what this is from a design standpoint makes it a lot easier to
[19:32] So instead of saying something like watercolour buffers from chapter 7 will be increased
[19:42] 40%.
[19:43] Say it's a hundred and twenty feet.
[19:48] Question.
[19:49] There's no question about averaging and what if you need to change something later you're
[19:54] I'm trying to find it multiple places.
[20:03] And I almost feel like some of the turbidity curtain requirements are like Murray, that those need to be moved up into the 7.1 category where it's in like Murray specific within 75 feet. If you're not discharging within 75 feet, as
[20:23] this says, if you're immediately adjoining Lake Murray, so that would, that should be in the other section of me. We're adding things into the news section that should be applied to the first section.
[20:34] Unless
[20:43] this is unless
[20:48] this was intended for even if the discharge the actual discharge points or sale
[20:56] But the property adjoins like Murray
[21:01] because you have you still have like frontage
[21:04] So you wouldn't you wouldn't have to do these other things, but if you're joined like Murray
[21:08] There's your curtains around wherever yeah, we're okay, even if you're sheep flowing 100 feet
[21:17] That kind of what it was going for
[21:21] Look at me.
[21:22] All right.
[21:27] We're not doing it.
[21:28] That's right.
[21:29] And really, that's all I've got.
[21:30] No, we can't do that.
[21:31] I just, if that was the intention, and I don't necessarily disagree with that being out there
[21:39] as a requirement.
[21:42] Well, I've got, but I definitely would like to discuss some of the other comments.
[21:48] We're going to come back to David and just a minute.
[21:51] That's okay.
[21:57] I had like one comment that I got to kind of wrap my head around my own comment before
[22:04] I say it.
[22:04] So my biggest thing was about just about the hard cap on the 25 acres of disturbance.
[22:08] You know, it's got to be on a per project basis.
[22:11] There has to be some level of additional bonding or other requirements to be done to go
[22:15] up to that full 50 just to have a blanket statement of 25 acres in here.
[22:19] I don't think makes sense.
[22:20] We have, I mean, at some point when we, if we decide as a group that, yeah, we're going
[22:27] to make a motion, and these are the comments, we need to have that verbiage kind of settled.
[22:34] We can't be vague.
[22:35] I don't like this.
[22:36] We need a hard cap.
[22:37] We probably need to say, we recommend it says this.
[22:41] Right?
[22:42] Okay, so you think about that while we circle back to David, just a minute.
[22:51] My comments were about,
[22:56] on the view sheds, where it just said,
[22:59] link-mary view sheds for link-mary may be considered, provided mitigation plan is offset
[23:07] any tree rule. I don't know if we need to define that within this because it is awfully vague
[23:14] and subject to, if it's not defined somewhere, it's, hey, we want to make some view shots.
[23:21] Well, you got to do this. Well, how do I know what I'm supposed to do? Because it doesn't say.
[23:31] I would like something in there to be more quantitative. I don't
[23:43] think of some verbiage for that.
[23:56] It's just a point of start, you know, and then if it seems unreasonable, just, so I would say a Lake Murray View Shed corridor may be approved only by the county engineer does the upon writing written findings at the corridor is the minimum necessary and will not cause any changes.
[24:17] a net reduction and buffer function of U-shed cord or shall not exceed 30 feet in width or 20% of the parcel shoreline frontage
[24:25] Whichever is less clear cutting is prohibited
[24:29] Selective pruning and removal of understory vegetation shall be minimized and
[24:33] Healthy native canopy trees shall be retained except where removal specifically approved
[24:39] Just a point of start when
[24:44] is you I have a lot of words it is
[24:47] One issue I have with that is giving the sole discretion to just the county engineer.
[24:52] I think it's kind of an arbitrary point to give all that decision to one sole person.
[24:56] So maybe there needs to come in front of this committee or additional-
[25:00] Local staff, but to have additional people weigh in on that decision, I think, goes a long way. Give them a way or it goes court.
[25:13] It seems reasonable. There's no way to say one-to-one mitigation or be specific upfront so you knew without even talking to the engineer and the engineer doesn't get.
[25:21] We're
[25:31] on the subject, Vance pretty much heads up the re-vegetation of buffers or telling us what it's exactly to do with the buffers and coordination with the LALDM. He can give an example or two.
[25:45] Vance Phomer, environmental coordinator, typically what has been done before is
[25:52] We use the landscape ordinance in their buffer section and we work closely with the landscape
[25:58] administrator based on the ordinance that's already written in the landscape and it gets
[26:05] re-vegetated based on what's already existing and using native plant material.
[26:14] In the land development manual, there is a section that calls out what has to be done for
[26:20] for re-vegetation. But to your point, what we could do is take the buffer language from
[26:27] the landscape ordinance and specifically drop that in to the land development manual,
[26:32] rather than two ordinances pointing at each other. We could actually have the specifics
[26:38] into the LDM, if that would be helpful. Typically, the way view sheet is handled is staff
[26:46] goes out and assesses what's currently on the ground with approval. And we have a list
[26:55] of requirements where it's done by hand clearing. There's no mechanical other than hand tools
[27:02] in the buffer. We don't allow stump grinding down in the buffer.
[27:09] Under two inches caliper
[27:10] vegetation can be removed with approval and then if there's diseased invasives
[27:18] those can be removed as well.
[27:23] And then we'll write and then based on the
[27:28] landscape standards there's an ANSI standard 300 that governs all landscape and
[27:34] tree pruning, and that's set by the International Society of Arboculture.
[27:40] Based on that, we allow limping up to approximately 10 to 12 feet depending on the species and
[27:47] the size of the tree, and then those buffers are monitored throughout the development.
[27:54] And then as far as re-vegetation, the land development manual calls out already that there's a two-year
[28:02] Revegitation requirement where those plant material has to be provided adequate water, mulching,
[28:09] and stabilization through that two-year inspection cycle.
[28:13] That's how it's currently being handled.
[28:18] That at least will give you what you can and can't do without.
[28:22] And it puts it back in.
[28:34] We would still consult with the landscape administrator.
[28:36] That's their area of expertise, but we could drop some of those sections into the land of element manual
[28:42] if you wish.
[28:48] I don't like that idea y'all, or without. Makes it measurable. That's the point.
[28:54] Is there any conflict with Dominion and EG on this? Below 360 it would, which I have to follow
[29:03] their rules.
[29:08] Something that I've mentioned, protection of the femoral streams, those aren't protected
[29:13] streams.
[29:17] There's essentially erosion features when it storms that washes out
[29:22] that's the only time it carries any water.
[29:26] The protection of those,
[29:30] how are we
[29:31] going to protect those when they're not protected? Where is that? I apologize.
[29:36] Where is that? So I'm looking at the right spot. I'll see if they're
[29:39] Here we go. Sorry. Yeah. Right here. Because they're not a general protected linear feature
[29:51] Army Corps would not define them.
[29:56] Who's defining them?
[30:02] Senator Records.
[30:03] And intermittent stream shane on N-W-I, and it was analyzing my biologists.
[30:11] It would be a
[30:19] point of it's just to define ditch.
[30:23] Contours.
[30:24] I
[30:36] had protections for the
[30:42] logistics.
[30:46] We're looking at a site we're just re-grading the ditch out.
[30:48] It's not protecting
[30:55] somewhere where we got to get straight out.
[30:58] out by the code.
[31:06] In your, in your comment, are you saying that that entire sentence needs
[31:10] to get out of there? Or there, it either needs to come out,
[31:18] setting what,
[31:24] defining what
[31:25] the Admiral,
[31:29] you're sending the streams to the Corps to approve.
[31:37] They may not be looking
[31:38] at what off of them, so it's not defined.
[31:46] Yeah, it could be the whoever the wetlands consultant
[31:48] is or the wetlands specific person that identifies features anyway could be based off their
[31:55] decision like I said before if it was a dotted pink line on our GIS, oh there's a string that's
[32:00] intermittent and like no it's not that's immoral so in that case but if it's not shown anywhere
[32:07] on the maps or in the wetlands inventory that
[32:14] one might be a way that captures everything.
[32:19] So if it's dotted on the map, you need to justify that it's not a wetless, wetland specialist
[32:26] scientist.
[32:28] Okay.
[32:28] I would say this will just define the guidance of who's deciding that it's right now from
[32:34] real stream.
[32:35] I don't think that would be if it if it is not even that from real stream, then it just
[32:39] has to protect it.
[32:40] It's just an eroded side of a embankment.
[32:44] It'd be better to fix it than it would be to protect it.
[32:46] But we're just looking to add in as
[32:52] you're to ensure okay, is it a neural or is it a femoral?
[32:56] I've called it a femoral for for all of our tomato tomato. All right, whatever to ensure those streams are protected
[33:04] Femoral streams in parentheses as defined by
[33:08] Wetlands consultant or something like that and then everything else stays right and you're happy
[33:14] Yeah, so would everyone else be happy with that? Yeah, I suggested an engineer record
[33:20] Engineers don't do that. I'm going to turn it over to look.
[33:23] Well, let's consult them. Yeah, yeah.
[33:27] Which, that's where you get this information anyway.
[33:29] So I'm fine with that.
[33:31] I just don't want to say if it's a dotted pink line on a map that get put together 50 years ago.
[33:38] That may not be enough.
[33:59] I think the other thing was the definition of adjoining.
[34:05] What is the definition and where do we go for that?
[34:09] I think the word has a definition, means it's touching.
[34:13] What's touching?
[34:16] This sounds like touching.
[34:20] I could say my words and maybe you guys can critique it.
[34:28] So I would say for this requirement of development immediately,
[34:31] Immediately, a joins Lake Murray when the development parcel shares a boundary with the Dominion project boundary line
[34:38] Or when land disturbance occurs within 200 feet of the 360
[34:43] And drains through a direct or constructed hydraulic connection to Lake Murray
[35:01] That's what you want. I can put that in the recommendation. I was just seeing what your thoughts are. I mean, to me, a joint defines what it is, but we need a bunch of extra words.
[35:15] Ajoining, meaning the property literally touches, but literally, it joins it. I
[35:25] mean, your, your, your, in my opinion, your definition is the same, but I don't know that we need all those words to.
[35:35] I guess there's some differentiation. I'm just not for say it was in two hundred foot of Lake Murray is defining a joining
[35:43] No, I'm just a project that buts it right and has land disturbance within two hundred feet
[35:48] But that's the right turbidity curtains. She'll be required for any development, which immediately adjoins Lake Murray
[35:55] We
[35:56] Applying it there to so even though you don't own lake frontage. You've got to go in the lake and add turbidity curtains
[36:02] If
[36:06] you have a frontage, you don't have any place to do that.
[36:12] So with the intent of adjoining is that the property literally touches the lake, your
[36:20] owning lake front.
[36:23] Do we set like a minimum threshold of a distance of adjoinment?
[36:27] You know, if a parcel boundary is just a corner touching the, it's going to have a weird
[36:32] looking turbidity curtain in it.
[36:33] Yeah, so I mean, should we say a minimum of a 50 foot of a shared property line or a hundred foot
[36:39] some sort of
[36:40] And that would probably give you a better definition of a joining
[36:46] Yeah, just think about it. I mean, I mean, was there any thought on something like that? We're I mean, I don't know how many projects end up doing
[36:57] We're like Grayson said, you know, we're it in a joint
[37:03] Three foot of frontage
[37:05] How do we handle the British current kind of situation?
[37:15] He'd go out and come back and be like, it wouldn't, it pretty good and doesn't do
[37:20] us any good.
[37:21] Yeah, different.
[37:23] I can't, either.
[37:23] I don't think I can just will and will he go put it in the code and touch this guy's property
[37:28] and this guy's property.
[37:30] I property into it.
[37:31] So if you had a property that was 10 feet off the lake, didn't join for
[37:39] for what we're talking about, a joining being, but yet it has a hydraulic conduit to the
[37:47] lake.
[37:48] Don't need turbidity curtains there?
[37:51] You got no grounds or ability to put a turbidity curtain in.
[37:55] You can't box somebody else in.
[37:58] Putting up a wall, you're blocking someone else's access to the lake water that they have.
[38:06] I believe.
[38:07] It wouldn't be able to use their dock, whatever they, they wouldn't be able to use their
[38:16] I'm thinking of properties that are just off the lake
[38:22] access to it, you don't own it.
[38:27] If I'm talking about within the property, turbidity curtains, you've got to say a drainage
[38:34] soil that's within the property, but yet you're not adjoining or you're not going to get it.
[38:40] There are BMPs to use, but the turbidity curtain would not be the right.
[38:44] You've got a swell that's heading off your property through an area that's not your
[38:51] property to the back.
[38:52] But a swell to me means that there's water moving through that.
[38:59] Ability curtain is more for standing water.
[39:03] Like it's more, it's floating in the lake.
[39:06] It has no current essentially flowing through it.
[39:11] so any of the turbidity would have to go down low enough and go under the curtain and then it's
[39:18] so close to the bottom of the leg the idea is it just settles out there so if you're in a if you've
[39:24] got a swale or a creek or a channel that's flowing water and if it's not flowing your below the 360 would
[39:39] apply then you'd have like for us I don't
[39:46] know yeah I'll concede then I
[39:51] guess
[39:51] this is the LDM still standard to be the again this is the LDM still change
[39:56] to stand true we've got to be the curtains shall be deployed with them
[40:00] In the joining and receiving bodies of water, we're feasible to further protect receiving areas of discoloration in terms of water.
[40:43] It would go as far as, you know, below the 360 is not usually properly owned.
[40:50] A conveyance. Jumping into a streamer creek of somebody else's.
[40:56] Then you get an L project boundary line after that line, it becomes dominions.
[41:07] Let's do your...
[41:09] Tracking.
[41:11] I mean, you can't put your pretty curtains in.
[41:15] No, no, no, no.
[41:16] And you can't block some ice access to their dog.
[41:18] It
[41:34] would depend what kind of a creek it is.
[41:35] If it's a protected creek, you're going to go in and be set in a burnt, wetland ditch.
[41:42] have to do something along the upper, along
[41:48] the top of the bank, like that stream.
[41:51] So it wouldn't be a curtain, but-
[41:53] Which is already in the LDM, you know?
[41:55] Right.
[41:55] That's what I'm saying.
[41:56] So additional BMPs, that's not forcing turbidity curtains, that just means you got to do
[42:01] double row silthons.
[42:08] That's whom function doesn't work on you, I mean, if it's okay, yeah, thank you.
[42:15] I have my contacts in, I promise.
[42:17] All right,
[42:21] to leave a joins as it is, okay, just leave it as it is.
[42:26] Yes, for now.
[42:28] Yes.
[42:39] For the justification and approval, do we have adequately
[42:49] determined as far as approval
[42:52] standards?
[42:53] So I propose that any approval waiver equivalency, determination, a v-set allowance, buffer mitigation
[43:01] plan or alternative BMP authorized by the sections shall be made in writing by the county engineer does in the and shall include findings addressing the applicable measure measurable criteria approval shall not be based solely on the professional judgment of the applicant's engineer record.
[43:18] We already have protections for that.
[43:23] Which of your comments is this stemming from?
[43:25] For approval, making sure that we've got number 10, require written justification for
[43:35] approvals, waivers and exceptions.
[43:44] We still have a good process for these approvals.
[43:49] It becomes a question of journal set of plans.
[43:54] The proposal was usually shown, and if it's shown to be, or the request comes in, the
[44:00] ask of, you know, we needed a killer of you shed for a warehouse over what do you call
[44:08] us? First house? Model home. Um, then usually they, the folks could come consult with us
[44:16] and we found a happy medium as Vance talked about to base off the land escape warnings.
[44:22] They saw the, uh, uh, if approval isn't, I guess, um, standardize such as that, but it's,
[44:30] It's um, we'll say negotiated what is, is, is talked about.
[44:36] It's by case basis.
[44:38] Outside of what the LDM says.
[44:40] Yeah.
[44:41] Which is in the LDM.
[44:42] The exceptions which forces it to get her back through us.
[44:46] Yeah.
[44:46] For that kind of variance.
[44:48] Which is in the LDM currently.
[44:50] Okay.
[44:51] Yeah.
[44:52] As I said, starting off, some of these might already been there,
[44:55] but I don't, I didn't read everything.
[44:57] Thanks.
[44:58] Okay.
[45:01] I'm making a quantifiable as Vant said. We'll use the landscape ordinance language on on when it went is in relation to a few sheds and buffers. Buffers, yes.
[45:16] Okay, and I don't think. I've got I've got that one right noted down. I don't have the exact language, but I have that one noted. What was the language here in the middle?
[45:29] Yeah, I think most of my other comments have been addressed.
[45:32] Okay.
[45:36] Are you good down there?
[45:37] Good.
[45:41] I'm really loud.
[45:46] I'm going to read out what the, the ones I have written down and then we can kind of
[45:53] muscle through them and add because I may have missed one.
[45:57] So here's the four topics of changes recommendations we're going to, we're thinking of sending.
[46:06] adding a 3.7.2 at the beginning of the watershed discussion.
[46:14] View sheds that they'd refer to
[46:16] the landscape ordinance. That's not the language we need. That's the topic. Disturbance acreage,
[46:25] the cap would, I don't know what the language needs to be there, but we're going to talk about that.
[46:31] And ephemeral stream, where it mentions the ephemeral stream, we're going to have some
[46:39] language that says as defined by wetland scientists.
[46:41] I
[46:43] feel like I missed one.
[46:45] I had another dot right there, and I did.
[46:47] Did the dictated what 4% buffer increase means?
[46:54] Yes, that we were going to ask that the buffer widths be specifically stated.
[47:00] that
[47:05] is, where is that? Right. It's in 3.7.2-1, or our proposed 3.7.2-1,
[47:16] buffer widths, clearly, aided.
[47:25] What else you got in your notes there, Matt?
[47:37] So I've at least got the topics right. We need to make an attempt at the language
[47:45] for each of these, and then we can make a motion and edit.
[47:50] that. First one's easy. That one's good. Yes. The first one will be we recommend that
[47:58] we add 3.7.2 at the water such section. That's easy.
[48:04] For the view sheds,
[48:09] apologize.
[48:12] That's provided mitigation plan approved.
[48:19] Did we hear
[48:22] a section of the landscape ordinance
[48:27] that we can just cite?
[48:32] You mentioned maybe inserting it or would you pull it, just refer
[48:39] to the landscape board. We can do either. I feel like you all were saying that you
[48:45] wanted the language incorporated from the landscape and dropped in. I think I
[48:51] guess my perspective was if it's something as simple as setting a buffer with
[48:55] yes have it here don't maybe go hunt that but if it's going that code is defined
[49:01] over there a much larger than just saying it's 50 foot I think that lives and
[49:08] breads in the landscape code is because one's a number that's easily placed here.
[49:13] Right. The other is this much document that doesn't need to be replicated.
[49:17] Correct. I don't disagree with that. Yeah. Um, so we could refer to it. And instead of
[49:23] this, um, what I'm thinking is instead of the view sheds for Lake Murray may be considered
[49:28] provided blah, blah, blah. We could have something view sheds for like Murray may be considered
[49:36] an alignment with the landscape code.
[49:39] The landscape code.
[49:43] Is that okay?
[49:44] Something like that?
[49:45] Does that make
[49:47] no where the number is?
[49:53] So one question about the view says, don't want to reinvent the wheel but the intent of that is to go be able to see the lake and access.
[50:00] the lake, right? But a lot of the landscape ordinance is about re-vegetating the buffer with high
[50:05] density of plants. So at a certain point, they're going to counteract each other. You're
[50:09] going to cut a view shed. But then if I have to replant it, the buffer ordinance is very
[50:16] restrictive on the type of plants and the density of plants. So essentially you're cutting down
[50:21] a view shed just to replant a blockage. I do fear that just referencing the landscaping
[50:28] code. I'm going to be doing going in circles. Well that's why we're talking about it, but
[50:35] let
[50:42] them everything up so I can see through it and cut down dead vegetation or whatever or
[50:47] possibly remove a couple of trees to have to put more trees back that are going to grow up and
[50:52] block that view. That doesn't make sense.
[50:58] It complicates it a little bit though.
[51:01] Something in the landscape code.
[51:05] I know it does for being under power lines. You've got to have
[51:08] of minor trees, lower canopy trees under power lines,
[51:13] is there something in there for a view sheet,
[51:16] I've application where it shrubs and under,
[51:19] it doesn't reestablish a new higher view obstruction.
[51:25] I think what would happen is if there was an encroachment
[51:29] into the buffer,
[51:32] have a higher density planting.
[51:35] If the developer came to the county and said,
[51:39] I would like to create a view shit.
[51:43] That's where you would have more of your canopy and your understory trees
[51:46] With the less of the the shrubs, you know, typically the canopies can be higher. You can see down through that
[51:53] Now if someone were to encroach into a water quality buffer go
[51:59] outside the limits of disturbance
[52:01] your denser
[52:03] vegetation, but we wouldn't use
[52:07] The understory for the view blockage we would do canopy
[52:13] Even the canopy trees will take 10 years to reach up.
[52:16] A height, that.
[52:17] There actually doesn't block your view.
[52:19] You were trying to get in first place.
[52:21] Is there any sort of like language we could come up with,
[52:24] maybe like a buffer averaging?
[52:26] So you know, let's say it's a 100 foot long buffer
[52:29] just to make the numbers easy.
[52:31] I'm going to do a 30 foot view shed.
[52:33] But in these other areas, that buffer maybe goes up
[52:35] to 125 feet in width.
[52:41] I'll give you access to the lake, give you clarity,
[52:43] to give you view of the lake, but still adhering to an additional buffer requirement.
[52:58] Design and neighborhoods, and you have a buffer for wetlands, you can average that buffer
[53:02] down in certain areas and increase it in other areas.
[53:05] So kind of following that similar process of trimming down the buffer in the area that you
[53:10] want to have the view shed in the access and increasing it in other areas along the lake.
[53:19] I would suspect that you'd want a
[53:26] subdivision or any development with lake frontage.
[53:30] I don't want to increase buffer anywhere along the lake.
[53:33] I want to be able to see the lake.
[53:34] The whole reason we're there is to see the lake.
[53:38] So to be able to clean up what's there so you can see,
[53:43] mostly through it, is the objective without, to your point,
[53:47] without replanting things that just block what we just cleared up.
[53:51] I was thinking that we had that ability within not replanting.
[54:01] A bunch of view blockage.
[54:02] But where do you find that balance between, I'm just going to clear out all the trees, which, I mean,
[54:10] the minion already has some control over that because they're going to like, what was the thing that you can't, you can't, the button bushes or whatever, you can't take them out anyway.
[54:20] But
[54:24] I don't know what that language or what could be a fair compromise here.
[54:29] I would say, is the goal, okay, let's say we have a property that you've got housing
[54:41] in certain section and you've got other areas that wouldn't be appropriate for the housing.
[54:47] Those areas, you would end up leaving a lot of the buffer, but then you might have clear
[54:54] where there's all the houses, is there a way that it could be stated so that...
[55:00] We're still, we still have sections of view for the property, so that it's not just, well, we're just going to use this as a buffer. It's land that we couldn't have used anyway for housing, but it might take away from the overall water quality of like Murray. It'd be better to have integral vegetation rather than clear. And then just separate areas that.
[55:29] the current is usable, qualifying for the buffer area.
[55:35] Does that make sense?
[55:38] Don't know how to, right though?
[55:39] Yeah, I guess my biggest hang up on it right now
[55:41] is we're gonna reference the landscape ordinance.
[55:44] Again, you're gonna, whatever you take down,
[55:46] whether it's usable or unusable, you gotta replant.
[55:53] There's not really a viewshed, it's just,
[55:55] you're like, it'd be like a standard buffer.
[55:57] Contractors got the view while they were constructing it.
[56:00] Right.
[56:01] Homeowner detonated.
[56:07] It's a water quality buffer. It protects water quality and you do that by stopping erosion
[56:12] with root systems and having no chemicals or equipment down in the buffer. That's what
[56:19] that's how you protect water quality.
[56:22] Happened with,
[56:26] and again, every property is different. If you've got a slip going up
[56:31] away from the shoreline, a dead that is 10 foot and under may not be applicable to your
[56:38] house because you're sitting up on a hill. So, not every property is going to benefit
[56:42] by cutting out the understory. It's the next mid zone that they would be interested in.
[56:49] They don't get the benefit of that here, but is there something that we can replant or
[56:55] It passes the low shrubs, the forefoot and under that you use that could be done of
[57:09] understory trees.
[57:13] I think by allowing the landscape administrator to have that flexibility, I would say that
[57:21] that would be beneficial, start to define every square foot and what is going to happen
[57:32] in that buffer. Now you have to take into consideration into your table. Now you have
[57:38] to define topography and slope. And by giving the landscape administrator the flexibility,
[57:45] we've seen it work. Well,
[57:49] the standard re-vegetation is more of when you have,
[57:56] I mean, let's just call it what it is, a penalty.
[58:00] Rector goes into the outside lens limits of disturbance, whether they read the plans or not,
[58:07] that standard re-vegetation.
[58:10] But the landscape that you administer or even that scenario still has the flexibility to use the plant material that's appropriate for the site conditions.
[58:19] to your point where you're talking about getting a view from a second story
[58:24] floor master. In that case you would want the Native grasses and the
[58:30] understory that would top out at 12 feet to be your re-vegetation, and by
[58:37] giving the landscape administrator that flexibility, I think that's what you want.
[58:42] Well,
[58:44] it's written now gives Landscaper that flexibility without any other than the width
[58:52] asking for the width to be specific, or as the refer to Landscaped ordinance, we don't
[58:56] need, we wouldn't necessarily, if we're going along with a grain of thought.
[59:04] What
[59:06] do you think makes sense, whereas is this shall include, but not limited, can it include?
[59:18] We can ask for anything, doesn't it?
[59:20] I'm trying to, the first sentence, two sentences there, talk about one thing, and then
[59:29] view sheds are in that paragraph, it's all kind of look together, are we saying view
[59:37] sheds are part of water quality or should there be a two there?
[59:41] That's part of water quality.
[59:45] Retaining.
[59:46] Retaining.
[59:46] Should view sheds be its own number?
[59:48] Should it be two or move below two and be three or is it or should it be lumped into the water
[59:54] coil?
[59:55] The thing when there are view sheds being used, you must follow these water quality.
[1:00:03] I'm sorry. Now I'm rereading this after discussion. I'm continuing just confusing me. Stop it. Well, we did, we did state before that when I talked about how they were approved, how the view sheds were approved. I had suggested county engineer and everyone else kind of wanted to have additional decision makers. So what are we saying here? Are we?
[1:00:31] Is the view said just one person's decision or not?
[1:00:39] Probably needs specifically say landscape administrator in here but it would go to the
[1:00:43] landscape administrator if I'm hearing the advance correct.
[1:00:46] Or
[1:00:49] is it design so the LDM is written in a way that can be approved by the county engineer
[1:00:55] public works or their designees. So in that way you encompass all the LDM and
[1:01:03] all the public works and the community development staff when you're that
[1:01:08] protects the somebody's out. I review something Robbie stamps it reference one
[1:01:18] person I think that takes away the flexibility for staff but
[1:01:25] you can still
[1:01:25] reference an ordinance for guidance. It would be standard their decision or their
[1:01:32] or appointee or designated?
[1:01:40] Then, is there a recommendation to change any of the language
[1:01:46] in this little bit of the view sheds or is there not?
[1:01:53] After circling back through it a few times.
[1:01:56] At one point we wanted it to reference the landscape ordinance,
[1:01:59] but now it kind of, it already has
[1:02:03] talking about Grayson's point on a site by site.
[1:02:12] I have
[1:02:19] discussions on what kind of plantings actually need to go back in there.
[1:02:23] That's sort of all.
[1:02:24] I think you need to have detailed in a view shed area, here's the types of plantings
[1:02:29] and the density requirements for that area.
[1:02:33] So you would want that spelled out in here and not discretion at.
[1:02:38] Because it's a different as you submit, because even if I ask you, you would have to submit
[1:02:42] with justification on why you want these sort of plants here.
[1:02:48] Right.
[1:02:48] Like, let's say I'm doing a master plan and this is where my amenity center is going.
[1:02:52] Here's where I want to have the nice green space and to have people view corridor.
[1:02:57] Have access and to have you.
[1:02:58] Here's my mitigation plan.
[1:03:00] Yeah, it should be, I'm clearing 50 foot wide view shed and here's the mitigation that
[1:03:05] I'm required.
[1:03:06] Here's the trees I'm removing and here's my replanting schedule.
[1:03:09] but not forced them to actually go replant that 50-foot view corridor with
[1:03:14] understory or canopy trees whether it's native grasses I think that would
[1:03:19] satisfy it that would prevent erosion that would prevent it wouldn't be
[1:03:23] raw dirt you know just come up with a plan on a per per project basis I would
[1:03:30] language so does languages here cover that or you want additional language you
[1:03:35] want to recommend additional language not not that planning commission is
[1:03:39] going to listen, you know, necessarily follow what we say, but if there's additional language
[1:03:45] like to hear it, so that way I can just write it down right here and then we can...
[1:03:56] I mean, I guess it does say you said it may be considered provided a mitigation plan
[1:04:01] is submitted and approved,
[1:04:07] still leaves a lot up to, like, as the one that wants to do it,
[1:04:12] I really don't know what I have to do about what this...
[1:04:15] This doesn't tell me what I have to do to get approval, so it's not very measurable.
[1:04:19] Correct.
[1:04:19] And that's the part of the ball is, Matt, just don't have to make it measurable in this
[1:04:23] document because everything's so different every time, right, or it can be so different
[1:04:28] every time.
[1:04:30] For the amenity center, ones for lots five through six, or five through ten, yeah, those are
[1:04:35] completely different situations, and depending on typo, it's completely different, see?
[1:04:40] I don't know.
[1:04:41] Yeah, you can spell it out, so it...
[1:04:46] So again should you should be on their own point and then we say a view shed around Lake Murray should be
[1:04:51] 50 foot and width and then you can go
[1:04:53] That's kind of going back to where I was talking about doing a buffer averaging
[1:04:56] You're able to go down to a reduced width if you have a
[1:05:00] Replanting schedule of XYZ, you know, and come up with some sort of measurable, quantitative value for that.
[1:05:12] I don't think we're going to get it in this meeting, unfortunately. Well, maybe our recommendation could be looser than that,
[1:05:21] as far as not being specific on the language. Just recommend a planning commission on this.
[1:05:31] I'm not going to say we're not smart enough, but it's more complicated than just a couple of sentences from us to digest.
[1:05:39] And yeah, after circling through this a couple of times, I think it can be its own.
[1:05:50] The
[1:05:57] recommendation to make it its own section with measurable.
[1:06:07] It's going to onboard the without measurable measurable what I'm sorry, he said it right.
[1:06:16] Because if it's measurable then it doesn't put as much on us on the approver.
[1:06:21] If it's less measurable, we might want to have it looked at by more than one person, so one person's not
[1:06:26] It slows things out and as a developer. I don't know what I'm without going through that approval process and spending the money to have everyone
[1:06:33] I don't know what I'm gonna have to do. I don't have any clue.
[1:06:38] Okay
[1:06:39] Language on the disturbance a great acreage
[1:06:43] My opinion on it's just I don't know why we were doing anything different than what our previous provision was on the acreage stuff
[1:06:50] While honestly just taking those first two sentences out
[1:06:54] You got your 25 acres
[1:06:57] 25 to 50 we've already done the brain surgery on what it takes to get what you have to do to get above the acreage
[1:07:03] Was it even brought back up cuz I'm taking those two out in my opinion and it's already referenced in the L.D.M
[1:07:09] On the life of Asian said I mean you got your zero to 25 25 to 15 anything above that goes to hear what council whatever it is
[1:07:16] But yeah, is
[1:07:21] there an issue with the second
[1:07:22] sentence though with the phasing what's what is the particular issue with the phasing plan we're
[1:07:27] talking about water quality that's that's also covered in the okay in the LDM on okay when you
[1:07:34] want to go however you want to disturb your site that's already covered so I don't disagree that
[1:07:42] this is I mean I think they were trying to be more restrictive but I don't there's
[1:07:52] I don't agree with that should be there.
[1:07:54] Have additional BMPs you have to do to justify anything above that anyway.
[1:08:00] I mean, agreed because
[1:08:05] Batesburg leads well over here does another industrial part because that watershed goes that far.
[1:08:10] You're saying you can't do over 20.
[1:08:12] That far from the late looking for one.
[1:08:15] That doesn't, that doesn't.
[1:08:17] I don't agree, right.
[1:08:18] I'm agreeing with you saying that I don't agree with that.
[1:08:22] So first two sentences under water quality, we'd recommend they were just removed.
[1:08:28] But
[1:08:32] this is something about analysis points or just drainage points.
[1:08:38] Yep, they thought that or just get rid of it.
[1:08:41] If we're taking that out and we go back to the language that we've already done with previous
[1:08:45] changes, I think it takes care of that.
[1:08:48] But to say it's 25 acres of disturbance, well, I'm discharging this way, and then I've
[1:08:56] got a large enough site where I'm around the end of the cove, and I've got a discharge
[1:09:00] completely over there that has nothing to do with that discharge, different
[1:09:07] water sheds
[1:09:09] that flood separately.
[1:09:11] So either say 25 acres disturbance to a discharge point.
[1:09:16] Now, if you've got a wide open frontage, your whole frontage may be one discharge.
[1:09:21] But again, if you've got multiple creeks that are leaving a several hundred acre site,
[1:09:27] it would apply, protect that discharge point, protect that discharge point,
[1:09:35] but I still
[1:09:36] think if we strike those two sentences, I think there's enough leeway in what we've got
[1:09:40] already in the revisions, the developer can go through that process to make that work.
[1:09:46] And that I
[1:09:49] don't see recreating so our recommendation
[1:09:54] I'm getting this our recommendation on that would be that
[1:10:00] After water quality, the first two sentences are removed because, and we can say because, not saying it right, because land disturbance limits have already been discussed and reviewed at nauseam. We won't say not. In other sections of the L.D.M. Our
[1:10:25] recommendation could say something like that, correct?
[1:10:30] General streams, as defined by wetland scientists. Oh, we're going to change on that part. Down there, you got to go.
[1:10:38] We'll have, we're
[1:10:43] almost there, we're almost there, and that the buffer widths were clearly
[1:10:47] stated.
[1:10:47] That's easy enough.
[1:10:51] Okay, so now, now I've got to figure out how to get that into a motion, right?
[1:11:06] That's the scary part, because everyone's going to look at me when they need it.
[1:11:13] You want me to say, I'll go through what I think we've got, and then someone can say the
[1:11:20] moved or something to that effect.
[1:11:23] Okay, so what our recommendation to the planning commission on these changes would be
[1:11:30] I have five points.
[1:11:31] Number one, that we would like to add 3.7.2 at the beginning of the water set section,
[1:11:42] under the water quality section of that same section, sorry.
[1:11:48] We would like the View Sheds portion to be made its own section and to work through some
[1:11:59] measurable requirements for
[1:12:02] getting the View Sheds permission allowance.
[1:12:05] On the disturbed acreage, we would write after water quality in the same section we were just
[1:12:14] talking about. We would recommend removing the first two sentences because the land development
[1:12:21] manual already has the maximum disturbance limits and the exceptions to it.
[1:12:32] Further down
[1:12:32] the page we have where it mentions ephemeral streams. We'd like to in parentheses behind
[1:12:40] that put as defined by wetland scientist and the last recommendation is that our buffer
[1:12:48] widths are clearly the actual widths are clearly stated in this document.
[1:13:00] Can I get a motion
[1:13:00] on those recommendations?
[1:13:03] Question that we approve those.
[1:13:05] All
[1:13:11] right. Any further discussion on this?
[1:13:16] So we'll have a vote. Everyone that says yes,
[1:13:19] Yes.
[1:13:20] Do we raise, right?
[1:13:21] Do we say aye?
[1:13:22] I forgot what we do on this one.
[1:13:24] We'll just say aye.
[1:13:27] If you agree.
[1:13:28] Aye.
[1:13:29] Aye.
[1:13:30] Aye.
[1:13:31] That was everyone, so we don't have any mays.
[1:13:36] Animusly approved.
[1:13:37] So the whole purpose of this was to make sure we have special protections on the late marine
[1:13:43] watersheds to fill out we have accomplished that.
[1:13:49] Yeah.
[1:13:49] So then, would
[1:13:53] there any other comments from staff that
[1:14:02] next meeting day we meet as needed?
[1:14:04] So Matt will let us know and I'll try to give us some heads up.
[1:14:08] Like we did last time I think that worked out well.
[1:14:10] We got a good showing.
[1:14:12] Appreciate everyone being here.
[1:14:14] If I can get a move, move a motion to adjourn.
[1:14:17] Second.
[1:14:20] Ah, we're adjourned. Thank you.