Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWSMU_MRSV_Agenda Item 4_19980131 V • J)31 � U AGENDA ITEM#4 REQUEST FROM THE TOWN OF MOORESVILLE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A MAJOR VARIANCE,AS REQUIRED UNDER THE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION RULES,FOR A SITE WITHIN THE LAKE NORMAN WS-IV WATERSHED On May 16,1997,the Town of Mooresville applied for a major variance as prescribed under the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules [15A NCAC 2B .0104(r)]. The Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules require Environmental Management Commission(EMC)review and approval for all majcariances defined as "...a variance from the minimum statewide watershed protection rules that ',sults in the relaxation by a factor greater than five percent of any buffer, density or built-upon acquirement under the high density option..." [15A NCAC 2B.0202(36)]. The Town is requesting permission to grant the applicant a reduction,by 50 percent,of the buffer requirement on a high density development site. BACKGROUND The proposed development,which is the subject of the variance request,consists of approximately nine acres which would be developed with a_newauto_sales and service lot£or a Ford dealership. The site is located on NC Highway 150 in Mooresville within the Lake Norman WS-IV watershed protected area in the Catawba River Basin. Under the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules,development within WS-IV Protected Areas may contain up to 70 percent impervious surface area with the use of engineered stormwater controls. The Rules also require a 100 foot vegetated buffer along perennial streams for all non-residential development which exceeds 24 percent impervious surface area. The subject site is triangular in shape,bordered on one side by Highway 150 and on the remaining two sides by perennial streams (see attached site illustration). The applicant claims that Ford franchise requirements recommend a minimum five to six acres of impervious surface for the intended use. if the applicant were to use the 100 foot buffer as required under the Water Supply ° ershed Protection Rules along both perennial streams,3.8 acres or 42 percent of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces. The applicant is requesting a variance of the buffer requirement by 50 percent (50 feet along each stream). If the reduction is approved, the applicant could develop 5.8 acres or 64 percere site with impervious surfacesow On April 7, 1997,the Mooresville Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the major variance request based on the following findines of fact (see attached): The applicant's property is unique and the applicant proposes to mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff using the following means: a) The applicant is proposing to detain all runoff from the impervious areas on the site. b) The only water which would fall in the buffer is natural rainfall. c) The applicant proposes to design the stormwater detention pond at 1.3 times the required storage. QThe variance request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and preserves it's spirit. /J r1.af � 9wY ri^f, 2<I V"I ` k�• / çe)c)1� "�G�-S 'l 1, 4. ANALYSIS The Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules under 15A NCAC 2B .0104 require local watershed review boards to make the following findings of fact. In granting variances, local boards and the EMC must find that all these standards are met. 1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance; 2. the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the local watershed protection ordinance and preserves its spirit;and 3. in granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done. The Town concluded and Division of Water Quality staff agrees that the property has a unique ,shape and is somewhat constrained due to the presence of the perennial streams on two sides. However, review of the record submitted does not indicate that the applicant could not comply with the strict letter of the ordinance. The applicant's written justification (see attached) states that the Ford Moto Company merely"recommends",not requires,a minimum five acres of impervious surface area for a r/ ( .SI Ford franchise. There is no evidence that the development could not be located on the site using 3.8 'tyvit ides of impervious surface and providing the required 100 foot buffers along the perennial streams./ '^� urthermore, even if denied this request, the applicant could place any other reasonable use on the S Y�'" ,'.,,L land. Gi 1,6i d Staff does not concur with the Town in their assessment that the request is in harmony with the ,5 general purpose and intent of the ordinance and that its spirit is preserved. Under zoning law, -\ ' ariances may only be granted to allow the minimum deviation necessary from ordinance requirements. A 0 " ' lY''his Wince request is excessive. According to the applicant's own justification,the minimum Ford ,Q _t a uchise recommendation i five acres of impervious surface not the requested 5.8 acres. Under no t`R circumstances does this request attempt to preserve the spirit or intent of the perennial stream buffer r*,,,_ ^e.k - requirements. Finally, the Town made no finding of fact showing that public safety and welfare have been � p „Q assured and substantial justice done. The applicant has offered to mitigate some of the potential LY�G�Da`"`''�, impacts of the increased impervious surface area on the site by oversizing the stormwater pond.J6e �. C However, the proposed development and additional impervious surface area would significantly a rW�i4�� °� reduce the vegetation and interrupt the natural drainage pattern of the site. The lack of substantial- ere ins"a!_< proof of a hardship, other than an economic one to the property owner, increases the potential of this { G h variance setting a precedent - the cumulative result of which could cause substantial harm to the water quality in Lake Norman. �ire RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the major variance request submitted because the applicant failed to conclusively prove that the buffer requirements of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules burden this site such that no reasonable use could occur. In addition,the Town did not make all the required findings of fact. As stated above, staff agrees that the site is unique in its shape and composition;however, it is not evident that the hardship is caused by the site itself. Staff would not be opposed to the Town granting a minor variance which would provide some relief to the applicant. (Minor variance requests are not reviewed and approved by the EMC.) `, wi li.t.,w 120i 0i-kr lv leer aQa d ///te/98 Litzoi &d me b•- /, 4 va riaM.0 w.as i be l sed r1,1 a �fr. r G s4 n LLd - e S;-fie ; — 441 based "pi " ecavramk.. v4iva/'e .