20050666 Ver 1_Staff Comments Tom Reeder_20060323

Mint Hill LID Ordinance
Subject: Mint Hill LID Ordinance
From: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:41:51 -0500
To: Robin W Smith <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,Pau1
Rawls <[e-mail]>, Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly
<[e-mail]>
Robin - You asked me the other day to review the proposed Mint Hill LID Ordinance
and provide my opinion as to whether I thought it would be protective of T&E
Species. The criteria I used for this judgment is whether the Mint Hill Ordinance is
more protective, or stringent, than our existing Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
stormwater controls, because USFWS is on record (in their approval of 15A NCAC 2B
.0110) as having said that our ORW controls are protective of federally-listed
species.
With this in mind, I believe that the Mint Hill ordinance is more stringent than ORW
and. therefore, should be considered protective. However, having said that I do have
a couple of reservations. The Mint Hill ordinance is fairly complex and it has been
my experience that these complexities often lead to loopholes or implementation
difficulties that lessen the overall effectiveness of the program. In addition, the
ordinance has some exemptions (like for subdivisions of 5 houses or less) that I
think could be challenged. I also did not see a threshold for coverage in the
ordinance (is it for all land disturbing activities?). The reason I like to say that
the Universal Program is protective of T&E Species is because it is so simple,
absolute, and straight-forward that just about any reasonable person could compare
its requirements side-by-side with the ORW provisions and clearly see that every
stormwater control requirement in the Universal Program is more stringent than the
ORW Rule.
However, having said all that it is my opinion that the Mint Hill ordinance would be
considered more stringent than the ORW provisions.
I hope this helps. Thanks.
l of 1 3/24/2006 3:35 PM