Water Resources Board reviews TDEC‑approved streamside buffer variance process

Josh, a staff member, briefed the Water Resources Board on the county’s streamside buffer policy and the variance process the state (TDEC) required as part of the board’s recent permit renewal. He said the county has processed seven or eight variances since the policy’s creation in 2008 and that the state asked for an approved variance procedure as a condition of the new permit.

Josh described what a streamside buffer is and why it matters: “It’s the natural area of land alongside a stream or a wetland… it helps regulate the stream temperature, holds the stream bank in place, provides habitat for aquatic life,” and in places with intact buffers the county has observed higher biodiversity scores. He showed photos of healthy buffers (Sinking Creek, Pucket Crossing) and noted the county formerly used two buffer zones but has revised the ordinance to a single vegetated zone as required by the state.

Under the revised ordinance, impaired streams receive a 60‑foot buffer; healthy streams continue to receive 50 or 35 feet depending on stream size. The county removed the two‑zone approach and no longer allows individual private lots to be within the buffer. The state permits “averaging” of buffer width only when approved through the variance process.

Staff explained there are two types of variances applicants might request: one to exceed or alter state minimums and one to alter city code requirements. Common eligibility circumstances are infill development, legacy lots from older subdivisions, constrained physical conditions, or projects that preserve wetlands and incorporate enhanced stormwater controls. Josh said the county will require an eligibility worksheet and a set of mitigation attachments before a request is circulated for staff review and ultimately brought to the board for a hearing.

At public comment, Kathy Knowles asked whether granting a variance to one subdivider would create precedent for subsequent developers. Josh said the process is intentionally detailed: applicants must first attempt averaging, demonstrate financial hardship when applicable, and show that impacts would be offset with stormwater controls or buffer enhancements. He added that staff will vet requests and make a recommendation to the board, and that the board would see a short list of materials in each package.

Board members asked procedural questions about appeals and whether the decisions would advance to city council. Staff stated the ordinance vests the board with decision authority and said they would check whether an appellate route is codified. Staff also emphasized the worksheet’s intent: to screen requests so the board grants variances only when impacts to stream function and water quality can be avoided or mitigated.

Board members and staff discussed examples of where the process was useful — a narrow lot with an existing house near the creek that had the potential to sit inside a buffer — and stressed the intent to maintain stream health while allowing limited, justified flexibility in constrained cases.

The package of materials that will accompany any variance request was described as including an eligibility worksheet, mitigation checklist, maps and attachments, and documentation showing how proposed site design preserves or replaces buffer function. Staff said they will provide additional materials and further explanation when a specific variance is scheduled for a hearing.