Storm-water and erosion control, annexation and the condition of the city’s bridges are some of the key items on Council’s agenda for the meeting tonight (Tuesday, Aug. 21).
Council will consider controversial amendments to the storm-water/erosion ordinance that would increase fines for noncompliance from $500 to $5,000, make developers responsible for retaining licensed professionals to periodically inspect developments over a certain size and, most controversially, require developers to maintain a minimum 30-foot or 50-foot buffer. Staff is recommending that Council approve the 50-foot buffer. The city’s current ordinance only calls for a 20-foot buffer.
Meanwhile, Council is expected to finalize the annexation of three areas: portions of the Biltmore Lake, Sardis Road and Schenck Gateway areas. If approved, the areas would become part of the city by the end of the calendar year.
Though it’s not expected to take any action, the Council will nonetheless receive a report on the condition of the city’s bridges in the wake of the disastrous I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis last month. The North Carolina DOT maintains 131 bridges, of which four are deemed “structurally deficient” and 36 are “functionally obsolete.” Of the 35 bridges maintained by the city, two are structurally deficient and two are functionally obsolete.
The Council also will be holding a handful of public hearings on possible rezonings on Britt Drive and Main Street at Biltmore Lake, and a conditional use permit for a 105-room hotel on Monte Vista Road. Another public hearing will be held in consideration of a resolution to permanently close Stevens Street.
For more details, the Council’s full agenda and documents are available online.
The meeting begins at 5 p.m. in Council chambers, located on the second floor of City Hall. The meeting can also be viewed live on Charter Cable channel 11.
—Hal L. Millard, staff writer
THE ASHEVILLE STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE – A RESPONSE
By Leslee Kulba
August 21, 2007
Most of the public stir about the “Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinance” has focused on the 50’ buffers. The public is rightly alarmed. I read the proposed revisions the last time supposing the greater buffer width was selected as a decoy issue. I present what I consider to be unnecessary affronts to limited government proposed in the “Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinance.”…
http://www.timpeck.org/docs/stormwater.pdf