Members Present: Dwight Pearson (Chair), Stan Norwalk (Vice-Chair), Robin Hammond, Phil Hinton, Phyllis Rush Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Jennings (Planning Director), Stephen Sizemore (Planning)
Mr. Norwalk called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m., noting its purpose of discussing OA 00/6 (Regulation of Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps in Residential-40 Watershed Zoning Districts) and discuss addition of 500-year floodplain delineation information to subdivision plat requirements, and noting that the Committee will meet jointly with the Subdivision Committee at 3:00 p.m. to discuss cul-de-sac length limits.
OA 00/7 (Regulation of Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps in Residential-40 Watershed Zoning Districts)
Mr. Norwalk invited persons in the audience to comment on the issue.
John Grace, representing the Watershed Protection Council, noted that a memorandum from the Council recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance D had been distributed to Planning Board members, and said he would be available to answer any questions.
Mr. Norwalk summarized the issues and staff recommendation.
[Mr. Pearson arrived.]
Ms. Rush noted the benzene report submitted to the Board and her receipt of e-mail messages supporting the proposed ban on gas stations.
Mr. Norwalk, noting his career as a chemical engineer, explained why he believes gas stations should be banned in waters supply watersheds. Benzene is one of the most hazardous chemicals on the market. Chemical storage facilities - which is essentially what a gas station is - shouldn't be allowed in water supply watersheds. Despite improved design, underground tanks will eventually leak, and even a small leak can adversely impact water quality. There are no guarantees that a leak can be detected. Once a leak is detected, it is difficult to reverse its impacts via remediation. The public health risks of a leak occurring and threatening public water supply sources outweighs any adverse impacts on the property values of a gas station site or neighboring residents' reduced opportunity to have a gas station near their homes.
[Ms. Hammond arrived.]
In response to Mr. Pearson's question about how to deal with existing gas stations in water supply watersheds, Mr. Sizemore pointed out that they would become nonconforming uses, which under Wake County regulations are allowed to continue but may not be expanded or resumed once ceased. He noted that the nonconforming use regulations of some jurisdictions have amortization provisions requiring the cessation of the use within some defined time frame.
Ms. Rush stated that numerous gas stations already exist in water supply watersheds and that new ones are not needed.
In response to Mr. Pearson's question about the benefits of allowing gas stations in water supply watersheds, Mr. Sizemore noted that they serve the needs of watershed residents and businesses for convenient vehicular fueling, but pointed out that such needs are far less in the watersheds because their development intensity is, and is planned to be, far less than that in urban areas.
Ms. Rush made a motion that the Committee recommend that the Planning Board recommend that the Board of Commissioners adopt Ordinance D, prohibiting new gas stations in R-40W districts. Ms. Hammond seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5-0.
Addition of 500-year Floodplain Delineation Information to Subdivision Plat Requirements
Mr. Hinton proposed that the FEMA delineation of 500-year floodplain boundaries be required on subdivision plans wherever those boundaries are already mapped, noting that adding them required little addition effort on the part of subdividers. He noted that FEMA floodplain delineation is based on current land use at the time of mapping and thus do not accurately reflect flood hazard areas where flood maps are old. Mr. Norwalk agreed. Mr. Rush recommended that the County base floodplain delineation on build-out conditions (like Charlotte-Mecklenburg).
Mr. Hinton made a motion that the Committee recommend that the Planning Board amend submittal requirements for subdivision plans to require delineation of the 500-year floodplain boundaries where mapped. Mr. Norwalk seconded the emotion, which passed by a vote of 5-0.
Joint Meeting with Subdivision Committee re Cul-de-Sac Length Limits
Mr. Jennings summarized the issues involved, noting that they basically involve the question of how many people are you willing to let live with only a single means of access to emergency services (fire protection and EMS). Cul-de-sac length can be regulated by distance standards or by standards based on the number of lots fronting the cul-de-sac. Most jurisdictions do not apply cul-de-sac length standards cumulatively as Wake County does. Any length limit should be flexible enough to reflect environmental constraints, such a floodplains and steep slopes, that may prevent reasonable development with more than one means of access.
In response to Mr. Hinton's inquiry, Mr. Sizemore stated that subdividers are not required to have obtained State approval of riparian buffer crossings until submitting a construction plat, though subdivision review staff encourage them to contact State staff before or as part of preliminary plan review.
Mr. Norwalk noted that the Planning Board has routinely granted variances from the current length limit although the criterion for such variances is a strict one: that strict application of the limit would prohibit subdivision of the property. Mr. Jennings noted that the subdivision staff's recommendations for approval of these variances have been based on the Planning Board's past treatment of such variance requests.
Mr. Hinton suggested also addressing the issue of limiting the number of lots without two means of access, even when a stubout might provide for a second access in the future.
Ms. Rush said she had talked to fire protection and EMS staff about cul-de-sacs, who expressed concerns about parking, fire hydrant location, and the proximity of homes in cluster subdivision, and recommended that cul-de-sacs have no more than 10 homes.
Mr. Pearson suggested that discussion of the issue be continued at the next meeting of the full Planning Board. By consensus, the Committee agreed to recommend that action to the Planning Board.