AGENDA DATE: 12/6/2017
TITLE:
Title
Review of County Stream Buffer Regulations
BODY
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discuss results of public review process and approve recommendations for proceeding
ITEM TYPE: Regular Action Item
STAFF CONTACT(S): Richardson, Walker, Kamptner, Blair, Graham, Hannah
PRESENTER (S): David Hannah
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY: Jeffrey B. Richardson
BACKGROUND: During a work session on May 3, 2017, the Board endorsed a Natural Resources Program for the County consisting of seven objectives. The first objective is to “Conduct a thorough public review of the stream buffer requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance.” Staff has completed this review and is presenting its findings with this executive summary, with the assumption that the Board has a strong interest in improving water quality and stream health in the County.
STRATEGIC PLAN: Natural Resources Stewardship: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION: Beginning in April 2017, staff conducted a public review of the County’s stream buffer regulations. Attachment A is a report of the review process and results. Attachment B is an overview of the County’s stream buffer regulations.
The primary goal of the process was to solicit input, hear various perspectives on stream buffers and regulations, and assess if changes to the regulations should be considered. The process included an online survey, meetings with three stakeholder groups, two public meetings, an informational presentation to the Planning Commission, and a web page to serve as a source of information about the process. Email and other communications were also part of the process.
The public provided a very wide range of ideas and perspectives. A clear division was observed between residents and advocates of the Rural Areas (RA) as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and residents and others interested in Development Areas (DAs) as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Despite clear geographical and philosophical differences among portions of the County’s population, there was agreement on many issues related to stream buffers. Some areas of agreement include the growth management policy, need for more education, limitations of a “one size fits all” approach, process issues, enforcement issues, frustration with “loopholes,” and developing landowner incentives.
A large number of issues and questions related to potential changes in stream buffer regulations were identified during the review process. Some issues were general, while others were specific to the DAs or the RA. There are significantly more issues to address in the RA and many of those issues are complex in nature.
After completing the public review process and analyzing all comments, staff supports separating the work on the DAs and completing it first. Given the smaller number of issues identified, and the less complex nature of them, potential revisions to regulations would take less time and allow quicker implementation of any desired changes. Currently, staff spends significantly more time on DAs projects and properties than those in the RA. Addressing the DAs during phase one would be the more efficient use of staff time. Lessons learned during phase one could be applied when addressing RA issues, hopefully resulting in a more timely and efficient process and use of resources.
Staff proposes beginning work on phase one immediately with the intention of returning for a work session with the Board in spring of 2018.
BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact at this time. Future recommendations and decisions regarding stream buffer regulations, including implementation and enforcement, could have budget impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
With the intent to improve water quality and stream health in the County, staff recommends that the Board:
1. Endorse the staff recommendation to address the stream buffer review process in two phases, treating the Development Areas and the Rural Area as separate phases.
2. Endorse staff recommendation to address the Development Areas in the first phase.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Report-Stream Buffer Review Process
B - Overview-Stream Buffer Regs-May 2017