Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Drainage Plans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners send contested lot-drainage ordinance back to staff after split vote
Summary
Boiling Spring Lakes commissioners debated a proposed lot drainage ordinance and finished-floor elevation (FFE) requirements; after disagreement over a one-size-fits-all 24-inch FFE the board voted 3-1 to deny the Planning Board recommendation and asked staff to revise the language for clarity.
Get email alerts on the Lot Drainage Plans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Boiling Spring Lakes Board of Commissioners voted 3-1 to deny the Planning Board’s recommendation on proposed amendments to Article 7, Section 7-40 of the Unified Development Ordinance, a contested change that would require lot drainage plans and set a minimum finished floor elevation (FFE) for new single- and two-family homes. Assistant City Manager Nicole Morgan presented the proposal, which staff said was intended to reduce flood risk by requiring most new homes’ lowest floor to be at least 2 feet above highest adjacent grade.
Commissioner Todd Ausborn led the motion to deny and asked staff to research and revise the language to provide clearer guidance on when engineered drainage plans are required. Stormwater Engineer Jim Stachura explained the rationale for raising finished floors in low-lying, flood-prone areas, saying that while raising the FFE "increases initial costs, it may reduce long-term insurance expenses if flooding occurs," and that site-specific review of surveyor spot elevations can identify when engineered plans are needed. Commissioner Kim Sherwood voted nay on the motion and had earlier supported a 24-inch FFE; she also raised concerns about private meetings between a developer and staff/board members after the public hearing.
The discussion included disagreement over whether a uniform FFE is appropriate across the city and whether the policy should define when to require engineered plans. The board directed staff to refine the draft language and return with clarifications instead of adopting the Planning Board’s proposal as presented.
