How the Wake County Commissioners stack the deck.

[StanN]

from the Wake County Planning Board Minutes of 8/4/04.

a. OA 04/03: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a two-step Conditional-Use Zoning process.
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Ms. Melinda Clark presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation.

COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

There was none.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Mr. Williams ( chairman of planning board) asked about the process. He stated that as he understood it, an applicant would come through the current rezoning (note: a rezoning= relief under zoning laws) process, so it would come before staff, then Planning Board for rezoning, then the Commissioners for approval, then come back and do that again for the site plan approval. Ms. Clark answered that it would stop at the Planning Board. Ms. Wilson (planning director) stated it would be almost like the subdivision. Staff would review it, make a recommendation to the Planning Board and the Board would make the final decision. The Board of Commissioners don't get into the subdivisions unless there is an appeal. Mr. Williams asked if site plan approval would be final with the Planning Board. Ms. Wilson answered that it would. Ms. Clark stated that the Board would have the discretion to impose conditions as they saw fit. Ms. Wilson stated that if someone wanted to appeal that decision, then they would go through the appeals process. ......

(detailed paragraph ommitted)

Mr. Ashworth asked if the Planning Board could add conditions at that time (i.e. at the time of the rezoning). Ms. Wilson answered that they could. She stated that the owner could offer conditions, the staff could recommend conditions and the board could request conditions. Ms. Clark stated that the board could ask for a condition and if the applicant didn't agree to it, the board could deny the site plan.

Mr. Lewis asked what the appeal process would be. Ms. Wilson answered that they could appeal it. Ms. Clark stated they could appeal it through the courts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now consider the composition of the planning board:

1 - builder, former chair of the Wake Home Builders Assoc. and member of the board and exec. committe of the Triangle Community Coalition. (Umbrella organization for various segments of the development community - promotes policies impacting the dev. comm.)

1 - President of the Triangle Community Coalition.

1 - Officer of large commercial construction company and member of the board of the TCC.

2 - employess of surveying/engineering consultants servicing the development community

2 - real estate lawyers

1 - insurance broker

2 - backround unknown to me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

sooo...pack the planning board with folks biased in favor of development. Then give the planning board powers approaching those of county commissioners. ...Thus allowing county commissioners to stay under the radar on most rezoning issues. Make appeals difficult and expensive...i.e. through the courts, thus requiring a lawyer. Also note that the Wake Commissioners meet during the day - if you want to participate in the public speaks out session you have to take time off from work.

All of the above is apparently legal. Who's to blame? Citizens who vote for county commissioners without knowing about their policies, voting record, biases, responsibilities, sources of campaign financing...just their party affiliation.

stan

[TheBalancer]

Stan,
Speaking as a member of the planning board, this proposal is driven by the staff...not the planning board and not the board of commissioners.

The staff wants to have more control over the site plans offered under a conditional use rezoning. They want to change this so they can suggest and impose more conditions on Conditional Use Rezoning (CUR) which are, under the county's guidelines, all non-residential. So residential developers are not affected by this proposed change.
This text amendment was proposed for action at our July board meeting. I am personally opposed to it as written and was the most vocal opponent to the text amendment when staff presented at the meeting.

I do not think it is wise public policy to put any sort of final decision making on a conditional use permit (legislative or quasi-judicial) in the hands of the planning board---even though this common pratice in NC.

My argument is that if the planning board sees problems with a particular CUR request, it should deny it...e.g. if a developer requests a CUR next to a SF neighborhood, it is up to the planning board (and commissioners) to judge that rezoning on what ALL the potential uses might be, how the rezoning meshes with the surrounding land uses, and what is called for in all short range and long range rezonings. If the proposed rezoning is not a good mix--the PB should deny it...this would, in my view, eliminate the need for the current proposal for a conditional use permit CUP after a CUR.

The codes and subdivision committee of the PB directed staff to look into how the city of Raleigh handles its CURs and CUPs. It is our understanding that they have a good policy for addressing this issue.

In short, your theory on all of this is off base, Stan. This is staff driven, and as a member of the PB I am not sold on their solution to the problem.
CHRIS

[StanN]

Chris,

I accept your interpretation - but the implications are incredible! Essentially you say that staff, on their own authority, decided to make a major policy change by giving the Wake planning board quasi-judicial authority on rezonings. We are to believe that staff did not pass this by county manager David Cooke nor that Cooke consulted with WCC Chair Kenn Gardner who was unaware of the change and did not concur. Incredible!
Who is in charge of the County Government? The Planning Director?

Incidentally, please bring me up to date on residential rezonings. When I was on the planning board they were approved by the WCC's - now, according to the last several months minutes - they don't get there anymore. Who is controlling these rezonings? Staff and the planning board?

Stan

[Cathy]

You're beginning to see the trend, Stan!

With the help of the APA and Environmental Group lobbyists, the Planning Dept.'s are wielding more and more power over what gets built and how.
They ARE making developers jump through more and more hurdles just to build anything.

[StanN]

This proposal for a human waste lagoon and spray system for Wake County will come before the "unbiased" Wake Planning Board today. They approved a similar proposal about nine months ago. How do you think it will fare? Rockridge today - across the street from Cary in the unincorporated area tomorrow?

From an e-mail I just received.

"It is apparent that Stafford Land Company is again applying for approval of a Rockbridge Subdivision. The application is lacking in detail, but appears to be virtually identical to the previous application of 412 units, 283 acres, off Poole Road. The one apparent difference is the lack of a
"Schaeffer" brand system. Nevertheless it does involve 23 acres or
treatment space with 3 large open-aired sewage tanks, treatment systems, a 3-5 acre pond, and spraying the effluent onto the surrounding area. More details to follow as they become available! Any and all are welcome to attend the meeting. We hope to get a denial or possibly a delay pending additional information at the least.

Contact form is at the bottom of this page. Please call or email Wake
County and share your thought on these systems in our area."

[Anonymous]

Stan,
Rockbridge received approval by the planning board. The revised subdivision met ALL of the requirements of the revised zoning which regulates waste systems as a LAND USE. The revised plan will use a convential system which treats (in a closed facility) sewage to a re-use standard (much like Cary's re-use system) and irrigates the clean water onto open space...the system is like the one at the Governor's club.

It is inaccurate and unfair to call the system a human waste lagoon. Its a convential system which will be permitted by the state, treats water to the highest standard and, instead of dumping it back into our rivers and streams, it re-uses the water.

As for the subdivision, it is one of the better designed ones I have seen...over four hundred lots and only 2---cul de sacs. It also preserves the most enviornmentally sensitive areas---and includes over 30% open space---offers land for county ball parks and a greenway for the county. The developer also proposes to improve several intersections to mitigate the new traffic.

It clearly meets the cluster subdivision oridinance, and I think the developers and land planners did an excellent job designing the new community. I invite you to look at the plan.

In the end Rockbridge strikes an appropriate balance between the environment, development and community needs.

[StanN]

Chris,

You do a great job in making it sound so simple. Too bad the realities don't back-up your position.

Every hog lagoon/spray system in NC was approved by the state who now wants to see them replaced with a less damaging system. Although there are technical differences beetween a system for hogs and one for people there are also many similarities. Is the state permitting these people lagoon systems for the same reason it backed off the EPA's stormwater standards? i.e. pressure from the development community?

All of these systems require a storage pond and/or storage tanks for the effluent coming from the wastewater treatment unit. Those ponds and tanks contain soluble human wastes in liquid form. The ponds and/or tanks are required because the spray field cannot be used during freezing conditions. Call it what you will.

Futher, the spray fields are tricky to operate. The principal behind them is that the plants in the field will adsorb the ntrogen and phosphorous in the waste. But in peak summer months many plants and grasses go dormant and will not adsorb the nutrients. Trained operators for the spray field are required for proper operation. Who will inspect and insure the spray fields are properly operated? The state does not have enough inspectors to cover the thousands of systems already in place. Will the operators be licensed and will training be required?

The sprayfield can become saturated. What regulations does Wake have for insuring reserve sufficient sprayfield capacity? Even Chatham County has such regulations. If the effluent ponds in the sprayfield what will keep kids form playing there? I don't believe there are any Wake regs requiring the fencing of the sprayfield. What regs govern the location of the sprayfield in relationship to streams or wells or homes? I don't believe Wake has considered such regs. To my knowledge all the state has approved is the wastewater system that removes the solids in the waste.

If the plants in the sprayfield do not adequately adsorb the wastes in the effluent - then we are relying on stream buffers to keep them from entering the streams and subsequently the lakes that supply our drinking water. Why hasn't Wake adopted wider stream buffers as Chatham has?

And when sewers finally come to Rockbridge, who will pay for closing up the ponds and other wastewater facilities? Does the developer have to set up a reserve fund for closure? I doubt it.

And when we have tropical rainstorms - it is likely that the wastes not adsorbed by the plants in the sprayfield will be washed into the streams- especially seeing that the location of same is in the unincorporated portions of the county where the developers have gotten a relaxation of stormwater run-off requirements. Who will inspect for proper sprayfield operation under those conditions?

Finally, the approval of lagoon and spray systems throughout the county will promote developments in scattered, remote, relatively rural locations. Rockbridge is just #1 of many that will follow. This will drive up vehicle miles traveled - just the opposite of what the Wake's Air Quality Task Force recommended. The county is failing the current, health based EPA air quality regulations and faces draconian measures to avoid being cut-off from federal highway funds. When the rest of us have to pick up the bill for special gasoline additives or added taxes to fund more mass transit - we will all bow and gratefully pay our tithe to GREED and our masters...the development community.

Chris, the organization you head, the Triangle Community Coalition, stresses the protection of property rights. That's important. When the Town of Cary went too far I was among those standing up for property rights. But dont the rest of us have rights to clean air, clean water and a healthy environment? Or are all those less important than property rights and developer's profits?

Stan

[Anonymous]

The system we are speaking of treats waste just like any muni system. And by the way is better than package treatment plants, and septic systems.

Also any storage is for TREATED sewage. These systems are designed by professional engineers and required to meet rigorus standards. Further most systems must have enough storage for several months...some systems must be able to hold water for over 100 days.

Finally, we (the PB) spoke with an engineer that desinged the Governor's Club. That system has been in place for over 13 years. The data is solid. It is meeting and in most cases exceeding standards for treatment. I recommend you talk with Lee Flemming---he knows his $%*#, no pun intended.

Folks have to have a place to live, we can't all live near towns or cities b/c of high housing costs---therefore we have to drive till we can afford a home.

As for air quality, land use standards have little effect on improving air quality. And for VMT---well, we need to improve standards on cars---and make the car greener.

I always attempt to strike the appropriate balance between property rights and the community needs. In my view, Rockbridge hit the sweet spot. The county gets a well planned community with parks and extral open space. Folks get a decent place to live. The county gets more tax base, roads get improved, and the property owner gets to sell his land. That's not greed. That's, well, that's the american way.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and a private utility company will monitor the sewage system. The private utility is governed by the NC Utilties Commission---and will be mointored by the state.

As for the stormwater issue---see paul Wilms letter to the editor in yesterday's N and O. There are always two sides to an issue.

Locally, the TCC supported the Raleigh Storm Water Task Force's recommendations to create a utility. We also endorsed the Watershed plan from Wake County.

We support BMPs and efforts to control stormwater run-off. Our record of support speaks for itself.

[Wuptdo]

I sure hope Wake County keeps a few million lying around for these private "waste water" sites. I seem to recall that down in South Wake County several of these private "waste water" system owners either went bankrupt or their "companies" ceased to exist after a couple of years. In one case, the Town of Fuquay-Varina ran water down Wagstaff Road at a cost of about $750K. There was also one up by Wake Tech that failed & disappeared as well. I forgot how much the Town of F-V got nailed for that one (I do think there was some reimpursement by Wake County in that case). Just because the "State" has authority of these system doesn't mean they can control them, i.e., staff budget cuts.

From my view a lowly taxpayer (serf), it seem to me more city/county decisions are made at the Cardinal Club than in government offices.

Wuptdo B-)

[StanN]

Below is Paul Wilms letter:

Published: Sep 17, 2004


Existing stormwater rules offer protection

Regarding your Sept. 14 editorial "Mud wrestling"
Since home buyers and the public at large ultimately pay the increased cost of regulating stormwater, your premise that the N.C. Home Builders Association opposed the original stormwater rules for the benefit of its members' short-term economic self-interests is flawed from the outset. The real issue is whether the environmental benefits conferred by the stormwater rules as originally proposed justified the additional economic costs to be incurred by the public. The benefits did not outweigh the costs and the General Assembly made the correct call in passing compromise legislation supported by the League of Municipalities, the Association of County Commissioners, the N.C. Association of Realtors and the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources, among others.

Your assertion that the compromise legislation provides "inadequate protection against development-related pollution of its rivers and lakes" ignores the extensive statutory and regulatory mandates already in place, e.g., water-supply watershed protection requirements, coastal runoff rules, river buffer requirements, wetlands protection, etc. Indeed, water quality has steadily improved in North Carolina since Earth Day 1970 and the additional stormwater requirements set forth in the new act will ensure that water quality will continue to improve without unjustifiably increasing costs which the public must pay.

Of course, the real purpose of your editorial had little to do with environmental protection. Your comments seemed to be a thinly veiled and disingenuous attempt to further your crusade for taxpayer-financed elections. Implying that General Assembly members voted for the compromise legislation because they had received campaign contributions from NCHBA is an outrageously unfair and unfounded accusation.

In establishing public policy, it is prudent to do all that is necessary, but not more. Whether the need is education, drug-abuse prevention, highway safety or environmental protection, elected leaders must seek to balance the benefits of increased regulation with the resultant costs to ensure that public protections are effective, but not extravagant, thus allowing all of society's public needs to be addressed.

NCHBA applauds the General Assembly for its overwhelming and bipartisan support of the increased water quality protections provided by the new act.

Paul Wilms

Director of Government Affairs

N.C. Home Builders Association

Raleigh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider that the U.S. Congress established the EPA and passed the Clean Water Act. Congress further requires that all EPA regulations be health and mobidity based and justified by a cost benefit analysis. But EPA just sets standards and leaves it to the state to enforce them. So NC's Environmental Management Commission, headed up and staffed by people working in the environmental arena for years, holds hearings over three years and decides to enforce the EPA standards in the unincorporated areas of the counties.

But the homebuilders and their allies know better. On a technicality relating to the wording of the EPA reg. they use their huge campaign finance donations ($470K last year from the home builders alone) to buy off the a majority of the legislature and get a group appointed by the legisature, the Rules Review Commission to declare the Env. Reg. Commissions reg null and void. BIG MONEY talks in NC. Who cares about our health - its profits that count. And do you doubt for a minute that the Rules Review Commission is packed with pro-development apointeess - just like the County Commissioners pack the Wake Planning Board.

And then Wilms claims that he is protecting the economic interests of the "public" from "extravagent" regulations by using his associations power to negate the EPA's scientific and cost justified standards. What arrogance! Never fear John Q. Public, the NC Homebuilders will protect you from the EPA, the US Congress and the scientists in the Environmental Management Commission. They are in fact, by virtue of their economic power, our masters and they will decide whats right and wrong.

[dhyatt]

...
Implying that General Assembly members voted for the compromise legislation because they had received campaign contributions from NCHBA is an outrageously unfair and unfounded accusation.
...

It's comments like these that really test HBA's credibility with me. Of course politicians pay attention to the size and source of contributions. To think otherwise is ridiculous!!! I'd feel better about if everyone just admitted that's the way the game is played.

[johnb]

More than likely the HBA gave money to politicians or wanna be politicians that already agreed with them in order to get them on or keep them in their positions.

There is no way they'd give money to someone hostile or indifferent to their cause. That's stupid because they've then just armed a potential adversary who'd claim the HBA tried to buy/bribe them. That'd be a public relations disaster.

How different is that than anyone here giving money to a politician? Do any of you give campaign contributions to candidates or incumbents that you disagree with on basic, fundamental issues in an attempt to curry favor with them and change their votes? If so, some of you are dumber than I tell people you are.

:twisted:

[Anonymous]

I ran into someone who is, what I consider, pro-environmental just last night...and he claims that the compromise legislation was worked out with a lot of folks at the table. However, it was the environmental groups who were pushing EXTREME regulations, and who, were at the last minute left out of the process because they REFUSED to be resonable.

Paul is correct...the N and O is less concerned about the environment and wants to get elections funded by the state---but PACs, Issues groups, and others have every right to make donations and fund races as a matter of free speech.

CHRIS

[StanN]

"Which brings us back to the legislature, the governor and other state leaders, and the bureaucrats who serve them. As The News & Observer's Richard Stradling recently reported, the legislature rolled back new stormwater runoff rules last session that will exempt some of the most sensitive land in the state, including large tracts of Johnston, Wake and Chatham counties that are coveted for development. The reason: The N.C. Home Builders Association boo-hooed that the new rules were too burdensome, as they do whenever environmental protections are proposed that might nibble a few bucks off their bottom line.

The rules, which had been five years in the making, were supported by the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources as well as the League of Municipalities and county governments. But when the lobbyists from the Home Builders Association came whining about excessive regulation to their buddies at the state capitol and flashed wads of campaign cash to those who voted properly, it proved too hard for the spineless majority to resist.

One might think that improving the quality of the state's fouled waterways and protecting drinking water supplies for the next generations of North Carolinians would be a simple political matter. The depressed eastern part of the state can certainly argue that its economic interests are closely tied to water quality, as desperate oystermen suffering ever-declining yields can testify. It's not likely that fish pocked with red sores invites much enthusiasm from recreational boaters and other tourists. And real estate values along the Neuse have suffered the past decade because of the perception that the water can make residents sick.

But such logic takes a back seat when the lobbyists come calling. And the effects ripple through the ranks of government, as they did last year when excessive spring rains hit hog country. Dove and other watchdogs took aerial photos and otherwise documented that hog farmers were illegally spraying waste from their lagoons onto oversaturated fields and allowing their lagoon levels to rise to the breaking point.

Despite operating at only half staff and waiting to investigate until the worst was past, DENR inspectors wrote more than 400 Notices of Violation--none based on Dove's evidence, which was deemed insufficient, and most from violators who turned themselves in. After the farmers and their trade groups complained, three quarters of those were ultimately reduced to Notices of Deficiency, the equivalent of traffic warnings. Very few resulted in fines or anything beyond a wrist-slap. In fact, the animal waste subsection in the Division of Water Quality is the only state group that still issues the weak Notices of Deficiency.

To avoid such sticky moments in the future, state regulators helped issue new guidelines giving some hog farmers more flexibility to spray their waste under wet conditions.

Come Nov. 2, no matter who wins the right to represent the citizens in Raleigh, those who truly set policy and influence the state's direction will remain essentially unchanged."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the similarities between hog waste lagoons and human waste lagoons is that they both dispose of waste through spray fields, they are both inspected by an understaffed Division of Water Quality, in both cases the law is not strictly enforced, in both cases effluent not adsorbed by plants in the spray field will reach either ground water supplies or our drinking water in the lakes and promote the growth of algae, in both cases the algae secrete a toxin and when chlorinated produce a carcinogen - halomethanes. But we can't let little details like that get in the way of developers' profits can we? "EXTREME" environmental regulations to some developers means delaying a profit opportunity.....stan

[StanN]

And before I forget--the Wake planning department and the Wake Planning Board could at the very least propose land use regulations regarding spray field size, set-backs from streams and homes and increased stream buffers in the vicinity of spray fields. Forgetaboutit with a packed planning board. There is probably nothing to be done about increased stormwater run-off protection in the vicinity of spray fields because they cannot pre-empt state law which was essentially determined by the homebuilders association. And in the end - which is where ordinary citizens will get it - our drinking water supply will face an increased risk of pollution because of simple GREED.