HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400038 Review Comments 2014-07-16 Rachel Falkenstein
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Amelia McCulley
Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Rachel Falkenstein
Subject: Critical Slopes waivers
I understand this subject is on legal for tomorrow with respect to Faith Christian and a very similar situation to New Hope. I won't
be there, but,as the Agent, wanted to give you my perspective on this. I only ask that my perspective be considered along with
that of others. I start with the definition and a particular phrase in that definition.
Slopes, critical:Slopes,other than managed or preserved slopes,of twenty-five(25)percent or greater as determined by
reference to either current topographic mapping available from the county or a more accurate field survey certified by a
professional surveyor or engineer.Slopes of twenty-five(25)percent or greater which are lawfully created within a
development that was approved by the county shall not be considered critical slopes.(Added 7-11-12;Amended 3-5-14)
My perspective is that if the Board approves a critical slopes waiver with the SP using the County's GIS information,we have decided
to base the determination on the County mapping. Once that waiver is granted, the fact that there is a later more accurate field
survey is irrelevant. We made the determination and people have relied on that determination. If we wanted more accurate
topographic information,we should have asked for it and recommended denial of the waiver without it. If the SP includes a plan
the property owner is required to follow,the shown grading on that SP plan is included in that determination, unless modified by
conditions of approval.
I see two exceptions to the above:
1) The applicant has expanded the grading beyond what was anticipated by the plan that is a condition of the SP. In this
case, I believe the determination of general accord with the new plan is critical(no pun intended). If in general accord,the
critical slopes are already addressed. If not in general accord and a SP Amendment is required,it is also necessary to obtain
a critical slopes waiver for that new area. With this perspective, if the SP condition requires"accord"rather than "general
accord", it is strictly limited to that grading shown on the plan.
2) The conditions of the SP approval or the critical slopes waiver establish a different expectation than the above. For
example,if the Board conditioned the critical slopes waiver to disturbance of critical slopes shown on the plan and
specified this does not include any other critical slopes that are found with a later field run topographic survey. In that
case, I believe the Board has specified that as long as the field run topographic survey does not expand the limits of critical
slopes,it is approved for disturbance. But, if the field run topographic survey finds additional critical slopes will be
disturbed,they are not included for disturbance by the waiver. (I am not aware of any situation where we have
conditioned this way,so this is theoretical rather than practical.)