Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sends proposed stockpile/soil ordinance to public hearing, adds bonding language for removal costs
Summary
County staff presented a draft ordinance to regulate temporary soil stockpiles and prohibit permanent piles; supervisors asked for bonding tied to removal cost and voted to send the draft to a public hearing with added bonding language.
After discussion about large on‑site soil piles and the county’s recent experience with stabilized but persistent berms, county staff presented a draft ordinance on temporary stockpiles and the Board of Supervisors voted to send the ordinance to public hearing with additional bonding language.
Lancaster Hughes, the county planner, told the board the existing code already states “permanent soil piles are prohibited,” and the draft ordinance adds definitions, setback requirements and specific engineering controls for temporary stockpiles. The draft requires site plans to show the stockpile location, a narrative describing phasing and disposition, and technical limits — for example the proposal sets a maximum 35‑foot height for a single pile (3:1 maximum slope) and a 10‑foot maximum height for linear berms.
Hughes said the draft also clarifies that placement of excavation material from construction sites onto farms or agricultural lots does not qualify for a land‑disturbance exemption under state law. The draft includes a 200‑foot setback from existing residential dwelling units for sites of three acres or more, while acknowledging in‑fill projects on smaller lots may not be able to meet that setback.
Board members repeatedly raised the problem that large stockpiles can remain in place if a project pauses and that existing surety language and bonds can lose value over time. In response supervisors asked staff to add a bonding requirement keyed to the estimated cost to remove the stockpile so the county would have funds to remove material if the permit holder fails to do so. The board directed staff to require bonds that are renewable and that keep pace with inflation.
After discussion, the board approved a motion to send the ordinance to public hearing with the additional bonding percentage language requested by supervisors. The board instructed staff to return with a public‑hearing version that clarifies bonding amounts and enforcement procedures.
The supervisors did not adopt a final ordinance on March 11; they agreed to the public‑hearing step and directed staff to draft the specific bond formula and enforcement text for the hearing packet.
