PULASKI COUNTY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS - CHAPTER 8

1. PULASKI COUNTY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS -CHAPTER 8

2. Goals • To revise the Pulaski County Subdivision Rules and Regulations for the first time in over 30 years in a manner that adequately addresses public concerns, but remains fair to property owners. • To protect public water supply reservoirs, through the revised Subdivision Rules and Regulations, while treating landowners in the area fairly (Chapter 8).

3. Geographic Facts about the Watershed • The Lake Maumelle Watershed is comprised of 137.5 square miles. • 67.2 square miles of the Watershed are located in Pulaski County.

4. Geographic Facts about Pulaski County • The unincorporated area of Pulaski County is comprised of 580 square miles. • The City of Little Rock is comprised of 121 square miles. • The City of North Little Rock is comprised of 50.75 square miles.

5. Zoning • Does the County have Zoning authority? • Yes. • Can the County zone just one area of the County? • Yes • However, the area the County is being asked to zone is larger than the second largest city in the County.(67.2 square miles in the Watershed vs. 50.75 in North Little Rock)

6. Zoning • North Little Rock has a Planning Budget of approximately $1.3 million. • Pulaski County currently budgets $177,000 for its Planning Department.

7. Subdivision Rules vs. Zoning • Implementation of Chapter 8 is currently expected to require the following: • 3 additional positions • 3 vehicles for monitoring in the watershed • Office space and supplies for additional personnel • This equates to about $93,000 in start up costs and approximately $177,000/year

8. Why Subdivision Rules and Regulations? • County has operated under Subdivision Rules and Regulations since 1968. • Residents in the unincorporated area are more familiar with, and, thus more accepting of subdivision rules and regulations. • County already has a Planning Department and Planning Board in place. • Less expensive to implement than zoning.

9. Why not Zoning? • County has never had zoning. • Many residents in the unincorporated area, the only territory to which the county’s zoning authority extends, are opposed to zoning. • County has limited financial and personnel resources and limited office space. • County has no permitting department. • County has no code enforcement department. • Even if the county zoned the area, the zoning ordinance could not implement the Plan without revision because the Plan contains provisions that constitute a taking.

10. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Conservation Design Approach • Relies on minimum requirements for open space and lot sizes, capping impervious area, and road surfacing. • Performance Standard Approach • Relies on engineered stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet water quality targets. Allows the most flexibility to the landowner in site design, including lot size, housing density, imperviousness, road improvements, and off-site land conservation.

11. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Those that oppose the ordinance argue that the Conservation Design approach contained in the Plan is the only effective means to protect water quality. • Experts in the engineering field are just as adamant that BMPs will effectively maintain water quality. • Even Tetra Tech proposed the Performance Standards Approach, but “[s]everal members of the Lake Maumelle Watershed Management Plan Policy Advisory Council objected strongly to a management approach that would rely solely on structural engineering techniques to achieve pollutant load allocations. Tetra Tech therefore developed the Performance Standards approach in the Plan that blends a minimum level of open space preservation as the first line of defense or insurance policy….”

12. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • The “Conservation Design” is merely one version of a Performance Standards Approach using minimum open space, minimum lot size, and maximum imperviousness as BMPs. • The Conservation Design is untested in the watershed.

13. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Wastewater Management • Plan provides that On-site systems are preferred and force line systems (to pump wastewater out of the watershed) are to be used as an exception. • The Ordinance, at the request of CAW, was drafted to provide a preference for force line systems.

14. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Wastewater Management • Again, this is an issue on which experts disagree. • Tetra Tech supports an On-site system whereby septic tanks receive raw wastewater from the residence or business, and sometimes pump tanks to provide dosing pressure to the capping fill or mounded effluent dispersal area. For cluster developments, the septic tank effluent from each home is collected and routed to another site for further treatment and eventual release into the subsurface.

15. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Wastewater Management • CAW prefers that wastewater be removed from the watershed when practicable. The Plan acknowledges that there are some circumstances where pumping wastewater out of the watershed might be the most environmentally sound alternative, but would impose caps on the volume to be pumped to that sufficient to service 300 households (density control – Zoning). • The caps would result in more smaller wastewater facilities in the watershed.

16. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Wastewater Management • Some argue that smaller facilities pose less of a risk to water quality in the event of system failure. • Others argue that fewer larger facilities outside the watershed are more easily maintained, thereby reducing the risk of system failure.

17. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Minimum Lot Size Requirement • The Plan imposes a minimum lot size requirement of 5 acres regardless of the design approach used. • Proponents of the Plan argue that the minimum lot size is absolutely essential to protect water quality. • Other experts argue, just as vehemently, that engineered BMPs can be used to meet water quality standards without imposing a minimum lot size requirement.

18. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Minimum Lot Size Requirement • Many believe the minimum lot size requirement will control density of population in the Watershed. • That is not necessarily true. While it may limit the number of structures, it does not limit the number of people. • The Plan does not address the fact that a landowner can build “up” (i.e., mid- to high-rise developments).

19. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Exemptions • The Plan provides a Legacy exemption for landowners as of December 2000. The exemption would allow owners to develop five 3 acre tracts without complying with the Plan. • The Plan does not contain a non-aggregation clause for the exemptions. • The 15 acres per landowner remains exempt FOREVER regardless of transfer of ownership.

20. Explanation of Differences between Plan and Ordinance • Exemptions • The Ordinance allows a Family Exclusion. Waiver of compliance for transfer of subdivided lots to immediate family members when no new public roads are required for access to any of the subdivided lots. • Subsequent transfers of property outside the immediate family trigger Planning Board review.

21. Site Evaluation Tool (SET) • Ordinance requires that the SET be created as part of the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual within 12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance.

22. Site Evaluation Tool (SET) • Prior to adoption of the SET, the project engineer must certify that the proposed development design will achieve the surface runoff loading rates. • May refer to nationally recognized treatises to determine the expected loading rate for particular BMPs that are proposed.

23. Site Evaluation Tool (SET) • The proposed design is subject to review by both the County and CAW. • The first phase of the proposed design is subject to a minimum of three (3) years of monitoring to ensure that water quality targets are met.

24. Site Evaluation Tool (SET) • If monitoring results show that target rates are not being met, the Developer must mitigate the excess loading by implementing one of three measures. • Rehabilitation or maintenance of BMPs or installation of additional BMPs • Dedication of sufficient mitigations lands to mitigate the excess loading • Completion of a Compensatory Environmental Project on another property in the watershed.

25. Enforcement of Subdivision Rules and Regulations • Preliminary Plat Approval • Final Plat Approval • Injunctive Relief • Criminal Penalties • Bill of Assurance – If using the Performance Standard Approach, the Bill of Assurance must include an appropriate assignment of the right to implement the BMP O&M Plan to the County, to assure that if that Plan is not properly implemented, the County, or its authorized representative, may do so and the County may obtain reimbursement for all costs incurred from the responsible party.

26. Effectiveness of Ordinance • The Lake Maumelle Watershed covers approximately 88,000 acres and includes portions of Perry, Saline, and Pulaski counties. • Up to 46,500 acres are considered potentially developable. • Of those 46,500 developable acres, approximately 24,160 acres are located in Pulaski County.

27. Effectiveness of Ordinance • According to Tetra Tech, CAW would have to acquire anywhere from 282 acres to 3465 acres in additional mitigation lands under the proposed ordinance. • If CAW has to acquire 282 additional acres, or 1.16% of the developable land, then the ordinance, as is, effectively provides 98.84% of the protection for which the Plan calls. • If CAW has to acquire 3465 additional acres, or 14.34% of the developable land, then the ordinance, as is, effectively provides 85.66% of the protection for which the Plan calls.

28. Endorsement of Ordinance • May 28, 2008 Memorandum from Tetra Tech “In summary, if the choice is between no watershed protection provisions in the subdivision ordinance or those proposed for Section 8, we would recommend supporting the current ordinance provisions as a starting point. Many of the supporting activities that CAW has outlined in its Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy (October 2007 version) will help in focusing further attention on the watershed and provide a basis for further ordinance revision in the future if the need is demonstrated.”

29. Conclusion • The proposed Subdivision Rules and Regulations are an effective mechanism for maintaining water quality. • Build out of the watershed will not be immediate, so there is time to analyze the effectiveness of the proposed Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and amend them if necessary.

30. Plan Recommended loading rates Critical Area B (CAB) 0.3 lb/ac/yr – Phosphorus 0.110 tons/ac/yr – Suspended Solids 44 lb/ac/yr – Organic Carbon Upper Watershed (UW) 0.33 lb/ac/yr – Phosphorus 0.130 tons/ac/yr – Suspended Solids 50 lb/ac/yr – Organic Carbon Ordinance Recommended loading rates Entire Watershed 0.3 lb/ac/yr – Phosphorus 0.110 tons/ac/yr – Suspended Solids 44 lb/ac/yr – Organic Carbon Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Ordinance Stricter

31. Plan Conservation Design Approach 5 acre Minimum Lot Size Ordinance Conservation Design Approach Lot Size determined by source of drinking water and sewer. (Lot size restrictions in Plan are density control – Zoning). Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Plan Stricter

32. Plan Conservation Design Approach Minimum Undisturbed Area (UW) Low slope 15% High slope 30% Ordinance Conservation Design Approach Minimum Undisturbed Area (UW) Low slope 30% High slope 30% Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Ordinance Stricter

33. Plan Conservation Design Approach Minimum Undisturbed Area (CAB) Low slope 30% High slope 50% Ordinance Conservation Design Approach Minimum Undisturbed Area (CAB) Low slope 30% High slope 30% Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Plan Stricter

34. Plan Conservation Design Approach Maximum Percentage of Impervious Area ranges from 4% to 8.25% across the watershed Ordinance Conservation Design Approach Maximum Percentage of Impervious Area 10% across the watershed Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Plan Stricter

35. Plan Conservation Design Approach Non-Residential Undisturbed Area to Impervious Area Ratio UW Low Slope 8:1 UW High Slope 10.2:1 CAB Low Slope 7.9:1 CAB High Slope 9.7:1 Ordinance Conservation Design Approach Non-Residential Undisturbed Area to Impervious Area Ratio UW Low Slope 7.9:1 UW High Slope 9.7:1 CAB Low Slope 7.9:1 CAB High Slope 9.7:1 Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Ordinance Stricter

36. Plan Performance Standards Approach Calls for pilot projects to determine the effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the area. Ordinance Performance Standards Approach Allows monitoring for a minimum of 3 years to ensure that loading rates are being met. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

37. Plan Performance Standards Approach Calls for pilot engineering analysis to demonstrate compliance with onsite loading limits and undisturbed open space requirements. Ordinance Performance Standards Approach Calls for pilot engineering analysis to demonstrate compliance with onsite loading limits. (Requiring open space requirements in addition to that necessary to achieve loading rates is density control – Zoning) Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

38. Plan Performance Standards Approach Adhere to Sedimentation and Erosion Control Manual. Ordinance Performance Standards Approach Adhere to Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

39. Plan Performance Standards Approach Use non-discharging wastewater systems. Ordinance Performance Standards Approach Surface discharges of wastewater, with the exception of discharges permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water discharge program are prohibited. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

40. Plan Performance Standards Approach* Local government must have adequate capacity to review the applications, review the BMP design, inspect BMP construction, and conduct follow-up inspections for BMPs. Ordinance Performance Standards Approach Sixty day review process for applications using Performance Standard Approach, monitoring allowed, Bill of Assurance allows county to implement BMP O&M plan if owner fails to do so. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance *Comparison is difficult because the Plan does not thoroughly address actual implementation of the Performance Standards Approach. Same

41. Plan Performance Standards Approach Does not address remedies if pilot projects do not meet loading rate requirements. (Calls for agreed purchase price for CAW to purchase mitigation lands (in Critical Area A)) Ordinance Performance Standards Approach Calls for rehabilitation or maintenance of BMPs or installation of additional BMPs; dedication of sufficient mitigation lands to offset excess load; completion of a Compensatory Environmental Project on another property. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Ordinance stricter

42. Plan Wastewater Management Calls for State of Arkansas to adopt and enforce a standard of no direct wastewater discharge in the Lake Maumelle Watershed Ordinance Wastewater Management No action required by county. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

43. Plan Wastewater Management On-site non-discharging systems or facilities that meet the requirement for pumping water out of the watershed. Create a Responsible Management Entity (RME). (Note: Plan would cap the flow. Ordinance does not, because this is a density control – Zoning) Ordinance Wastewater Management Force Line Systems and On-Site Systems shall be designed and constructed to meet the applicable requirements of the Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Wastewater Systems, Arkansas Department of Health and the applicable regulations of the Arkansas Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology Allows County to designate a Responsible Management Entity (RME). Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

44. Plan Sedimentation and Erosion Control Calls for stricter provisions than required by state. Ordinance Sedimentation and Erosion Control Same. Requires compliance with all 8 requirements enumerated in the plan. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

45. Plan Exemptions Allows additions to existing residences Ordinance Exemptions Additions to existing residences not reviewed by Planning Board. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Same

46. Plan Exemptions Allows additions to existing non-residential structures that increase imperviousness on the parcel by less than 10,000 square feet. Ordinance Exemptions Site plan review required for non-residential developments and expansions. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Ordinance Stricter

47. Plan Exemptions Legacy Exemption. All owners of a legally recorded tract as of Dec. 2000 are allowed to subdivide up to five 3-acre lots that are subsequently NEVER subject to the plan requirements. Ordinance Exemptions Family Exclusion. Waiver of compliance for transfer of subdivided lots to immediate family members when no new public roads are required for access to any of the subdivided lots. Subsequent transfer outside of family triggers review. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Ordinance Stricter

48. Plan Very Steep Slope Should not be developed. Allows for variance where very steep slope constitutes a large portion of a tract and an undue burden is caused the landowner. Ordinance Very Steep Slope. Should not be developed. Allows for variance under limited conditions. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Plan Stricter

49. Plan Penalties. Calls for withholding of permits, civil and criminal penalties, and injunctive relief. Calls for fines that exceed those allowed by state law. Ordinance Penalties. Establishes criminal penalties and injunctive relief. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Plan Stricter

50. Plan Roads. Maintenance requirements and maintenance covenants for privately owned roads. Alternatively, require dedication of public maintenance. Ordinance Roads. All roads, even private, must be built to county specs. Ordinance does not require dedication, however Bill of Assurance is required to address maintenance responsibility. Comparison of Plan and Ordinance Similar