HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-01-2010 - 6aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 1, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. (o —0,
SUBJECT: Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area - Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment
and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): (Under Separate Cover) INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text and Craig Benedict, Director 245 -2592
Map Amendments Perdita Holtz, Planner III 245 -2578
2. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text and
Land Use Element Map Amendments
3. Various Maps
4. Letters from Town of Hillsborough and
Orange Alamance Water System
5. Summary of Planning Board Action and
Planning Board Minutes from March 3
and April 7, 2010
6. Relevant Supporting Objectives of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan
7. Table of Zoning Ordinance Requirements
for Watershed Protection Overlay
Districts
8. Memo from ERCD (Environment and
Resource Conservation Department);
Information on: Upper Eno Preserve;
Lands Legacy, Natural Areas and Wildlife
Habitats; Stream Orders, Water Supply
Watershed Protection in Orange County
9. Minutes of the February 22, 2010
Quarterly Public Hearing (Brief Staff
Responses to Comments Received at the
Quarterly Public Hearing are included in
Attachment 10 — March 3 Planning Board
Abstract)
10. Abstracts (only, no attachments) of the
February Quarterly Public Hearing and
March and April Planning Board Meeting
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of County initiated amendments to certain sections of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Atlas, and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Element Text and Map. Specifically, the following portions of the Zoning Ordinance text are
proposed for amendment:
PA
• Section 4.2.27 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
• Section 6.23.3 (Stormwater Infiltration and Detention)
• Article 22 (Definitions)
Application of the text amendments will result in changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay
District boundary depicted on the official Zoning Atlas and on the Land Use Element Map of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text changes in "Track Changes" format are included
in Attachments 1 and 2.
BACKGROUND: The BOCC authorized staff to proceed with this item at the August 2009
Quarterly Public Hearing (non - public hearing portion of the agenda) and it was discussed at the
October 13, 2009 BOCC work session. Changes to the "Critical Area" of the Upper Eno
watershed is one of the higher priority items to accomplish further implementation of the Efland-
Mebane Small Area Plan which calls for a re- evaluation of the Critical Area boundary for Seven
Mile Creek.
This item was heard at the February 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH). The abstracts
for the QPH and March and April Planning Board meetings are provided as Attachment 10.
These previous abstracts include significant Background information that would be redundant
and space- consuming to include again here.
Revisions Since Quarterly Public Hearing
There have been small changes to the documents and maps since the February 22 Quarterly
Public Hearing as appropriate comments received during the public input process were
incorporated into the proposed amendments. The maps contained in Attachment 3 reflect the
current proposal. The specific changes that have occurred since the QPH are:
• Section 4.2.27 — The last bullet on page 2 (lower right corner) of the section was
added to exclude the land area north of the centerline of West Ten Road and west of
the centerline of the Interstate 85 /US 70 Connector from the County- designated
critical area (see Attachment 3.1 for location)
• Section 4.2.27 — Language was added to the sixth bullet on page 2 (lower right
corner) of the section to clarify that the intent of continuing the critical area
designation in an "isolated area" within the overall critical area boundary is to provide
a greater level of protection for an area that drains to protected streams.
• Section 4.2.27 — Table on page 3 (lower right corner) of the section. The source of
elevation data was added.
• Section 6.23.3 — page 10 (lower right corner) of the section. A sliding scale for
impervious surface ratios was added specifically for the Upper Eno (had previously
been covered by the existing scale on the left of the page which will now apply only to
University Lake, Cane Creek, and Little River). This change was discussed at the
QPH, but the scale was not available at the QPH.
Letters Received from Other Agencies
On March 18, 2010, the Town of Hillsborough sent the County a letter supporting the continued
protection of the Town's drinking water supplies through the proposed Critical Area
amendments. Additionally, the Orange - Alamance Water System (OAWS) sent a letter on March
30 expressing appreciation to Planning Director Craig Benedict for a presentation made on the
water quality critical areas and conveying a willingness to have further discussions on water and
sewer issues. Attachment 4 contains copies of both of these letters.
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board considered the proposed amendments at its March and April meetings.
The Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the amendments. Attachment 5
contains a summary of the Planning Board's actions and the minutes of the meetings.
Additional Attachments
Attachments 6 through 10 contain additional information the BOCC may wish to consider in its
decision making process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff time to research, write, coordinate, and map the amendments and
guide them through the adoption process has been significant and has been accomplished
using existing Planning staff. Additionally, the required notifications resulted in the expenditure
of $3,645 plus materials (paper, printing, labels, envelopes). Funds to implement Small Area
Plans, which includes these amendments, were included in the FY 2009 -10 Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation and close the Public Hearing.
2. Discuss the amendments further, if required.
3. Take action on the proposed amendments as shown in Attachments 1 and 2.
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment 1
5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners
adopted the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan which contains a recommendation
to re- evaluate the Critical Area watershed line associated with Seven Mile Creek,
and
WHEREAS, County staff has analyzed the Upper Eno Watershed and the
Critical and Protected areas contained therein, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to continue
protection of water supply watersheds to a greater standard than is required by
State of North Carolina Rules,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of
Orange County, North Carolina, that Sections 4.2.27 and 6.23.3, and Article 22
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding (indicated
by underlined language in red) and deleting (indicated by stricken through
language in red) text as contained in this Attachment and which will amend the
boundaries of the watershed overlay districts depicted on the official Zoning
Atlas.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
seconded by
the foregoing Zoning
2010 and shall become effective upon adoption.
day of
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
Proposed Amendments to Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance Attachment'1
(additions are underlined, deletions are in strike-through text) j
*4.2.27 WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
*Amended
1/1/94 a) Intent
The purpose of the °vn+�ted-Watershed Protection Overlay Districts is to
prevent significant future water quality deterioration in existing or potential
future drinking water reservoirs which receive stormwater runoff from land
within Orange County. Protection of all water supplies within the State in
accordance with minimum standards was mandated by the Watersupply
Watershed Protection Act passed by the General Assembly in 1989. The
quality of water in drinking water reservoirs can be affected by human
activities including farming, o" +G+�construction of highways and roads,
subdivision development, industrial development, and other land-disturbing
activities. Types of water pollutants resulting from these activities include
sediment, bacterial contamination, heavy metals, synthetic organic
compounds and low-level radioactivity.
The intent of the PreteGtteed-Watershed Protection Overlay Districts is to
apply a set of regulations involving land use and in some cases, structural
best management practices which protect the watersheds by reducing the
pollution from future development which enters drinking water supplies.
Land use management practices involve minimum lot size and impervious
surface restrictions, since impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops and
driveways are a major source of pollution. Structural best management
practices allow for more intensive land use by providing for temporary
detention of stormwater runoff so that pollutants may settle.
b) Application Criteria
The PreteGted-Watershed Protection Overlay Districts as established in
Article 4.-27..4.2.27 overlay other zoning districts established in this
Ordinance. The new use of any land or new structure within any pFeteGted-
Watershed Protection Overlay District shall comply with the use regulations
applicable to the underlying zoning district as well as the requirements of
the applicable Watershed Protection Overlay District.
A Watershed Protection Overlay District will be applied to the Orange
County portion of watershed which have been classified as WS-II, WS-III or
WS-IV watersheds by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission in its implementation of the Watersupply Watershed
Protection Act of 1989. In accordance with the State Mandate, thirteen (13)
Watershed Protection District Overlays, as listed in the following table, are
hereby established.
Areas designated as "Critical Area" under the Orange County designation
are hereby established using the following criteria:
1
• The land area in the Upper Eno watershed (straight line distance) within
one-half mile of the normal pool elevation (NPE), or nearest available
contour line used for the calculation, of an existing Class I or Class II
reservoir or proposed water supply reservoir designated for protection,
or the ridgeline of the sub-watershed, whichever is less, and
• The land area within one-half mile on each side for an upstream
distance of 2.5 miles (straight line distance) of any fifth order or higher
stream flowing into a Class I reservoir, or the ridgeline of the sub-
watershed, whichever is less; and
• The land area within one-half mile on each side of a fourth order or
higher stream flowing between any Class 11 and Class I reservoir; and
• The land area within one-half mile on each side for an upstream
distance of 1.5 miles (straight line distance) of a third or fourth order
stream flowing directly into any Class I reservoir; and
• The land area within one-half mile on each side for an upstream
distance of 1.0 mile (straight line distance) of a third or fourth order
stream flowing into a fourth order or higher stream that is within 1.0
miles (straight line distance) of a Class I reservoir; and
• Any isolated areas within the overall critical area boundary that drain
into any of the streams listed above.
• Areas designated as Transition Areas on the Land Use Element Map of
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan are excluded from designation
as a Critical Area except for land areas located within one-half mile
from the normal pool elevation of a Class I reservoir.
• The land area north of the centerline of West Ten Road and west of the
centerline of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 Connector is excluded from
designation as a Critical Area except for land areas located within one-
half mile from the normal pool elevation of a Class I reservoir.
The designation of "Protected" applies to areas of watersheds classified as
WS-II WSIII or WS-IV outside of areas designated as "Critical Area."
2
DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION
UNIV-CA University Lake Critical One-half mile from the normal pool elevation
Area Overlay District of University Lake, or to the ridgeline of the
watershed, whichever is less.
UNIV-PW University Lake Protected The portion of the drainage basin of
Watershed Overlay University Lake not covered by UNIV-CA.
District
CANE-CA Cane Creek Critical Area One-half mile from the normal pool ylevation
Overlay District of Cane Creek Reservoir, or to the ridgeline
of the watershed, whichever is less.
CANE-PW Cane Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Cane
Watershed Overlay Creek Reservoir not covered by CANE-CA.
District
U-ENO-CA Upper Eno Critical Area One-half mile from the normal pool elevation,
Overlay District or to the ridgeline of the watershed,
whichever is less, of the following Class I
reservoirs: Corporation Lake (538' actual
NPE 540' contour line used) and Lake Ben
Johnson (515' NPE and contour line used).
One-half mile (straight line measurement)
from the normal pool elevation, or to the
ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less,
of the following Class II reservoirs: Lake
Orange (615' NPE and contour line used)
and West Fork on the Eno (643' NPE, 640'
contour line used) ; and the land area within
one-half mile (straight line measurement) on
each side of other streams designated for
protection. These protected streams
include portions of: Eno River, Seven Mile
Creek, West Fork of the Eno River, East
Fork of the Eno River, Rocky Run, Stream
ID 1625, Stream ID 1498, Dry Run Creek,
Crabtree Creek, and Stream ID 2109. -
r` rpera}inn Lake, d aR potential reseR ir_
snits on the West Fork of the Upper Eno and
Seven Mile Greet er to the ridgeline of the
watershedRehaye;is less..(Source of
elevation data: Atlantic Technologies Ltd..
1998 planimetric project approved by
Orange County GIS).
U-ENO-PW Upper Eno Protected The portion of the Upper Eno drainage basin
Watershed Overlay existing er potential drainage basins of I ake
()range s p Lake,ke Went Cork of the
e
Upper Eno and SeYen_Mile Greek not
covered by U-ENO-CA.
3
L-ENO-PW Lower Eno Protected The Orange County portion of the Eno River g
Watershed Overlay Watershed within ten miles of the City of
District Durham Emergency Water Intake east of US
501 (Roxboro Road).
LITTLE-PW Little River Protected The portion of drainage basin of the Little
Watershed Overlay River Reservoir which is located in Orange
District County.
BACK-PW Back Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Back
Watershed Overlay Creek which is located in Orange County.
District
HYCO-PW South Hyco Creek The portion of the drainage basin of South
Protected Watershed Hyco Creek which is located in Orange
Overlay District County.
FLAT-PW Flat River Protected The portion of the drainage basin of the Flat
Watershed Overlay River which is located in Orange County.
District
HAW-PW Haw River Protected The portion of the drainage basin for the
Watershed Overlay Haw River which is located in Orange
District County.
JORDAN- Jordan Lake Protected The Orange County portion of the Jordan
PW Watershed Overlay Lake Watershed which extends five miles
District from the normal pool elevation of the
impoundment.
4
e
10 Proposed Amendments to Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance (additions are
underlined, deletions are in strike-through text)
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
Critical Area, County Designated - The land area within one-half mile of the
normal pool elevation (or designated elevation) of an existing Class II water supply
reservoir, or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less; and the land area
within one-half mile of the normal pool elevation (or designated elevation) of a
proposed water supply reservoir designated for protection or the ridgeline of the
watershed whichever is less; and the area within one-half mile of streams flowing
into Class I reservoirs as designated for protection within the Zoning_Ordinance.
Amended
1/4/94
Critical Area, State Required - The land area within one-half mile of the normal
pool elevation of water supply in
which an intake is located (i.e., Class I reservoirs), or the ridgeline of the
watershed, whichever is less.
i
Reservoir, Class I - A body of water, such as a pond or lake, confined by a dam
or other barrier to be used for public water supply from which water flows by
gravity or is pumped directly to a treatment plant or to a small intervening storage
basin and thence to a treatment plant.
Reservoir, Class II - A body of water, such as a pond or lake, confined by a dam
or other barrier to be used for public water supply from which water flows by
gravity or is pumped to a Class I reservoir prior to final entrance to a water
treatment plant.
Stream Order - A ranking of the relative sizes of streams within a watershed
based on the nature of their tributaries. The smallest unbranched tributary is
called first order, the stream receiving the tributary is called second order, and so
on.
Amended
1/4/94 Watersupply Watershed (or Protected Watershed) Land that drains to existing
reservoirs which are public water supplies or potential reservoir sites or stream intakes
which have been designated for protection. All such lands have been classified by the
Environmental Management Commission as WS-II, WS-III or WS-IV watersheds and
require protection in accordance with the State Mandate.
Proposed Amendments to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance 1
(additions are underlined, deletions are in strike-through text)
6.23.3 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION
As a watershed becomes more developed, the amount of impervious
surface increases, causing a decrease in the rate at which stormwater
runoff which can be absorbed into the soil. This results in more stormwater
flowing directly into streams and other water bodies. Because this direct
runoff has not been filtered through the soil, pollutants from the air and land
surface enter streams and increase the potential for pollution of drinking
water supplies.
The effects of stormwater pollution on drinking water supplies can be
minimized by one of two general approaches. First, the amount of
stormwater runoff which reaches drinking water supplies can be controlled
by assuring that there is adequate ground area into which water can be
absorbed. This type of non-structural control is achieved through limitations
on impervious surface. A second approach is to collect stormwater run-off
in engineered ponds so that pollutants may settle. The water is then slowly
released and contains fewer impurities when it reaches the water supply
reservoir. The watershed protection standards adopted by Orange County
utilize a combination of these two approaches.
a) Non-Structural Stormwater Control
The first inch of stormwater run-off shall be controlled to the
extent possible through on-site infiltration and through the use of
methods which rely on natural soil properties for absorption and
treatment.
In order to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil
and minimize direct and immediate runoff into streams and water supply
impoundments, the maximum percentage of the total lot area which
may be covered with an impervious surface shall be specified. This
limit is referred to as the "impervious surface ratio".
Impervious surface calculations for an individual development
shall be cumulative for original construction and any subsequent
additions. One-half of the width of any of any existing or proposed road
adjacent to an individual lot shall be included as impervious surface for
that lot, except in the case where an existing road was contained within
a dedicated public right-of-way at the time that the watershed
regulations were first applied to the watershed within which the
development is located.
Infiltration techniques not only remove both suspended and
dissolved pollutants, but they require less maintenance, reduce
flooding, promote groundwater recharge and help maintain stream flow
during dry periods.
Where on-site infiltration methods are utilized, areas for such
purposes shall be designated on the plat and shall remain undisturbed
both during and after construction. Undisturbed areas for infiltration of
run-off shall also be located downslope from impervious surfaces and
shall not include areas characterized by floodplains, highly erodible or
12
impervious soils, steep slopes or previously disturbed areas. Areas
designated as suitable for septic tank nitrification fields may not be used
for stormwater infiltration purposes.
Run-off from roads, parking lots, and/or sidewalks shall be
directed to undisturbed areas through use of berms, grassed diversion
ditches or swales, or other acceptable means to reduce run-off velocity
and filter out pollutants.
b) Structural Measures
Non-structural methods may not adequately control the first inch
of stormwater runoff due to the amount of impervious surface proposed
to be developed, and other factors such as soil type, slope, presence of
floodplains and erodible soils, and/or lack of vegetative cover. In such
cases, structural detention ponds, which capture stormwater for slow
release through an outlet, are required. Where required, detention
ponds shall be constructed in accordance with Appendix A.
c) Impervious Surface and Detention Pond Requirements
For all protected watersheds, there is a absolute limit on the
percentage of lot area which can be covered with impervious surfaces.
In some cases, detention ponds are required when the proposed
impervious surface ratio exceeds a specified percentage, which is
below the absolute limit.
Impervious surface and detention pond requirements are as
follows:
1. Residential Development
i
13
Amended 1/4/94;8/21/01
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND
REQUIREMENTS
(RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV-CA 6% impervious surface limit.
UNIV-PW EXCEPT for all lots which existed prior to 4/2/90,
which are subject to impervious surface limits as
provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale
for Residential Impervious Surface Ratios — Univ,
Cane, and Little).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
CANE-CA 6% impervious surface limit.
CANE-PW EXCEPT for lots smaller than two acres which existed
U ENO GA. prior to 1/1/94, which are subject to impervious
surface limits as provided in the following Table
(entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious
Surface Ratios—Univ, Cane, and Little).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
U-ENO-CA 6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots smaller than #we--five acres which
existed prior to X946/1/2010 for date of amendment
adoption), which are subject to impervious surface
limits as provided in the following Table (entitled
Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious Surface
Ratios—Upper Eno).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
LITTLE-PW 6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots which existed prior to 1/1/94, which
are subject to impervious surface limits as provided in
the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for
Residential Impervious Surface Ratios - Univ, Cane,
and Little .
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
FLAT-PW 12% impervious surface limit for new and existing lots.
HYCO-PW * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
U-ENO-PW 12% impervious surface limit for existing and new lots
BACK-PW outside of Transition Areas as designated in the
Orange County Land Use Plan.
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
30% impervious surface limit for developments which
exceed a density 1 du/acre within Transition Areas as
designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan.
14
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND
REQUIREMENTS
(RESIDENTIAL)
Structural BMPs are required if impervious surface
exceeds 12%.
L-ENO-PW 24% impervious surface limit with curb and gutter.
36% impervious surface limit without curb and gutter.
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
HAW-PW 24% impervious surface limit.
JORDAN-PW * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
*BMP's as mandated by the Stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are allowed.
I
15
SLIDING SCALE FOR RESIDENTIAL
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS_ SLIDING SCE. _ __ .
Univ,Cane and Little IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS-
Upl2er Eno
Lot Size ISR Square Lot Size ISR Square
(Acres) Feet
6+Ac 5.0 Acres Feet
6.0 5.0 13,068 5.0 or more 6_0 13,06ts
4_9 6_2 13.234
5.9 5.1 13,107 4.8 6.4 13,381
5.8 5.2 13,138 4.7 6.6 13.512
5.7 5.3 13,159 4.6 6.8 13,625
5.6 5.4 13,172 4.5 7.0 13,721
5.5 5.5 13,177 4.4 7.2 13,880
5.4 5.6 13,172 4.3 7.4 13.861
5.3 5.7 13,159 4.2 7.6 13.904
5,2 5.8 13,138 4.1 7.8 13.930
5.1 5.9 13,107 4.0 8.0 13.939
5.0 6.0 13,068 3.9 8.2 13.930
4.9 6.2 13,234 3.8 8.4 13,904
4.8 6.4 13,381 3.7 8.6 13,861
4.7 6.6 13,512 3.6 8.8 13.800
4.6 6.8 13,625 3.5 9.0 13,721
4.5 7.0 13,721 3.4 9.2 13,625
4.4 7.2 13,880 3.3 9.4 13,512
4.3 7.4 13,861 3.2 9.6 13.382
4.2 7.6 13,904 3.1 9.8 13.234
4.1 7.8 13,930 3.0 10.0 13.068
4.0 8.0 13,939 2.9 10.2 12.885
3.9 8.2 13,930 2.8 10.4 12,685
3.8 8.4 13,904 2.7 10.6 12.467
3.7 8.6 13,861 2.6 10.8 12,232
3.6 8.8 13,800 2.5 11.0 11,979
3.5 9.0 13,721 2.4 11.2 11,709
3.4 9.2 13,625 2.3 11.4 11,421
3.3 9.4 13,512 2.2 11.6 11.116
3.2 9.6 13,382 2.1 11.8 10.794
3.1 9.8 13,234 2.0 12.0 10.454
3.0 10.0 13,068 1.9 12.2 10,097
2.9 10.2 12,885 1.8 12.4 9,723
2.8 10.4 12,685 1.7 12.6 9,331
2.7 10.6 12,467 1.6 12.8 8,921
2.6 10.8 12,232 1.5 13.0 8,494
2.5 11.0 11,979 1.4 13.2 8.050
2.4 11.2 11.,709 1.3 13.4 7,588
2.3 11.4 11,421 1.2 13.6 7,109
2.2 11.6 11,116 1.1 13.8 6,612
2.1 11.8 10,794 1.0 14.0 6,098
2.0 12.0 10,454 0.9 14.2 5,567
1.9 12.2 10,097 0.8 14.4 5,018
1.8 12.4 9,723 0.7 14.6 4,452
1.7 12.6 9,331 0.6 14.8 3.868
1.6 12.8 8,921 15.0 3.267
1.5 13.0 8,494 --
1.4 13.2 8,050
1.3 13.4 7,588
1.2 13.6 7,109
1.1 13.8 6,612
1.0 14.0 6,098
0.9 14.2 5,567
0.8 14.4 5,018
0.76 14.6 4,452
0.6 14.8 3,868
0.5 15.0 3,267
r
16
2. Non-Residential Development
Amended 1/4/94; 10/19/99;8/21/01
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
(NON-RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV-CA Same as Residential (See previous Table)
UNIV-PW
CANE-CA 5-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as
two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999 (Amended 10-19-99);
AND
6% impervious surface limit.
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
requirements.
U-ENO-CA 2-acre minimum lot size
AND
6% impervious surface limit.
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
requirements.
CANE-PW 5-acre minimum lot size with potential of up to five lots as small as
two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999 (Amended 10-19-99);
AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses;
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;
AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres
in CANE-PW).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
requirements.
LITTLE-PW 2-acre minimum lot size
AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses;
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;
AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres
in CANE-PW).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
IL requirements.
*BMP's as mandated by the Stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are allowed.
17
U-ENO-PW 70%
BACK-PW ISR in Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high-density
option) with structural BMPs if ISR > 12%;
AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers
outside of Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, with structural
BMPs if ISR > 12%;
AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses outside of Commercial
and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan (* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy
watershed impervious surface requirements);
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;
AND
A limit of 1,151 acres of non-residential use throughout U-ENO-PW
(5.0%) and 163 acres throughout BACK-PW (1%).
HYCO-PW 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
FLAT-PW AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses;
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;
AND
a limit of 1% of the watershed for non-residential use (37 acres in
HYCO-PW, 66 acres in FLAT-PW).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
requirements.
L-ENO-PW 70% impervious surface, with structural BMPs required when
impervious surface exceeds:
24% (w/ curb and gutter); or
36% (w/o curb and gutter).
HAW-PW 24% impervious surface limit.
JORDAN-PW * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
requirements.
BMP's as mandated by the Stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are allowed.
18
3. Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio
Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratios my be requested
through one of the following provisions:
a) Through variance procedures of the Board of Adjustment, as
described in Article 6.23.11 b.
b) Through approval and recordation of a conservation
agreement, as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 121 of the N.C.
General Statutes, between Orange County and a land owner
that prohibits development of land in a protected watershed in
perpetuity. In such cases, a modification of the required
impervious surface ratios may be approved administratively but
only to the extent that additional land in the same watershed is
conserved or protected from development. In such instances,
the land which will be subject to a conservation agreement
must be adjacent to the land proposed for development and for
which a modification of the impervious surface ratios is sought.
As an example, a person owning a 40,000 square foot lot and
subject to a 12 percent impervious surface ratio would be
limited to 4,800 square feet of impervious coverage. If the
person's plans called for 5,500 square feet of coverage (a
difference of 700 square feet), the recording of a conservation
easement on 5,833 square feet of contiguous property would
satisfy the impervious surface ratio requirements. (12% of
5,833 square feet is 700 square feet.)
The conservation easement shall describe the property
restricted in a manner sufficient to pass title, provide that its
restrictions are covenants that run with the land and, in form,
be approved by the County Attorney. The conservation
easement shall, upon its recording, be in the place of a first
priority lien on the property (excepting current ad valorem
property taxes) and shall remain so unless, with the approval of
Orange County, it is released and terminated. Orange County
shall require the priority of the conservation easement to be
certified by and attorney-at-law, licensed to practice law in the
State of North Carolina and approved to certify title to real
property by a lending institution (bank or savings and loan
association) doing business in Orange County.
Orange County approval of a release or termination of the
conservation agreement shall be declared on the document
releasing or terminating the agreement. The document shall be
signed by the Orange County Manager, upon approval of the
Orange County Board of Commissioners. No such document
shall be effective to release or terminate the conservation
agreement until it is filed for registration with the Register of
Deeds of Orange County.
• Attachment 2
19
RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE L
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners
adopted the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan which contains a recommendation
to re-evaluate the Critical Area watershed line associated with Seven Mile Creek,
and
WHEREAS, County staff has analyzed the Upper Eno Watershed and the
Critical and Protected areas contained therein, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to continue
protection of water supply watersheds to a greater standard than is required by
State of North Carolina Rules,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of
Orange County, North Carolina, that Chapter 5 of the Land Use Element of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by adding (indicated by
underlined language in red) and deleting (indicated by stricken through language
in red) text as contained in this Attachment and amending the boundaries of the
watershed critical area overlay districts depicted on the Land Use Element Map.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted this the day of
2010 and shall become effective upon adoption.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
20 Excerpt from Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan .
Chapter S: Land Use Element
Extractive Use
Land designated to encompass operations designed primarily for the
mining and quarrying of those substances which are legally removable
from the ground and substrata.
Agricultural Areas
Land which is actively being used for farming an forestry purposes and
which qualify for or are listed for, use value taxation purposes.
Stoney Creek Basin
Land within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek Drainage
Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough in portions of
Hillsborough, Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships. The area is triangular
in shape and is bound generally by 1-85 to the north, the University
Spur of Southern Railroad to the east, and NC Highway 86 to the west.
CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORIES
Public Interest Area
Land which contains public or quasi-public uses such as publicly
owned land, research forests or known archaeological or historical
sites.
Water Supply Watershed
Land draining to existing reservoirs which serve as public water
supplies, or to potential reservoir sites or stream intakes for drinking
water withdrawal which have been designated for protection against
threats to the water quality of future water supplies, in accordance
with County watershed protection programs and the North Carolina
Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989.
Watershed Critical Area, County Designated
The land area within one-half mile of the normal pool elevation (or
designated elevation) of an existing Class II water supply reservoir, or
the ridgeline of the watershed whichever is less: and the land area
within one-half mile of the normal pool elevation (or designated
elevation) of a proposed water supply reservoir, or the ridgeline of the
watershed whichever is less: and the area within one-half mile on each
side of streams flowing_ into Class I reservoirs, as designated for
protection within the Zoning Ordinance.
Watershed Critical Area, State Required
The land area within one-half mile of the normal pool elevation of art
existing or proposed public water supply in
which an intake is located (i.e., Class I reservoirs), or the ridge line of
the watershed, whichever is closest to the normal pool elevation of the
reservoir.
Reservoir
Land which contains a public water supply source, or the necessary
attributes for placement of a water supply to supply an
adequate quality of water for public purposes.
Reservoir, Class I
21
Chapter S: Land Use Element
A body of water, such as a pond or lake, confined by a dam or other
barrier to be used for public water supply from which water flows by
gravity or is pumped directly to a treatment plant or to a small
intervening storage basin and thence to a treatment plant.
Reservoir, Class II
A body of water, such as a pond or lake, confined by a dam or other
barrier to be used for public water supply from which water flows by
gravity or is pumped to a Class I reservoir prior to final entrance to a
water treatment plant.
Resource Protection Area
Land designated as Primary Conservation Area which contains
sensitive environmental resources, historically significant sites, and
features considered unbuildable because of their limitations or
unsuitability for development. This includes wetlands and floodplains
along drainage tributaries, steep slope areas, (15% or greater), natural
areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and significant historic and
archaeological sites. These areas form the basis for a conservation
network within which other land uses are situated.
New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space
Some of the land in the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the
Public Interest Area designated as significant and worthy of protection
according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan
completed in April of 1991 . This classification is part of a system of
open space in Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek
and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. The New Hope Corridor Open
Space is made up of critical environmental areas such as stream beds,
floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or
recreational value.
For each land use classification, sets of criteria have been developed that describe
the physical and environmental context, the projected population change, and
resulting land requirements. (See Appendix G: Land Use Plan Category Locational
Criteria.)
Map 5-4: Land Use Map, designates the areas where these classifications are
applied.
i
AM
�1
q W?4 '
WA. .� 1.0 ✓�w
IL
.Ira
&w/K v
-• '� �� CAP
A ` �+� ► , '. ., �T7 - -
� 9r
Wit
I Ara,
ROM
� s
• Attachment 3.1
Proposed Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area - West Ten Area Revision
a
A m
tegK
c� Rd
o` r
C, Na' .
Area removed from County-designated 70
Critical Area after Quarterly Public Hearing
70
Southern Dr
e°
c�
G°
West Ten Rd
3 West Ten Rd
a
I
COX
Sevg°�de
20 tg6�
13 504gr�`�®G
�a
c°
Y C^
• 0 0.125 0.25
Legend ummos==Miles
Revised Critical Area Stream Order 3
ores•ca,my pa��no.a mspeeors oepam.rt
Original 2010 Critical Area 1 4 mo„,,,naeY�„,���,•,��m.m,o
-j..a Nam Grdina cram Rarw O-Q
1994 Critical Area Boundary 2 — 5 0 :Na•,a—,M
24 Attachment 3.2 .
Upper Eno Existing and Proposed Critical Area Boundaries
r
s
\t
J
Lake Orange
1 ~
I
West Fork on the Eno
1
Corporation Lake
70
i
i
Lake Ben Johnston
OA
Legend o t 2 .
N Miles
O1994 Upper Eno Critical Area Boundary-13,230 ac. Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Proposed Upper Eno Critical Area-14,290 ac. GIS Map Prepared by Miriam Coleman,May 10,2010
Projection: North Carolina State Plane(feet)
Watershed Boundary Datum: North American 1983
►fit ��. �
�h
Will fir
Ivi ---
7JeERS' � 1�
:�` t.- � � � - , \ _ tom►
`, MIJI f
Cl,Ntimmil L
Above t Fork on the Eno
o River ®�
McGowan Creek
.. �J
X11 (existing)
NUN
28
This Page Intentionally Blank
Town
Of
f!IIIS
M
419&1 Ib" Of H&bmWh
March 18, 2010
Commissioner Valerie Foushee, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
P.O.Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Commissioner Foushee,
The Town of Hillsborough received the request from the Orange County Planning staff to
support the pending amendments to the county watershed protection standards and related
amendments.
Attachment 42 9
The Town appreciates the County's continuing efforts and assistance in protecting the drinking
water quality for customers of the Town of Hillsborough system through the regulation of land
uses in the vicinity of all drinking water supply reservoirs in Orange County. The Town's two
primary water sources are both located outside the town's zoning authority and are not required
to have protection under the State's minimum requirements. The pending amendments continue
to protect the lands adjacent to our drinking water supplies.
T-he.Town of Hillsborough supports the county's- continuing efforts on this important -topic as
embodied in the pending amendments to the development regulations and. comprehensive plan.
Sincerely,
S
Tom Stevens, or
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919- 732 -1270 • Fax 919 - 644 -2390
Orange- Alamance Water System, Inc.
POST OFFICE BOX 187 MEBANE, NORTH CAROLINA 27302 TELEPHONE: (919) 663 -6212
March 30, 2010
Mr. Craig Benedict
Orange County Planning Department
P0 Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr. Benedict:
The Board of Directors of Orange- Alamance Water System, Inc. appreciates your
presentation on the water critical areas and the Efland sewer area. The Board now
has a better understanding of Orange County and its role in providing water and sewer
to the areas in Orange County which are served by Orange- Alamance.
This letter is to advise that Orange- Alamance is willing to serve on a committee
to have further discussions on water and sewer issues for the area. This committee
would consist of Orange County personnel, Orange- Alamance personnel, Orange -
Alamance engineer, and representatives from the local fire department.
Thank you again for attending our Board meeting, and we look forward to a future
meeting to discuss these issues.
Sincerely,
ORANGE - ALAMANCE WATER SYSTEM, INC.
Marion George Workman, Jr.
President
Attachment 5
31
Summary of Planning Board Action
In order to gauge whether Planning Board members agreed with the individual
criteria that make up the full Critical Area, staff broke each criteria down to its
geographic extent for discussion purposes. The Planning Board discussed and
voted upon each individual criterion as to whether it should be included in the text
of the Zoning Ordinance. The following chart depicts the result of the votes that
took place over two Planning Board meetings (March and April 2010). The maps
that show each criterion applied geographically follow. The Minutes of the
Planning Board meetings are included after the maps.
Results of Vote for Application
of Each Criteria
Criteria (by attached Ma)
Vote Result
Map 2.1
Include (unanimous)
Map 2.2
Include (unanimous)
Map 2.3
Include unanimous
Map 2.4 (with post -QPH staff
Include (1 no vote — Board member did
recommended modification to exclude
not think area north of West Ten Road
area north of West Ten Road )
should be excluded
Map 2.5
Include unanimous
Map 2.6
Include two southern streams —
Crabtree and ID 2109 (unanimous).
Include two northern streams — Dry
Run and ID 1498 (3 no votes - see
lines 662 through 674 of March 3
Minutes for discussion of votes
Map 2.7
Include (4 yea, 3 no — see lines 312
through 342 of April 7 Minutes for
discussion of votes on this point)
After "straw votes" on each of the geographic areas were conducted, the
Planning Board considered the actual text amendments that would result in the
revision to the Critical Area. The Planning Board voted 6 -1 to recommend
approval of the text amendments. (See lines 677 -683 of the April 7, 2010
Minutes for discussion of the "no" vote).
The Planning Board also considered the amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan Text and Map. The Board vote unanimously to recommend approval of
these amendments.
ti
�' . .. ,� �,,, ••�'� rte.�. � � ,r
, < < .
All
MUIR � .;
�! •� �.� �,.�. .l�
AA
1 ` sib �•�- -� ► t
min
• 85 _ ,
fq4 It,
i.
A _
. ►�, .�ti
� �, Imo, .. � � � �' ► ��
IF
. . ,
Ilk
am
Jill Am
OWNw
V02=0 r
LI WA �r
��`...__ �,� i 1.111,11►:'�� ,, � ���'
•� ' 'off . ,/ �� d _ I �•MOM
;.� Fit-
UL 1 +�
■ - ... - -
Mn •IM •
.,L%
rem
41 t
I lril � �� •.
;!a■ �1•�',g y
.. � ... ....A
�i
Sim ,
Elm
85 ■ _ �I �n►an.�. ��� '�rl
WIN
ja
VIA
..- � ►v � !
.� / � ��,�•� . ►. � ,,-'vim - �
� � _ , ��
f 14
,, OEM,.,
iR
ot it.
u ■1.'1/J T 1
I'M
ra4qr m--
■ . ■ off —• ••- . —
t ■
... ..�
FA
Ilk
pI
� N �, ,.
t �1
Ila
Rim
r u 1 •Runiiiv- —
I IRMO - `
R�
SOR
1� - .rJl� ��J� �► _ � .;
��� � �►�Fri, ,_. _r
.r _
ImoIj,� ,► I`
TWO
hill
IL
Ifin
MWA
16 N
1pt%N
-t,
��:� may' r �► �`�
My ,,
ilk
t
,�� �► fir. ,,, '��,� �� t; /�`�
— - c aba i•• • , •
LN
Is Its -0 is-
Excerpt of Approved Planning Board Minutes 39
1 . MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 MARCH 3,2010
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
C) MEMBERS PRESENT:Larry Wright,At-Large,Cedar Grove Township;Tommy McNeill,Eno Township Representative;
7 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, At-Large, Cheeks Township; Earl McKee, Little River
8 Township Representative;Rachel Hawkins,Hillsborough Township Representative;May Becker,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
9 Mark Marcoplos,At-Large,Bingham Township;
10
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), At-Large, Eno Township; Judith Wegner (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township
13 Representative;Samantha Cabe,Chapel Hill Township Representative;Jeffrey Schmitt,Cedar Grove Township Representative;
14
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive
17 Planning Supervisor;Michael Harvey,Zoning Administration;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II;
18
19
20 (Documents handed out to Planning Board.• Planning Board Rules of Procedure-Updated February 3,2010;Email letter to Craig
21 Benedict from Douglas Efland regarding Upper Eno Critical Area;Revised Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance and map of
22 Proposed Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area with revised West Ten Area; February 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing
23 Comments concerning Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area with notation identifying who made comments)
24
25
ZG AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2� �
28 NOTE: Due to absence of both the Chair and Vice-Chair,Larry Wright was selected to chair the meeting.
29
30 ..................�..,,.*,**�....*,..,..,.,***,..,x.�,..*.,�,*
31
32 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ORDINANCES AND ATLAS AMENDMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND
33 MAP AMENDMENT
34 To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed text and map amendments heard
35 at the February 22 Quarterly Public Hearing regarding Watershed Protection Overlay District changes in
36 the Upper Eno watershed.
37 Presenter: Craig Benedict,Planning Director
38
39 Craig Benedict: Good Evening, we heard this item at the February 22 Quarterly Public Hearing. (Review PowerPoint
40 Presentation maps).
41
42 Larry Wright: How many units per acre are allowed in the other watersheds.
43
44 Craig Benedict: One unit per five acres in both these. While protecting these criticai watersheds that are part of the OWASA
45 service area except if someone has only a 10 or 12 acre lot that they can subdivide it into two acre lots or densities for the first 10
46 acres. Someone can put seven iwo acre lots in this subdivision. The rest can be open space. Even though I calculated those
47 five two acre lots for the first ten acres,then you are only allowed two lots and the rest can be open space. Our interest is not to
48 have big lots without protecting open space. A question that I did not put on here but is probably in your mind is that we have
49 iwo critical area watersheds that have a certain level of protection. Why don't we have the same level of protection in this area?
50 We are trying to correct the definitions of the lines of the maps.
51
52 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Going back to your sample,the 6%of impervious and this type of subdivision, part would fall back on the
53 two acre lot loophole,right? For the road that comes in.
54
55 Craig Benedict: We will take the impervious of the entire 20 acres and do 6%on that. You can shift some of this impenrious that
56 could have gone here and it can be re-designated towards those two acre lots. You just don't do the two acres times 6%. You
57 can do another 20 acre site times 6%and apportion it to the road and to the lot and what we do to the subdivision is that we look
58 at that during the minor or major subdivision process and make sure there is an allocation and as we put in the agenda package,
59 there are some people that have subdivisions that go back to 1970 even before there were subdivision rules and we work with
60 them on a case by case basis and find out what they had. We also added something in, you saw at the public hearing, this
40
61 sliding scale,if someone has small lots that are freestanding all by themselves,there is a sliding scale that allows them to remain
62 at the 12%level.
63
64 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Some of those lots may require the house,just because of the way it perks, to be at the back of the lot
65 which means that a lot of their impervious land will be taken out by the road and driveway and that means the house is getting
66 smaller.
67
68 Craig Benedict: We have been able to analyze the lots and have done typical plans but take a look at a typical one acre lot and
69 how much can be done with the driveway or a two acre lot. We are conscious that the driveway can eat up a lot of space on this
70 and we will be working to have a better scale but here you could have a miniature barn on here plus a house, plus a driveway.
71 Michael,if you could work with Gienn and Jennifer to get more a scale for this. The numbers are right but the scale is skewed.
72
73 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I am concerned about those properties where there has to be a long driveway to get to the house and what
74 are the negatives to allow somebody a higher level of imperviousness.
75
76 Craig Benedict: We have a 1994 line for the watersheds. The 1994 line was something the Board of Counry Commissioners
77 designated. All they had to do in 1994 by state rules was to put a one half mile buffer around Lake Ben Johnson and half mile
78 buffer around Corporation Lake. The rest of this dark blue outline was a decision of the Board of County Commissioners. They
79 decided in 1994 to preserve the buffer,these reservoirs that weren't here yet, West Fork on the Eno, also, Lake Orange, and
80 another ghost reservoir known as the Upper Eno above McGowan Creek. They also put a buffer around a future reservoir
81 known as Seven Mile Creek. They didn't,in 1994,have good definitions to explain how this line was created. There were holes
82 in the definition.
83
84 Larry Wright: What wouldn't have run up?
85
86 Craig Benedict: The ghost reservoir known as the Upper Eno above McGowan Creek.
87
88 Perdita Holtz: Larry,if you look on page 49 of your packet,those resenroirs are shown.
89
90 Craig Benedict: On page 49,the old blue lines were bubbling around where these points of the reservoir came out but if you try
91 to protect that there would be missing spots there. In October when we had a meeting with the Board of County Commissioners
92 and this board we spoke about some of the controversy that was coming. It was a decision of the Planning Board to get the
93 Comprehensive Plan out of the way and move forward with the development of the UDO and make the definitions better in the
94 UDO. Then I went to the Board of County Commissioners in November 2007, I explained the issue with the watershed lines.
95 They said we know it is an important issue,do it by sectors based on some small area plan interest and then bring it forward. In
96 October, we explained this is what is required and this is what we have done extra. The direction we got from the Board of
97 County Commissioners in October was to make the definitions be about as close as you can get to what the 1994 line was,
98 which is what our proposal does. It is almost exactly the same as the 1994 line with about an 8%difference. (Explained
99 sections on map). If you look at the new definitions,we have almost redefined the 1994 lines with a 92%match.
100
101 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Everything in the dark blue line is critical or is it critical and protected?
102
103 Craig Benedict: Critical has a higher level of protection than protected.
104
105 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Beyond the blue line there is also a protected line out there?
106
107 Craig Benedict: Yes.
108
109 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: How far does that go?
110
111 Craig Benedict: This map shows everything outside the critical,this is all protected. Only the white areas are unprotected.
112
113 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Is there a page or section that describes the difference between protected and critical?
114
115 Craig Benedict: The definitions we have for protected are in our zoning code and we are not changing those because we are
116 saying protected areas as designated by the state watershed,levels 2,3 and 4. We can dig up that reference for you. We can't
117 really change what the protected classification is.
118
119 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Essentially,the difference in density?
120
41
121 Craig Benedict: Yes. In this area, the differentiation is how many houses per acre and the impervious percentage. The
122 difference is 6%imperviousness in the critical and 12%in the protected.
123
124 Perdita Holtz: There was a table included in our public hearing materials and also on our website.
125
126 Larry Wright: We talk about dwellings units per acre or structures or impervious surface, do we consider at all, the soil rype
127 because it is known that in northern Orange County especiaily that it is very impervious soil type and is that factored in your
128 runoff coefficients and so on.
129 .
130 Craig Benedict: There was an assumption throughout Orange County, even though soils are different,the clay soils and even
131 some sandy soils still do not have good qualities of percolation so the 6%and 12%take that into consideration. Everything
132 shown on this map for septic systems,red is severe limitations,the yellow is moderately severe. I won't say that the great septic
133 soils you have in other parts of the country,I think North Carolina has some trouble and the mountains for steep slopes problems
134 that because of the clay in th�Piedmont has trouble and then you get to the sandy soils down east and you run into depth of
135 water table which creates problems. We do take into the consideration the difficult soils. Someone at the meeting asked about
136 why we count driveways as impervious even if they are gravel. The runoff from a gravel driveway is about 95%still. In prepared
137 lawns in North Carolina is about 50-60%impervious. It may be a year or two years from now,we had talked about giving peopie
138 benefits when they have a two acre lot if they preserve more native tree area. A native tree area only has about 5-10%
139 impervious.
140
141 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Going back to the map with the critical area,you talked about the part that you were going to propose to
142 move portions of critical area,what was the reason for that?
143
144 Craig Benedict: The reason we are backing this up is the counry has identified the Seven Mile Creek area since 1987 as an
145 important natural area. We are talking about this area,Hilisborough,this is the Eno River and this is the Seven Mile Creek area.
146 This is called a Natural Heritage site and the counry has actually purchased some land in that area shown on this map. We are
147 saying that most likely we will never build a reservoir here over top of these natural areas in the counry but suggesting that we
148 pull it back and at least protect the streams. Is that watershed protection for the intake of Hilisborough or is it for the protection of
149 the natural areas in here. I think the presentation on the 22^d was more focused on,it will improve water quality,is the focus of
150 that area probably more environmental than water supply,probably yes.
151
152 May Becker: You mentioned that Seven Mile Creek will probably never be a reservoir because, I guess that is not clear to me,
153 one of the things that came up in the town meeting was the question of why remove these potential reservoir sites as potential
154 reservoir sites because water is an important natural resource. My concern is that if we move a potential reservoir then if the
155 critical area is also reduced,then the level of watershed protection is reduced and the potential of protecting water in the future
156 would no longer be there.
157
158 Craig Benedict: Two things,either we protect future reservoirs as if they were going to be there and do the full half mile buffer
159 around it or protect the future reservoirs partially, not to full like it was flooded, but protect the streams that lead up to that
160 resenroir. What happens with this map is that you see us pulling back with the new description, notice the reservoir still fits
161 inside there. There were people who said if we are not to build a reservoir, IeYs get rid of the big critical areas and then others
162 that say that they might come here so why don't you protect all or part of it. We are suggesting that we protect an area,whether
163 reservoir or natural areas but not to the full extent so we can pull some of the Economic Development areas out in the Efland
164 area north of I-85 the way the line is now,it goes halfway up to the railroad tracks off I-85 so the development potential in Efland
165 village area is limited. Our proposai because we are only suggesting to buffer the streams and not the big reservoir anymore,we
166 are able to pull that line farther out. We are suggesting and asking the board to consider that the state says you can pull it out to
167 a roadway or other man made structure so we can pull back this proposed line to West Ten Road. A comment from the public
168 hearing was there was some land here that doesn't flow directly to the streams so that was more than the half mile distance so it
169 made sense. Some areas,green dots,we are suggesting is that before runoff occurs from any development in the Efland village
170 area that these can become erosion control and BMP devices before the runoff comes under the interstate. DOT owns the land
171 up here and we hope to work with them in the future to turn some of their erosion control issues into a bioretention area.
172
173 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Who owns the property in the area?
174
175 Craig Benedict: This is West Ten Road and this is the I-85 connector. DOT owns a big piece over here and a private land owner
176 here and two small houses coming down West Ten Road. After you get past this point,this is all Economic Development again.
177 -
178 Craig Benedict: We connect to that other line down here at West Ten. The way we would add this change is how we described
179 those other conditions on this map. To further define it,to exclude that area of the land north of the center line of West Ten Road
180 and west of the center line of the I-85 Connector. Some people may say forget the future resenroirs,forget the streams,block off
181 Seven Mile Creek altogether. I don't think there was consensus on that but that was an option, Protect the streams between the
42
182 resenroirs on the Eno River. Protect the natural areas of associated feeder streams. The decision to keep this for purposes of
183 environmental protection of Seven Mile Creek,Crabtree Creek and Rocky Run,that is something the board should say,yes that
184 is one of the criteria. Sometimes we would end up with a little island between all our rules and we suggested that if do all our
185 half mile buffers all over,there is some isolated criteria and we suggest even though that does not meet the half mile definition,
186 we suggested putting that in there. One of our commissioners said that just because it is ease of administration, should you
187 include that in a critical area designation or just allow it the way it is. I would like you to decide on that tonight or in April. This is
188 what staff was saying should be critical, why, because it is surrounded by critical. Should the private properry rights of the
189 eo le in that area,should the be allowed to ut one unit er acre.
P P Y P P
190
191 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: It will still be protected?
192
193 Craig Benedict: Yes.
194
195 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: The difference between protected and critical as I read it was rather small.
196
197 Craig Benedict: Yes. Half the impervious, 12%to 6%and from two units per acre to one unit per acre. As we said in the
198 hearing,the typical density of this entire area is over two acres per unit because that is the way it has been developed. I have
199 not seen any subdivisions that have been,on the average,under two acres per unit.
200
201 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: The Bluffs?
202
203 Craig Benedict: The lots are 1.3 acres but the total density is over two units per acre.
204
205 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If you take all the land?
206
207 Craig Benedict: Yes. You will see in the Bluffs,the densiry is the overall. Typically,the Bluffs had more fields,as one of these
208 parcels down here that had some controversy associated with it because there is ridge line here and with this development flow
209 into that the way it is now,the Seven Mile Creek area or will it flow to Rocky Run which wasn't listed as a critical area. That is
210 why we have to correct this so we don't run into a case by case.
2ll
212 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I had to go back to the mention of protect natural areas which in some ways is different than protect quality
213 of water and I think it is a very important discussion about protecting natural areas. I don't think we are giving it due diligence
214 because we are trying to get this in under water quality. I don't like to kind of mad dash this together but to take it out and have
215 an in-depth discussion about natural area so we really understand what we are protecting and then protect it in a way that it has
216 more to do with environmental protection.
217
218 Craig Benedict: Presently, we have more latitude with zoning regulations. The state gives us more power for water qualiry
219 reasons so we use that umbrella of state watershed rules to both protect water quality areas and as a secondary and possibly
220 equal benefit are natural areas because it has its own purposes. We are using that umbrella but it has dual proposes but I think
221 in our discussion,we are seeing that in this case,this is of equal importance,as is the water quatity issues.
222
223 Larry Wright: Craig,what do you have to present and I see there is quite a bit here,I think we really need to move forward.
224
225 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Can I request that at the next meeting,we talk about the natural areas . The other thing is this map here
226 is not aligned with the map with the purple line.
227
228 Craig Benedict: We are going to go back to the questions to find out where you want to go with these issues, protect the whole
229 reservoir,shrink them down to a different size.
230
231 Larry Wright: Can we have just a very short review of what we are supposed to be doing?
232
233 Craig Benedict: We need to make the map match the definitions. I don't think there is any latitude;we have to include the state
234 critical areas.
235
236 Earl McKee: Talking about your state critical areas,going back to the drawing of the ridge line,the state critical areas would be
237 defined as half mile or to the ridge line,whichever is chosen or actually whichever is the closest,is that correct?
238
239 Craig Benedict: Whichever is closer. The state has a watershed definition,this is actually a sub watershed because the actual
240 watershed changed where this is lower Eno unprotected. That is the definition we use for the ridge line of the watershed. The
241 ridgeline of the sub watershed goes here. Those definitions have to be very specific. There is 13 watersheds here, this is an
242 Upper Eno Watershed, Little River Watershed, Flat River, there are 13 of these designated watersheds so if that is the
43
243 watershed line,there is 101 little sub watersheds and we are not including those as the ridgeline breaks of the sub watersheds.
244 There was a question about the state critical areas and how we define them so we are in agreement that we are going to protect
245 at least those two areas. Are we in agreement that we are going to protect the West Fork and Lake Orange with a half mile
246 buffer?
247
248 Larry Wright: LeYs put this in the form of a proposal to give an up or down vote on.
249
250 Craig Benedict: A critical area really isn't much of a decision point. Class II Reservoirs.
251
252 Larry Wright: We are voting for what now?
253
254 Craig Benedict: We are voting to pass these as an Orange Counry designated critical area and have a half mile of protection
255 around those two reservoirs. A Ciass II reservoir is where there is not a pipe that goes directly into it. These are more flood
256 control and water storage and then they release water downstream.
257
258 Perdita Holtz: Maybe we should show that maps that show the critical area broken down by criteria and have them vote by
259 criteria.
260
261 Craig Benedict: This is the state criteria;there is not a vote on that because we cannot go less than the state. We can go more
262 and everything after this is more than what the state requires.
263
264 Larry Wright: We are going to make an up or down vote on we need a map to match the definitions of the Class II areas?
265
266 Craig Benedict: Yes.
267
268 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: We want to maintain a critical area in the Class II reservoirs.
269
270 Larry Wright: Any other discussion?
271
272 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: The fact that those two Class II reservoirs are not connected to Class I reservoirs is of no concern in this
273 vote?
274
275 Craig Benedict: They are hydrologicaily connected.
276
277 Perdita Holtz: Maybe it would be helpful if you showed how the criteria get applied.
278
279 Craig Benedict: That is the first criteria, second criteria, the third criteria is applying this between the resenroirs, and then we
280 have the fifth order streams. A first order stream is that first point where water starts flowing,two ones flow into a creek to make
281 a second order and when two second order stream come together,they form third order,once you get third,foRh and fifth order,
282 you start getting a reasonable stream flow.
283
284 Mark Marcoplos: The issue now is do we want to maintain a reasonably strict standard of water protection, half mile around
285 these two reserooirs, it doesn't mean no one lives there, it is a level of zoning proven to work in other areas and to me it is a
286 pretty simple matter of yes, we would want to do that. We certainly want to protect the reservoirs we have. I think it is a no
287 brainer.
288
289 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: When you had your communiry meeting, you had one in that area, what were the comments in the
290 community about this? It really expands the area or retracts the area.
291
292 Craig Benedict: It does expand a section out here but there is only an 8%difference overall.
293
294 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: What did they say about it? Does anybody here live up there?
295
296 Larry Wright: Yes.I do.
297
298 Craig Benedict: You build less with these new restrictions. As I said it will depend on the soils and the history of the average lot
299 size in that area is more restrictive than what we are suggesting now. In the community meeting,we talked about paper zoning,
300 one unit for one acre that we show you on paper but then we coined a new phrase called land zoning and that is what the land
301 can actually handle and that is where the soils and the well and the stream buffers affect the lot size. We are not suggesting one
302 unit per five acres we are just creating better definition and protecting that one half mile around this future Phase II reservoir.
303
44
304 Larry Wright: i would like to close the discussion. LeYs vote on this first issue. Can you state it again,Craig?
305
306 Craig Benedict: This criteria is a county designated criteria where we take the Class II reservoirs, Lake Orange,West Fork on
307 the Eno and do a half mile buffer around them and accepting that over any ridgeline encroachment that you would cut off that
308 half mile buffer at that point. Also,below the reservoir dam,you do not see a half mile buffer there on this criteria because the
309 water doesn't flow from below the dam to above the dam.
310
311 Larry Wright: I would like to entertain a vote. All in favor for this Class I I protection.
312 Vote: Unanimous
313
314 Craig Benedict: The next bullet is applying the criteria that we are protecting the streams between these two Class II Reservoirs
315 and where they are picked up in the next reservoir down here. This is the Eno River and the West Fork of the Eno River. This
316 criterion creates a half mile buffer on both sides of the stream.
317
318 Earl McKee: Is it my understanding that by using the half mile buffers in this area,that we are going to require a larger lot size by
319 definition and my question is this reservoir, even though proposed,may or may not be built. If the reservoir was sitting there, I
320 don't have a problem with putting a half mile boundary around it to protect the water quality of the lake if it exists. I realize the
321 water is flowing from the reservoirs through the stream bed down to the pick up point but I question that the likelihood of
322 additional pollution,not like a Hurricane Fran situation,but additional pollution from the stream flow down. I am questioning the
323 need for this half mite boundary on the river or creek from the reservoirs down to Corporation Lake.
324
325 Craig Benedict: There were two questions. One is we are not putting our buffers against this future reservoir that was ghosted
326 in We are just going to the actual Eno River and this is the West Fork Eno River. We are not talking about the bubbles out here
327 in this criteria. The reason for it is the water that gets picked up at Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake is a combination of
328 water that is held back in these reservoirs plus all these little streams that feed into Eno. We are saying additional
329 sedimentation;more impervious could create difficulties for the quantities in these two points. This is not a major change. In this
330 whole section,this is less than what it was before.
331
332 Earl McKee: Have there been or are there studies taken at the dam or just below the dam site on both these reservoirs and just
333 above Corporation Lake to compare the water quality as it exits the reservoir and is picked up at Corporation Lake.
334
335 Craig Benedict: There is not but last night on our agenda, we did get approval to get sampling points along sections of the
336 Neuse River Basin so we are starting to do samplings at different points on the Eno but we don't have any water quality data.
337 There have been studies by the Upper Neuse River Basin Authoriry that suggested lower densities and lower impervious in these
338 areas which we can provide you with that supports our keeping a critical area of this size.
339
340 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: In terms of what we are going to hear,looking at protecting space between the reservoirs,are we still going
341 back to A and B?
342
343 Craig Benedict: We are going to go exactly as shown.
344
345 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If we vote on that,we will still consider the critical area line in terms of either A or B?
346
347 Craig Benedict: As we go through these criteria, you will be making decisions over here. They will be defacto decisions by
348 voting on these things it will be answering those questions.
349
350 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: When we are looking at streams between the resenroirs,that doesn't necessarily address the issue of the
351 critical line at Seven Mile Creek Reservoir?
352
353 Craig Benedict: We are not there yet.
354
355 Mark Marcoplos: What we are looking at is that we are protecting the water in the two reservoirs with a relatively high standard
356 because we have already decided we will protect the half mile around those two reservoirs. We are protecting water quality
357 because we believe that is the right thing to do. That water will then flow down to Corporation Lake and Ben Johnson Lake
358 where it will be picked up for treatment. The streams are flowing in and the same water we are protecting up in the reservoirsis
359 coming down to the treatment facility. It would be highly illogical not to protect that water all the way to the pipe.
360
361 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: It was already protected in the 1994 plan they are just changing the lines and you are saying the reason we
362 want to change these lines is because....
363
45
364 Mark Marcoplos: You are just matching reality of what we have learned since then. We certainly logically would want to protect
365 that so I don't see any logical way we wouid want to say let's not protect it.
366
367 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: That question isn't on the table. We can't undo the 1994 decisions;we are talking about the 2010 lines.
368 �
369 Craig Benedict: Recreating the 1994 with better definitions.
370
371 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Without undoing the 1994 so that is not even under consideration.
372
373 Mark Marcoplos: I was picking up on a little bit of consideration of maybe some changes there.
374
375 Earl McKee: I am not suggesting changes, my question is have there been studies done as to the water quality at the base of
376 the two reservoirs and at the pick up point at Corporation Lake to find out whether there is a change of water qualiry in that
377 stream flow. Is it the same quality at the base at the beginning or is it deteriorating on the way down and if it has been
378 deteriorated on the way down then that would be the logical extension of how far back the boundaries should be.
379
380 Tommy McNeill: Mr.Benedict,is there a concern of yours about that?
381
382 Craig Benedict: The development that is there now is an existing condition so we are trying to prevent contamination by lower
383 impervious and higher densiry. The study may not show if we ever did a study five years from now and we let that go back to
384 one unit per acre and found a problem then there is no way we can tell people to get out of there. We are going to do a study to
385 create some benchmarks but we are suggesting that we need to stay at that one unit per two acres so we don't get into difficult
386 situations.
387
388 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: We don't know if all these zoning requirements and restrictions actually get to the end we want which is
389 better quality water, the evaluation hasn't been done so we don't know if all this zoning and Class I, Class II, etc. makes a
390 difference.
391
392 Perdita Holtz: There have been studies throughout the country that talk about how higher density and higher urban development
393 leads to worse runoff conditions. We are trying to minimize the risk that we will have problems.
394
395 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I am trying to interpret what Earl is saying,he wants to know if we know now that this makes a difference
396 and the outflow....
397
398 Earl McKee: I am not suggesting we take out the`94 line or go to one half mile but when we get down further and start talking
399 about these bubbles,I have questions. I am not suggesting we take out the half mile protection on this stream. My question is is
400 there a study as to whether,the half mile seems to be arbitrary in some respects,and I realize it had to be set at some point.
401 What I am trying to balance is the need for the water to be protected to have any quality at all against personal properry rights.
402 How does it balance out between the rights of the property owners versus the needs of the water users because water users do
403 not own that property?
404
405 Larry Wright: Craig,does this really affect property rights?
406
407 Craig Benedict: I see the zoning in this case as not overly restricting what the land can handle which means it does not affect
408 the properry rights.
409
410 Larry Wright: I would like to entertain three more questions,and then I am going to close the discussion. LeYs make sure the
411 questions and comments pertain to the point at hand.
412
413 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Is this a half mile across here or a mile?
414
415 Craig Benedict: One half mile at either side of the river,one mile total.
416
417 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: What is the river it runs down?
418
419 Craig Benedict: Eno River.
420
421 Larry Wright: Tell us about what we are voting on and tell us about the preservation and what we will be doing and voting on.
422
423 Craig Benedict: Do you want to create a half mile buffer around these streams, Eno River, Upper Eno River,and West Fork on
424 the Eno River and keep them in the critical area?
46
425
426 Larry Wright: I would like to entertain a vote. He wants a straw vote.
427 Vote: Unanimous
428
429 Craig Benedict: The next criteria. We are building the future shape of our critical area. There are some other streams involved
430 here. These streams specifically,Seven Mile Creek is a fifth order stream and there is some Eno River between these reservoirs
431 down here. With this criterion,defined in the package, is a small segment here and the Seven Mile Creek,fifth and fourth order
432 stream in that area. The reason for protecting Seven Mile Creek is this is a large order stream aimost in order range of the Eno
433 River,provides a lot of water to this intake. Even though we collect a lot of water from Lake Ben Johnson in this area,there is a
434 large watershed area for this Seven Mile Creek and that is why they put a potential reservoir there so we are suggesting
435 protection about two and one half miles up stream. The board may say 2�/2 mile is too far;IeYs go two miles or one half mile.
436
437 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I would like to recommend, in your recommendation for the straw vote,that you foilow the new lines'that
438 came from the counry hearing as well as the community which was the new one you passed out tonight.
439
440 Craig Benedict: With one minor addition. The little pullout of that Seven Mile Creek bubble above West Ten Road.
441 '
442 Larry Wright: Are those two different votes. I think we are looking at Proposed Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area West Ten
443 Area Revision and then this cailout here? Could you clarify?
444
445 Craig Benedict: This was the original definition within the 22�d public hearing package and that included the half mile off Seven
446 Mile Creek. Earlier tonight, I suggested an amendment to pull this line back as shown in the attachment that was handed out
447 tonight, I suggested that this criteria that this half mile, excluding this new language about Seven Mile Creek which would be
448 shown on this map.
449
450 Larry Wright: You would like a separate vote on that?
451
452 Craig Benedict: Yes.
453
454 Mark Marcoplos: This is all part of the same thing. If we are going to give protection to that stream based on a criteria we have
455 discussed,iYs going to resoive in the solution of that area.
456
457 Craig Benedict: The two votes that could be out there are;don't exclude that area;the other vote is excluding that area.
458
459 Rachel Hawkins Phelps: Why is it excluded?
460
461 Craig Benedict: Because the area,you can decide to use manmade features such as a road,you don't have to exactly use that
462 half mile buffer from Seven Mile Creek. They were suggesting in this area actually showed that some water in this area flows
463 north over and back again so we took a micro scale look at this and say it is reasonable to use a roadway in this case because
464 waters do not flow directly down this way from that line.
465
466 Perdita Holtz: Craig,did you mention something that the Efland Mebane plan calis for mixed use for that entire arear?
467
468 Craig Benedict: Yes. We thought it would be problematic to have a little section of that area over here in some critical area and
469 allow development adjacent to it.
470
471 Mark Marcoplos: We are talking about protecting drinking water flowing into the reservoir so that is consistent with everything
472 else we have done. I know there is some feeling that this process ought to resolve in the lowering of some regulation
473 somewhere for commercial development and if we do protect that area and remove that section Craig has been talking about,we
474 accomplish both things. We protect the drinking and we make a rationale decision that the area around I-85 is right for
475 development,iYs not going to make a big difference in that watershed.
476
477 May Becker: My concern is that right off the interstate,we are essentially trying to protect a potential reservoir, if you develop
478 more in that area,it is common sense,there will be potential for run off. It seems that it would be wiser to protect that area.
479
480 Earl McKee: We pulled back to West Ten,why did we not go back to this point to catch this half mile boundary there and bring it
481 down to West Ten because this whole area here is an Economic Development Zone. I guess technically, this would be
482 Economic Development Area even though it is in critical area?
483
484 Craig Benedict: The logic was the Efland Mebane Small Area Plan that studied this area, throughout Efland and over to
485 Mebane, had in their recommendations that the I-85 was the cutoff between areas that could have urban styled developmeny
47
486 and could be easily serviceabie by public water and sewer because these flow back to McGowan Creek because once you get to
487 this area, it starts flowing toward the Eno so the Efland Mebane plan supported having a cutoff somewhere here and plus this
488 section of Efland,this is a mixed use area and it recommended to go down to I-85.
489
490 Earl McKee: It seems odd to leave that little area because you are pulling it back to West Ten all the way to the access road on
491 70.
492
493 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Earl,I know this area and it is not really a good road. There is that Ben Johnson Road.
494
495 Earl McKee: It seemed odd that it would come down and then cut off. One side of that access road would be as accessible as
496 the other side.
497
498 Pete Hallenbeck: I was part of the Efland Small Area Plan and can explain the thinking was with regards to the big area between
499 the connector and Mount Willing. From here to here,the topology is rolling,if you have gone off the interstate on Exit 60 the land
500 just rises up,there is even a water tank up there then everything drains from this way to this way. Even though it was in a crow's
501 fiy distance, if you start looking at water flow, it wasn't anywhere near. The thinking was why we are taking this 80 acre parcel
502 out of play when water here goes through a substantially longer path than the other protected. This area is the low area that
503 feeds down in the streams between Ben Johnson and I-85 and it was close enough to the flow that it was not clear that it was a
504 good area to develop and also it would be a lot of work to bring water and sewer pump station. Those were the two factors.
505
506 May Becker: In terms of the ground water,very little is known as far as how contaminants move through there so even if studies
507 are done,it may not be until afterwards that one would know what the actual effects of the reservoir are and another point would
508 be that water is a very limited resource and it is a natural resource and so knowing we only have a very limited number of
509 watersheds and potential reservoirs, putting some type of development around that area and weakening the protection doesn't
510 seem to make sense.
511
512 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: It is not weakening anything south of I-85 because that is not how the water flows. In this particular area,it
513 is flowing up so it won't flow down and get into Seven Mile Creek. Also, what you have are citizens that put together the
514 Economic Development Plan for that area and we should be willing to citizens, especially those who live in that area and be
515 flexible about that and take their things into consideration. Finally,Seven Mile Creek flowing on the other side of the I-85 access,
516 the one big area Earl was concerned about,it doesn't lend itself to development so leaving it accomplishes nothing but taking it
517 away won't either.
518
519 Larry Wright: Are we ready to vote. Please tell us exactly what we are voting on.
520
521 Craig Benedict: The vote could be this is the exclusion,excluding this from this critical area on this map....
522
523 Larry Wright: The vote is....not the vote could be.
524
525 Craig Benedict: This area,Seven Mile Creek,2�/�miles from intake and the Eno River between these two Class I reservoirs,�/z
526 mile buffer on either side,protect that as critical area,excluding this area north of West Ten Road and west of the I-85 connector.
527
528 Larry Wright: All in favor?
529 Vote: One opposed(May Becker)
530
531 Larry Wright: May,do you express a dissenting opinion?
532
533 May Becker: I would like to protect the watershed including,not excluding,the area north of West Ten Road and west of the I-85
534 connector in order not to weaken the watershed protection and in order to protect the area from potential runoff;we shouldn't
535 make an exception for the area north of West Ten Road. Dissenting opinion: I would like to protect the critical area,Seven Mile
536 Creek,2 Yz miles from intake and the Eno River between these two Class I reservoirs,��Z mile buffer on either side, protect that
537 as critical area,including,not excluding,this area north of West Ten Road and west of the I-85 connector. In terms of the ground
538 water,very little is known as far as how contaminants move through these types of systems-- I find it imperative that the water
539 bodies be protected from potential road runoff,etc.,i.e.that the critical line in this area not be weakened,especially considering
540 the potential growth impacting the area and its very limited hydrologic resources.
541
542 Earl McKee: Why was 2'�miles chosen instead of 1 �/z miles or 5 miles.
543
544 Craig Benedict: It matched what was there in 1994. In 2 Yz miles, if a reservoir were put there,it means that would cover that
545 flooded area which is shown in the package. It stili gives you a level of protection, not like you were given with the entire
546 reservoir but at least a partial.
48
547
548 Craig Benedict: There are two more criteria and we will tet the board decide if you want to finish these two tonight to close the
549 whole discussion or move to some UDO stuff. The two criteria would be adding these streams and adding those streams wouid
550 be another. This can be picked up next month.
551
552 Larry Wright: Is the board's pleasure to continue this and table the UDO for another meeting.
553
, 554 Michael Harvey: I need a decision on one item and a minute or two for the last one.
555
556 Larry Wright: How can we manage this?
557
558 Craig Benedict: Within ten minutes we can wander through these criteria. Then by 9:30 or 9:45 we can address that.
559
560 Earl McKee: I think what we should cover what is on our agenda.
561
562 Mark Marcoplos: I want to speak about one part of this we haven't talked about. I don't have to do that I will be happy to go
563 straight to the Board of Counry Commissioners with what I am going to say. I am going to give you a 30 second to one minute
564 preview. I am either going to do the five to eight minute thing here or I am going to do it for the Board of Counry Commissioners.
I
565
r' ' ' hi n f rth rd r streams that flow directf into Class I reservoirs Lake Ben
566 Craig Benedict: Second to the last c iteria, is t rd a d ou o e y
567 Johnson, this is a third order stream, this might be a fourth order stream that flows into Corporation Lake. This one was
568 completely covered by the 1994 Watershed map, not the definition. Any contamination that occurs in the stream that is just a
569 mile problem,Ciass I reservoir,we thought that was important. Was it 2�/z miles Perdita?
570
571 Perdita Holtz: I think it was 1 '/z miles.
572
573 Craig Benedict: This criterion is third and fourth order streams flowing directly into a Class I reservoir. That only involves Rocky
574 Run,which was not included in the 1994 description. The one here was completely part of the 1994 line no change to the line in
575 that area. In this area we are including probably 700 acres more into the critical area than was in 1994. The density is roughly
576 two acres per unit.
577
578 Ea�i McKee: When we are talking order streams,is this our definition,a county definition or state defined.
579
580 Craig Benedict: This is a national definition. The definitions are in the packet.
581
582 Mark Marcopios: We can't go wrong protecting the water. We could go wrong not protecting it.
583
584 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I live in this area;I have to say I was surprised that Rocky Run was not protected. We are very glad to see
585 that new bubble added out here. It does make sense to have it there.
586
587 Larry Wright: Other comments.
588
589 Craig Benedict: You are voting on including these two streams in the critical area definition, Rocky Run, 1 �/z miles up,one half
590 mile on either side of that stream and including them in the critical area definition.
591
592 Larry Wright: All in favor?
593 Vote: Unanimous
594
595 Larry Wright: Carries. Next point.
596
597 Craig Benedict: This is the last criteria. You see four different streams come into the picture here. The stream might be ID
598 2109; Crabtree Creek are two streams that used to flow into this Seven Mile Creek reservoir. Those were being protected
599 previously because of that future reservoir site. This stream parallels,comes from the Eno,Dry Run Creek that comes up here
600 and in a previous program you could see it was being protected also. I can say there is a difference I have been researching
, 601 more recently,the difference beiween these two streams and these two streams. This reservoir was quite confined,there wasn't
602 too many bubbles on the outside we think it should have been bubbled out a little even in 1994. In talking to residents of this
603 area,this stream, Panther Branch, is a very low flow stream. I can't compare it to what Crabtree and stream IN 1625 might be
604 over here but notice the difference with these two third order streams how it is in a shallower basin and this would have been the
605 Seven Mile Creek reservoir. If these up here were excluded from your determination,you could probably still put that reservoir
606 there if you wanted to because those two new bubbles would not affect where that goes but if you exclude these two third order
607 streams,you would be losing that protection of that Seven Mile Creek.
49
608
609 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: You are actually reducing the area for that,the blue line,the pull back.
610
611 Earl McKee: I think that with the two nodes in the upper part,you are able to confine the potential lake within the`94 boundaries
612 without that extension of that area. I don't see any point in having that extension out there and you are abie to confine the lake
613 within the old half mile boundary. On the lower nodes, I don't really have a problem with putting it there, I realize it pulis it back
614 but I don't believe that lake will ever be under any circumstances.
615
616 Craig Benedict: So Earl is saying that he doesn't feel the need....
617
618 Earl McKee: My question is where do you stop? If we could set back,it will change it to 3/a of a mile but if it is confined within the
619 'h mile boundary we have set, if this lake is ever built and it is confined within the�/z mile boundary and we have set a straight
620 line we should stick with. Otherwise,you are going to follow every creek and every stream.
621
622 Mark Marcopios: The whole discussion has been based on the idea that we are not thinking about the future reservoirs,we are
623 thinking about the water systems we are using now and the proximiry of that stream and that small micro water shed to
624 Corporation Lake and the stream flowing down from the two upper reservoirs is what we are really talking about now. That
625 whole idea of will these ever be reservoirs is a whole other long discussion. We are really talking about how does it affect the
626 system we are using now and you can make a good argument that is significant watershed that is impacting the existing water
627 flow and down from the upper reservoirs and so close to Corporation Lake that would be better to err on the side of caution.
628
629 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I don't see how we can talk about quality of water without thinking it about it regionally. . I would like for
630 you to speak to the regionality of water because we can't really make a statement of the pretty little area and not think about it in
631 terms of the whole region. I would like for the natural area discussion be pointed out before we zip through all this because 1
632 think the Seven Mile Creek piece is the natural area that is being umbrelied in but I don't know for sure. I would like a little more
633 disclosure.
634
635 Craig Benedict: The regional water discussion wiii be ne� month and I will show how it evolved under connectivity. We
636 definitely, over the last five years have been focusing on that and the comment about the environmental issues, we will put
637 together a littie package for next month to discuss where the natural sites,where the mountain to sea trail and find out do we get
638 a dual purpose with a water quality consideration here that handles environmental issues, you can decide on that. The
639 discussion tonight comes back to this one that we are just talking about four bubbles, if you want to include these two bubbles
640 down here. These bubbles stay within the 1994 description and these wander beyond the 1994. You can see how these pop
641 out more.
642
643 May Becker: My thought is that we should say that if we have standards we have followed since 1994 and we want to keep the
644 same quality,at a minimum,maybe cleaner,it would seem we would want to keep the levei of protection.
645
646 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: We don't even have a baseline for the quality of water we have now so there is no way we could know if
647 we kept it where it is today or got better.
648
649 May Becker: It is clear that if we strengthen the protection we would presumably....
650
651 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: That is an assumption.
652
653 Larry Wright: I would like to close the discussion and vote on these separately with discussion between the two. I feel there is a
654 difference of opinion on the two that some members may vote differently than the other. Number one is one to the north and
655 number two on the one to the south. Craig, I would like to have you summarize what we are voting on with each one and it will
656 be an up and down.
657
658 Craig Benedict: The northern streams, stream ID 1498 putting a half mile buffer on both sides and the end and on Dry Run
659 Creek putting a half mile buffer on Dry Run Creek and there is one mile from where the enter into the Eno River or the Class I
660 reservoir.
661
662 Larry Wright: All in favor of the top one as it is shown on the map.
663 Vote: Passed(No—Pete Hallenbeck,Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Earl McKee)
664
665 Larry Wright: Dissenting opinion.
666
667 Earl McKee: Does not conform to the parameters we set around the other two existing lakes,Orange Lake and West Fork. This
668 bubble out does not conform to the parameters of the iwo existing lakes.
50
669
670 Pete Hailenbeck: I was concerned that the bubble at Panther Branch was an anomaly of the criteria used to define the zones. I
671 think it is inconsistent to the flow of that creek.
672
673 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I wonder how many other third order creeks that haven't been identified. We should have all the third order
674 creeks identified before we vote on one.
675
676 Craig Benedict: The second one is the two streams,Crabtree Creek and stream 2109 doing a Yz mile buffer on either side of
677 these streams,one mile from where they enter into Seven Mile Creek.
678
679 Larry Wright: All in favor.
680 Vote: Unanimous
681
682 Mark Marcoplos: One thing I want to say.
683
684 Larry Wright: Please quickly.
685
686 Mark Marcoplos: I know you all probably don't want to hear this...l think you really do want to hear it...
687
688 Larry Wright: When you do this,say at the beginning that you want additions to the agenda.
689
690 Mark Marcoplos: I will summarize it quickly. We will talk about regional water next month. On page 21, Planning Board
691 Ordinance Review committee, it talks about the issue of whether we want to preserve all these potential reservoir sites as
692 reservoir sites because that is a major part of the review. We are basically saying protect some of the sites as natural areas. I
693 was on the OWASA board for 6�/z years through the droughts,we purchased the quarry when I was on the OWASA board and
694 that is a major part of the future water supply for Chapel HiIVCarrboro and it was never discussed as being anything other than a
695 source for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It is essential to Chapel Hill and Carrboro. In addition to that,one of the major policies that
696 was enacted while I was on the board was to maximize conservation of our local resources before we went outside the region to
697 get water because it was apparent to us on the board that we have that capability. We are talking about needing that water in
698 2035. There was a meeting a couple of months ago that I first heard mentioned that there was any discussion of Orange County
699 outside the Chapel Hili/Carrboro area getting water from that quarry. Such a major issue and somebody somewhere said to you
700 that this might happen. We don't need water from Jordan Lake. Chatham Counry needs it, Durham County needs it. Chatham
701 Counry overreached. They have houses there that plan to be buiit that don't have water. Durham did the same thing. They
702 want water from Jordan Lake. OWASA has an intake on the west side of Jordan Lake that is a prime intake site. They came to
703 OWASA and Orange County and said let's all work together because you have what we want,this intake. There is this thing
704 quietly going on that threatens to regionalize the water. It is a big issue,do we partner with these other municipalities and lose
705 an incredible utiliry in OWASA. At a Assembiy of Governments meeting last year,I went and gave my statement about it. Many
706 other elected officials also said to OWASA, this doesn't make sense. We don't think this is a good idea;we have great water,
707 why should we bail these other jurisdictions that didn't plan very well. OWASA has continued with this process despite the
708 feedback.
709
710 Craig Benedict: A Mr.Efland did provide an email that was distributed about stream ID 1498,Panther Branch,please read that.
711
712 ..,..,,,.�,,...*.*...�.,.**.�,.�*.....�...,.,,.,*.......
713
Excerpt of Approved Planning Board Minutes 51
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 APRIL 7,2010
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 MeMeeRS PReseNT: Brian Crawford (Chair), At-Large, Eno Township; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township Representative;
6 Jeffrey Schmitt,Cedar Grove Township Representative; Larry Wright,At-Large,Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck,
7 At-Large,Cheeks Township;May Becker,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Mark Marcoplos,At-Large,Bingham Township;
8
9
10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township
11 Representative; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative;
12 Rachel Hawkins,Hillsborough Township Representative;
13
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator;Tom Altieri, Comprehensive
16 Planning Supervisor;Michael Harvey,Zoning Administration;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II;
17
18
19 (Documents handed out to Planning Board: F�ecutive Summary-Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange
20 Counry;Letter to Craig Benedict from Orange-Alamance Water Systems Orange Counry Bicycle Map)
21
22
23 AGENDA(TEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
24
25 *�.**���**..�**�..**.,*,***�..****..*.****..*�****,
26
27
2g AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ORDINANCES AND ATLAS AMENDMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND
29 MAP AMENDMENT
30 To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed te�and map amendments heard
31 at the February 22 Quarterly Public Hearing regarding Watershed Protection Overlay District changes in
32 the Upper Eno watershed.
33 Presenter: Craig Benedict,Planning Director
34
35 Craig Benedict: Last month we went through this item with straw votes. For the purpose of bringing the chair up to speed I will
36 go over the information from last month. This is a summary of the watershed amendments that we discussed. We reviewed all
37 these maps. Everyone was pretry unanimous on most of the sections. On Map 2.6,there were some questions. Tonight we will
38 go over Map 2.7. This is about the Upper Eno Watershed. Here are the limits of the boundary.
39
40 Craig Benedict: Section 2.1 had to do with the state required buffers around the Class I reservoirs. Lake Ben Johnson, the
41 water supply intake for Hillsborough and Corporation Lake, the intake for Orange Alamance Water Supply. i did meet with
42 Orange Alamance Water supply people to discuss these amendments and other issues with the water supply within the Efland
43 area.
44
45 Craig Benedict: Section 2.2 dealt with putting half mile buffers around Class II reservoirs which is Lake Orange and the West
46 Fork on the Eno. That is something that is not required by the state but that is what we had in the 1994 rules and we are adding
47 better definitions to explain that. Section 2.3 was adding the Eno River between these two reservoirs;they are both fourth order
48 and higher streams. The initial tributary flowing into a stream is the first order,two first order flowing together create a second
49 order and two second order create a third order. Everyone agreed that"what value is it to protect water supplies up here and go
50 into unprotected areas". Item 2.4 was using fifth order streams that flow into these Class I Resenroirs. This is Seven Mile Creek
51 and the Upper Eno. Item 2.4,we did make an amendment to an area in here. This originally using the half mile from Seven Mile
52 Creek north of the I-85 interchange and you can see from the red line,which is the 1994 line,to this dotted red line,we will be
53 pulling it out of Efland Mebane Small Area Plan. It was also discussed by staff and the board that it would be reasonable cut off
54 south of I-85 to the West Ten Road because a lot of the water in this area flows north for a while and then back in. It was
55 agreed,almost unanimously, to include that West Ten area. Section 2.5 was using some third or fourth order streams that are
56 nearby these Class I reservoirs. This area here, Rocky Run,was not really included in the 1994 study but we found it to be a
57 very important stream. There was discussion on this 2.6 area because we are doing third order streams and there was a
58 question about Panther Branch and that is,should be we include Panther Branch's section along with the other definitions. Even
59 though there was a majority straw vote to leave it in,there was some discussion so I had Erosion Control take a look....
60
61 Jeffrey Schmitt; What is the point being made?
52
62
63 Craig Benedict: The point is that I compared the catchment areas to these third order streams to find out if Panther Branch area
64 was different than the Crabtree Branch and they are all very similar so they all have similar water flows,catchment areas and it
65 would be hard to differentiate why Panther Branch was different than Crabtree.
66
67 Mark Marcoplos: What does dendritic mean?
68
69 Craig Benedict: A treelike pattern where you would see more linear streams,the erosion is in similar sedentary rock so there
70 was not one more than the other.
� 71
72 Jeffrey Schmitt: What does benthic mean?
73
74 Craig Benedict: The shelves within the little streams adjacent to the streams that are sometimes wet,like the bank. Section 2.7
75 gives all the definitions for these different descriptions of third order,fourth order, etc. You end up with a hiatus point between
76 these two reservoirs. LeYs call it criteria 2.7 and we suggested that is included in this Upper Eno Preserve Area. Some of the
77 comments at the last meeting were,is it easier to administer this way and that should be the guiding principal versus the private
78 properry rights within that area saying they should remain at one unit per one acre densiry and the areas around it would be one
79 unit per two acres. We did check the soil maps and the soil in this area are moderate, which are not a gangbuster,so it is a
80 decision that we can administer it with the hole in the donut and say this is one unit per one acre and the impervious is 12%
81 versus one unit per two acres,the impervious is 6%because our GIS and Zoning maps would show that accordingly. This area
82 between had been covered by the 1994 Zoning which was the lower density so we would actually be returning this area. If you
83 do not want to include this,you would be giving them back something that may have been taken back before. The average lot
84 size is 2.4 acres per unit. One unit per two acres is not really taking away from the natural land holding capacity that is indicative -
85 of a lot of these soils around the Upper Eno.
86
87 Larry Wright: Given the soil rype and the relative perk condition of this area,what realistically can be built within so many acres?
88
89 Craig Benedict: Saying this is included in the critical area would not take away much development potential for that area
90 meaning it would not develop at any less densiry than the one unit per two acres. Again this was included in the maps from 1994
91 but it was not described well.
92
93 Samantha Cabe: How many properties were located in that isolated area?
94
95 Perdita Holtz: I think there are only portions of three very large parcels.
96
97 Pete Hallenbeck: Mr.Faison has his horse farm?
98
99 Samantha Cabe: Do we know the acreage?
100
101 Larry Wright: Is that where Bellchase is? They are about 10 acre lots.
102
103 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the road right above it is Bellchase.
104
105 Jeffrey Schmitt: If you have the technology to monitor this,a much more precise method,why would you not just leave it as it is?
106
107 Craig Benedict: We can monitor by GIS but for consistency somebody might say,why one unit per two acres and on unit per
108 aere here? We could say this whole zone between both reservoirs and around the reservoirs is all on unit per two. It is the
109 decision of the board what has more weight to it.
110
111 Mark Marcoplos: It seems that if you create a loophole as we would here then you give people opportunities later in other areas
112 to say you have let that anomaly happen there and that can cause problems. I think it should be uniform and given the fact that
113 there is not great development potential there anyway, it would be more of a symbolic nod to this person's property rights over
114 protection of the watershed. It seems the simplest,cleanest way is to say that we are going to stick to our watershed regulations
115 especially since there is no harm to the property.
116
117 Jeffrey Schmitt: We don't know that,that is a supposition on your part that the property owner may want to do something with it.
118 I flipped back to 2.6 and ask the question,the state says,I guess this is what the state requires?
119
120 Craig Benedict: Section 2.1 is what the state requires.
121
53
122 Jeffrey Schmitt: I presume the state is trying to take care of us but under the auspices of whatever Orange County says we have
123 now expanded that by a factor of twenty fold. Since we have the capability to do this and the technology says that this can be
124 carved out and left at the zoning,one unit per one acre,why would we diminish the value and the right these people have with
125 those particular three parcels of property, no matter what they can or can't do with other restrictive covenants,simply to bring it
126 into a much larger,more restrictive basis. There is no argument we have for taking that in.
127
128 Samantha Cabe: I don't look at this as canring out this isolated area. Going through the way Craig explained it,he explained the
129 watersheds around each of these areas that are necessary in the Planning DepartmenYs view of what is necessary to protect
130 these watersheds. This particular area is not necessary from the Planning Department's point of view to protect the watershed. I
131 don't see it as carving it out but rather it is not included in these critical area nodes. I agree with Jeff in why should we just throw
132 it in an include it just so it appears that we are not carving it out because there are individuals who own this properry,not Orange
133 County so if we don't need it to protect the water we should not mess with it.
134
135 Larry Wright: I disagree totally because as Craig said,that realistically you could not build less than one house on two acres
136 because of the perk conditions on here. I agree with Mark that this in a watershed and there are two reservoirs there. We can
137 see streams that drain this watershed right in front of our eyes and i really feel very strongly, I live up here that this should be
138 within the protected area.
139
140 Samantha Cabe: The statement that people can't build there given the soil is not necessarily a complete statement because
141 people can do engineered systems that cost more money but I think Mr.Benedict is referring to the fact the soil doesn't perk for a
142 traditional septic system. Someone could put additional house sites if they wanted to take the extra money to have an
143 engineered system so I don't think we need to assume they can't.
144
145 May Becker: In terms of the arguments, I think it is important to consider the watersheds are very limited because you have
146 potentially infinite growth coming into this Counry and there's been a great push for growth but as a geologist and marine
147 scientist, I have looked at a lot of these types of studies in terms of what is known and what is not known, in terms of the
148 modeling techniques that they have used in the past and more recently and to think that you can simply do a study and then
149 reach conclusions as to what needs to be protected or not(tends to oversimplify the question). These are very limited resources
150 and have potentially unforeseen effects when it comes to contamination. I don't understand how you could have a line in 1994
151 that effectively protected the watershed and then weaken the rules--unless you have a specific strong argument and reason to
152 weaken the rules--I don't understand why you would want to do that.
153
154 Larry Wright: I agree totally with what she says and you can argue for development but the bottom line is no water flows into
155 Orange County. Our water flows out.
156
157 Samantha Cabe: I am not necessarily saying we should not agree with all the critical areas they have identified. I guess I am
158 questioning this iso�ated area that if the studies are saying this is not a source of water,we shouldn't include it just to be including
159 it just so it looks like a complete map.
160
161 Mark Marcoplos: This donut hole is surrounded by critical area. That is not random. It is within the boundaries of the critical
162 area so we are not taking a random site out of the critical area and saying that we are going to just put restrictions on that. It is in
163 critical area. It is all part of that same eco system. I don't know where the assumption came that it is not necessary to be
164 concerned about this land and I didn't ever understand the sophistication of the technology that was alluded to for monitoring
165 this.
166
167 Craig Benedict: We could put identify this exact area on a map so if someone comes in to develop there is ease of
168 administration,whether it is in or out that in the old maps that we would have a more difficult time putting this on a GIS map now
169 that we have the technology. If there is such an aberration that we need to keep in there, we will be able to, from an
170 administrative standpoint track down in the future for any development potential.
171
172 Mark Marcoplos: What would you be monitoring for?
173
174 Craig Benedict: To know exactly where on what property where the line occurred between critical and protected.
175
176 Mark Marcoplos: Couldn't you do that everywhere?
177
178 Craig Benedict: Yes. We do that everywhere.
179
180 Perdita Holtz: He is referring to 1994 hand drawn maps so there was more of a precision problem of being able to stipulate this
181 is the area that is out.
182
54
183 Mark Marcoplos: This wouid be surface data? How the streams, land,rype of soil, etc.doesn't quite seem to be like sure fire
184 protection against pollution.
185
186 Jeffrey Schmitt: I give kudos to the engineer or whoever it was in the organization that split this out. I for one think this is far too
187 restrictive,notwithstanding that I would be voted down aimost categorically so I am not going to bring that up but following the
188 rules,categories 1,2 and 3,all these new stream definitions,that draws this outside line,the people,your department utilizing
189 these rules said this area has a unique geographical location and because of it,it does not have the same characteristics as the
190 rest of this property in being required to be protected. Were this not here,I would not be saying anything but my comment is that
191 your folks,following their rules has said this could be isolated,we have the technology to do it bringing it in simply because it is
192 inside of it is inconsistent with what we are trying to do.
193
194 Brian Crawford: Have the property owner's in that area been communicated to or sent a message there is a change being made
195 to their property?
196
197 Craig Benedict: Yes. We notified the people who would be put into the critical area and we also notified a lot of people being
198 taken out of the critical. These people are being added to the critical area over here and there are these that will be taken out so
199 we have notified people coming in and out. We didn't have anybody specifically mention they came from that area where they
200 are being taken out of the critical area,we didn't hear anything specific.
201
202 Brian Crawford: There is a possibility that those foiks won't mind being put in the critical area. There is a possibility they will
203 accept it or not. My fear is they currently have a right and for that to be taken away from them without them specifically
204 acknowledging it....
205
206 Jeffrey Schmitt: Let's ask it on a legal basis. If we were to say this now needs to be included in this area and these folks
207 decided to file a suit based on the regulations in place,I ask Counsel,do they have a basis to sue?
208
209 Perdita Holtz: It's currently in the 1994 critical area.
210
211 Brian Crawford: Right but they are changing it.
212
213 Samantha Cabe: I would think there would be some sort of basis,a balancing test. You would have to have a basis for including
214 it if you are limiting their development. In 1994,the critical area was defined based on the current technology we had and the
215 ability we probably needed more wiggle room because we couldn't hone in on exact areas. Now we have the ability to hone on
216 more specific area and we are redefining all these critical areas more precisely and the critical areas we have identified to protect
217 watershed that is a public interest that could be weighed against a private property right. People in this donut hole,what is the
218 public interest that would give way against their private properry rights when we have this map, it wouid be evidence that our
219 planning depariment has opined that is it not necessary to protect these watersheds to inc�ude them in the critical area.
220
221 May Becker: What do you base that on? If you say maps, it sounds arbitrary as if you are saying that you would rather protect
222 the property rights. The line that was drawn in 1994 wasn't arbitrary,if you look at it you can tell it was based on data and there
223 is no reason that since some time has passed that we understand these systems better than before. Why change what we had
224 in 1994. I know we went through this last time and discussed the definitions. Why not just define it as an empirical line to the
225 best knowledge we had and still have and add the natural resource area to it that we discussed last time.Why weaken the area
226 when we have no evidence that these natural resources don't need to be protected with only the evidence there is going to be
227 growth in the Counry.
228
229 Pete Hallenbeck: We are getting caught up here. I don't think back and forth would be the concepts of precision. The original
230 lines were drawn as best as could be done in 1994 which was take a pencil, take a map,take a guess and have at it. Now
231 through the miracle of GIS we are able to come up with a much more precise rule set as far as distance in streams, orders of
232 branching and we create these new maps including things like donut holes and including some other points such as the bump
233 from Panther Branch which is the artifact of the rule set applied to the GIS data I am worried that doesn't apply as well to
234 McGowen Creek and we will also see some changes around the Efland interchange of that property and in public comments
235 people are asking why didn't we take into account which way the water flows which came into effect with some of those areas by
236 Duke Energy so it is kind of odd, I think we need to be careful not to take complex rules that are applied by computers to
237 accurate information and extrapolate that out to be accurate or better. There is still a lot of guessing and approximation as far as
238 what our setback distance is on our streams that reducing all the areas we are having trouble with.
239
240 Jeffrey Schmitt: There is so much guessing that Orange Counry has said we are going to make the area 10 times greater than
241 the state says they need to begin with. I am sure the state has our best interest at heart when they made the rules to begin with.
242
55
243 Pete Hallenbeck: To un-geek all that commentary,one way or the other you are either going to tweak the rules to get something .
244 you want or apply discretion as the case of the donut hole saying it is right in between the two reservoirs,how could it hurt. We
245 are going to have to make these discretionary calls. I have one question for Craig. I want to verify the impact of being in the
246 critical watershed area,is it just the density?
247
248 Craig Benedict: Impervious in the protected is 12% and in the critical it is 6% so the runoff can create more water quality
249 differences.
250
251 Brian Crawford: I am really nervous about taking away properry owner's rights and if you hadn't carved that out as isolated area,
252 it's not public information for those people who live there,that in the planning departmenYs view,that particular isolated area may
253 not be necessary to support the critical watershed and so what you have is if we were to say we are going to include it,you will
254 have three properry owners to say,wait a minute,your best advice said you didn't need it but you went ahead and included it.
255 We put it out there and now it is possible we are open to some sort of claim by the existing property owners that we are taking
256 . away their properry rights and so my point is if they really adhere or accept it then we don't have this issue but I am nervous
257 about them being specifically notified that this is going to happen to them that we should go ahead and make a decision here
258 today which is not really a decision but a recommendation to the board but I would rather hear feedback from the property
259 owners.
260
261 Craig Benedict: Nothing with anything I have said at the previous meeting or tonight or at the public hearing means that we don't
262 need that. I am saying that the way we define the half mile from this or that and using the ridgeline all those technical definitions,
263 when you use them,that is not covered. It doesn't mean we don't need it. Do we need 2,680 feet from the reservoir or do we
264 need 3,000 feet from the reservoir. We better define these streams and buffers around the reservoirs,class 1,2,these stream
265 waters, that's just an area that when we use the use the technical definition it fell out. It doesn't mean we don't need that
266 anymore than any other things it just doesn't meet the 2,680 feet from the Class I Reservoir. If we open ourselves up to say that
267 is not helpful,not saying that,it doesn't meet those other six definitions that we had.
268
269 Samantha Cabe: But we chose those other definitions, those distances from creeks and/or streams, they were derived to
270 determine the area that was necessary, in someone's opinion, to protect the watershed so any area that is not within those
' 271 definitions,if I were representing a properry owner who owns properry in the donut hole and I was restricted,I would come back
272 and say these are the definitions that the planning department said applied to protect the watershed. My property is not within
273 any of those definitions so why are my rights being limited.
274
275 Brian Crawford: Can we take a straw vote?
276
277 May Becker: I know we talked about this the last time but isn't it more difficult to move the critical line than to simply leave it
278 where it is in terms of people saying that now my property is in or out of it,whereas can't one keep the original critical line and
279 define it as opposed to reconstructing it one piece at a time?
280
281 Craig Benedict: You have to notify people either way whether you put it in a critical area or take it out.
282
283 May Becker: Even if the line is there now.
284
285 Craig Benedict: Yes. You have to say we have the 1994 map and this is included as a critical area on that map. This exercise
286 is to try to make the map technically meet the very descriptive areas so we had six definitions that were very clear and cover all
287 the streams and the seventh definition was to handle this aberration. If we use just the half mile from the reserooir,in this case
288 we did go a half mile from these reservoirs because this water from this area does not flow directly into the reservoir,it flows into
289 the Eno south of it so the criteria needed to protect the Eno and the West Fork of the Eno didn't pop up this far. These are both
290 within a half mile of reservoir but under our new more descriptive definitions,we found out using the topography that it doesn't
291 flow directly here. There is a ridge line and this flows below the dam. In 1994 they didn't use to the mini sub-basin ridge line.
292
293 Larry Wright: I don't understand this because everybody or it is well known that aquifers are directly related to surface water so
294 are you saying that aquifers do not mix with these reservoirs?
295
296 Craig Benedict: They do.
297
298 Larry Wright: All I hear is surface water and one of the things that may directly address but I don't hear anything about the
299 aquifers and I am very unsettled about this.
300
301 Brian Crawford: If we did a straw vote right now,where would the Planning Board,the members here,where would we split ouf?
302 ,
303 Samantha Cabe: Just about including the donut hole?
56
304
305 Brian Crawford: Just this isolated area,whether to include it or not? Let's go by a hand raise. In our recommendation to our
306 Board of County Commissioners—this isolated area,whether to include it as part of the critical watershed or leave it excluded
307 where because of the new definitions that will be left out.
308
309 Craig Benedict: Include is to leave it in the critical area where it has been since 1994 and the opposite will be whoever did not
310 raise their hand.
311
312 Brian Crawford: That is right. That is 4—3.
313
314 Jeffrey Schmitt: However this goes, I would request that this board define to the Board of County Commissioners why we think
315 we need to violate these people's properry rights putting this in under the new definitions which we have already agreed to. We
316 have that obligation so somebody has to do that.
317
318 Mark Marcoplos: I will explain why I voted the way I did. When I look at our drinking water and the many thousands of people in
319 Hillsborough and that will come and will rely on this watershed and think about the fact we really don't exactly know how the
320 hydrology works and I balance the need for the people of Hillsborough with these rights of these properry owners to build a
321 couple of buildings on that property, to me to gambie with water quality for the rights of a person or two is a bad gamble, it
322 doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
323
324 Jeffrey Schmitt: I don't think this is a gamble,Hilisborough purifies,filters,filtrates,hydrates,their water so it is safe for people to
325 drink.
326
327 Larry Wright: First, I am kind of insulted by the fact that my vote takes away people's properry rights when Mr. Benedict said
328 right here that the density would probably not change because of perk conditions. I strongly believe that surface water and
329 hydrology are connected. Studies show that. I am not sitting here representing just current residents of Orange County. I am
330 here representing future generations of Orange County that want clean water to drink. All water flows out, no water flows in. I,
331 again,am insulted by the fact that my vote is taking away rights of property owners. My vote is made to improve the qualiry of
332 residents of Orange County for generations to come.
333
334 Samantha Cabe: I want to clarify that from my legal mind that the problem I have with not including this donut hole is that for
335 whatever reason,when these definitions were applied,it was not within those definitions. If we wanted to change the definition
336 of the critical area to say this area is critical then I think there is an argument that the pubiic interest weighs over the property
337 owner's right but because we have this document, whatever flaws there might be or whatever research there might be about
338 water quality,for whatever reason,the definitions that were decided to be applied did not cover this little area and from a legal
339 perspective my mind goes there,then what we are saying is that when applied the definitions that define this critical area,this
340 area is not included so I see,down the road,that these property or future properry owners,if they want to do something beyond
341 the densiry of the critical area, I think they have a case to come back and say that if you appiy the definitions that create this
342 critical area,my properry is not in it so why are you limiting me.
343
344 Craig Benedict: I have a solution for the legal is to change the definition and have the half mile including the hydrologic
345 connections between streams that are within that half mile. Any water underground in a fuil basin will flow over that reservoir so
346 we can say within a half mile of that reservoir that is what the buffer will be excluding any sub-basin ridges. If the half mile is
347 over here and water is flowing to the Little River then that doesn't apply. The water on this side of the ridge has a harder time of
348 being hydrologically connected to this reservoir but in the sub-basin waters do flow in the Upper Eno and that is a known
349 geological fact that these sub-basins are interconnected.
350
351 Brian Crawford: Would that change affect the entire drawing of the critical area?
352
353 Craig Benedict: Just this section here.
354
355 Perdita Hoitz: Another solution would be to change the wording to say isolated areas within the critical area boundary that drain
356 into the West or East Fork of the Eno River and on map 2.3 you can see the isolated area is immediately adjacent to the red and
357 green areas and clearly drains into the West and East Forks of the Eno.
358
359 Craig Benedict: That is how the whole donut was created by protecting the two streams to the south. We used this sub-basin
360 because of the way it flows. When we protected the north end, these borders do not flow into those reservoirs, we used that
361 sub-basin language. From a hydrological standpoint and creating some sort of legal public interest,if you said waters within sub-
362 basins are connected hydrologically and go with that one half mile distance of these Class 2 reservoirs that would give rationale
363 to include that full half mile area.
364
57
365 Brian Crawford: What do we do about the dispute on 2.6? How do we plan to send that to the Board of Counry Commissioners?
366
367 Craig Benedict: We are planning to send it with these comments.
368
369 Brian Crawford: I don't know if I am comfortable with a 9:00 hour change of the definitions. I think when we did our straw vote;it
370 seems the majority of the Planning Board is in favor of including this. I think we just send it along like that with the same type of
371 concerns expressed by the other Planning Board members and let the public deal with it and I would say in addition that if we
372 send it along that way, if we could send some sort of special notice out to those three property owners and let them come and
373 make comments on them. I prefer to do that.
374
375 Samantha Cabe: I agree.
376
377 May Becker: It seems like at the beginning of the hour, there was an interpretation.that the reason those were excluded was
378 because of the definitions and I think Craig clarified and developed a more full definition or illustration of what is happening so
379 what Craig just described makes sense to include. I don't think the first part of our discussion was showing us everything that
380 should be considered.
381
382 Brian Crawford: I don't deny that but I don't think it changes the opinion of those who voted against it.
383
384 May Becker: I think Samantha pointed out that she was concerned for a particular reason and I think that addresses that
385 concern to a certain extent.
386
387 Samantha Cabe: It does to an extent but I would agree with Brian to send it with our comments because while I appreciate what
' 388 Mr.Benedict is saying,we still have these maps that were created and are public record and I would feel more comfortable with
389 the Board of County Commissioners reconciling it than us.
390
391 May Becker: The maps are like definitions with pictures but what we discussed was more than that,it tells you how the system
392 works.
393
394 Brian Crawford: I think that is a good idea. I think we send it along with the comments and include that idea.
395
396 Mark Marcoplos: Notifying landowners is great; everyone should be informed and kept in the loop. We also need to notify the
397 Town of Hillsborough and the water utility department and the Hillsborough Board since this is their water.
398
399 Craig Benedict: We have done those two things
400 .
401 Pete Hallenbeck: I am nervous about this it is sort of like spreadsheet gymnastics,a very complex spreadsheet,we don't get the
402 result we want so we tweak a few things so it's right and I think while on the surface, I agree with the rationale behind the
403 change,we have to be careful here that we don't tweak criteria to get some subjective result that we want and in that regard, I
404 think your recommendation is the best way out. That is part of why this group exists is to put discretion into this process and not
405 play bureaucratic games of defining rules and changing the rules to get some nebulous outcome.
406
407 Craig Benedict: We have had a series of straw votes,I would like to wrap it into a more formal vote and if the board,as it exists
408 tonight can say that we are comfortable with what occurred last meeting and this meeting and that really in summary is an
409 approval of 2.1-2.7 noting the comments on 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7. I would need more of a formal vote for the zoning text change,
410 zoning map change and land use text change and land use map change. That would be the formal part of your
411 recommendation.
412
413 Samantha Cabe: Do we vote for each map?
414
415 Craig Benedict: If you want to put this all together and say we agree what it says here in addition to 2.7 where we had a 4-3 vote
416 to include the comments we had tonight.
417
418 Brian Crawford: Is anyone opposed to voting on this as a whole.
419
420 Samantha Cabe: When you say voting on it as a whole?
421
422 Brian Crawford: As we have made the recommendation,I guess he is asking for a formal approval to submit this to the Board of
423 County Commissioners as designated here to include 2.7 so we did a straw vote but he wants something more formal to sent to
424 the Board of County Commissioners and as it is written,I think we approve them although in some instance not unanimously with
425 the comments.
58
426
427 Samantha Cabe: I want to make sure that my vote reflected because I would vote to include everything that is there now but not
428 the donut hole so voting as a whole,if you are saying that we are voting on submitting that list,if that is what our vote is adding
429 2.7 to indicate that it was not unanimous and why.
430
431 Brian Crawford: That is the same thing with 2.6,it wasn't unanimous but we still put through why it wasn't unanimous because I
432 want that to be part of the discussion at the next Planning Board meeting.
433
434 Jeffrey Schmitt: How did you vote in the straw poli?
435
436 Brian Crawford: On the straw vote,I was with you and Samantha.
437
438 Craig Benedict: If you would like the names of the members who voted yes and no.
439
440 Samantha Cabe: I want to be clear that I didn't have to vote against the others if I wanted to vote against the 2.7.
441
442 Brian Crawford: Again,we are just submitting this to the board.
443
444 Perdita Holtz: The recommendation needs to be on the entire attachment 1 which is the Zoning Ordinance changes which is
445 more than the criteria that makes up the critical area,there are definition additions,the sliding scale for existing lots,etc. There
446 is more than 2.1 —2.7. Then the Comprehensive Plan changes on pages 87-89 so those need to be voted on as well.
447
448 Brian Crawford: Did you discuss that last month?
449
450 Larry Wright: No.
451
452 Mark Marcoplos: Can't we take care of this little package right here?
453
454 Brian Crawford: We still haven't discussed that,correct?
455
456 Craig Benedict: It was an overview last month.
457
458 Perdita Holtz: It says the same thing except it goes into the Land Use Plan instead of the Zoning Ordinance. It is to make the
459 Land Use Plan consistent with what is in the Zoning Ordinance.
460
461 Larry Wright: But we haven't discussed that. We are not there yet. We went through ali these and we took a lot of time on 2.7.
462
463 Brian Crawford: I know there is a lot more to discuss but the only way we can get through this is a piece at a time.
464
465 Poll by the Chair to submit information to the Board of County Commissioners as discussed.
466 Vore:Unanimous
467
468 Craig Benedict: On page 21, I will walk through this. This is the criteria that are described on page 21,you can see where it is in
469 a protected watershed,and obstruction was the wrong word. I won't go through this but if you could scan it on page 21.
470
471 Larry Wright: I take issue with one thing that was not corrected. The quality of water and drinking water of reservoirs can be
472 affected;it is affected by human activities.
473
474 Craig Benedict: Page 22 is the written descriptions that I just went through with all this criteria. The last bu�let notes the little
475 critical area change near West Ten Road. Page 23 is where we describe what these reservoir elevations are so we take the half
476 mile from these legitimate elevations,the previous one did not mention all these. Where there are names of streams,we have
477 included them specifically,where we don't know,we have identified them by number. Page 24, 25, 26 have no changes. On
478 page 27, it describes the impervious surface requirements. We had to amend University Lake to delete that these are ratios for
479 the University,Cane Creek and Little River watersheds because we now have unique ones. On page 29,we have a new sliding
480 scale,which means for properties that are smaller than two acres,there were comments at the public hearing,what can we do
481 with our land, someone who has an existing lot smaller than two acres,we still allow them to have more impervious than 6%.
482 This Upper Eno is more liberal than the University,Cane Creek and Little River-the column on the left. This allows more square
483 footage for those different lot sizes. This is somewhat of compensation if the lot sizes are smaller than the zoning code. Page
484 31 and 32 do not have changes. On page 33 have additional definitions. Also it talks about state required critical areas and the
485 critical areas that the County designates. Zoning texts I just went though and the zoning map is the new red line that is defined
59
486 by all these definitions so if you want to vote on the zoning map and the zoning text,that would be a good place to go now and I
487 will go over the land use after.
488
489 Brian Crawford: Does anyone have any comments or concerns?
490
491 Samantha Cabe: Whatever the vote is, I think it important to pass onto the Board of County Commissioners that these
492 definitions as applied create that donut hole so if they decide they want to include the isolated area in the critical watershed,they
493 need to make this match and that wili be their job to do that or direct you to fix it.
494
495 Craig Benedict: The definition we have now is any isolated areas created by this map that are surrounded by critical areas which
496 probably doesn't hold as much water as saying that are within a half mile of the Class 2 reservoir that are hydrologically
497 connected by a ridge line. That is probably the definition we will offer to the Board of County Commissioners.
498
499 Jeffrey Schmitt: I think this needs to go forward the way we vote on it and if there are questions that come up while the Board of
500 County Commissioners review it,then they ask for an alternative to this, I think Mr.Benedict can offer an alternative but I don't
501 think an alternative needs to be offered as it goes forward.
502
503 Brian Crawford: You would not be in favor of?
504
505 Jeffrey Schmitt: Of what Craig just said. He said he would offer an alternative of the text that goes forward. I don't think we
506 should to that.
507
508 Brian Crawford: You are still agreeing with Samantha?
509
510 Jeffrey Schmitt: Yes. ,
511
512 Pete Hallenbeck: On page 22,the criteria that was applied to the GIS data to create these maps,the very last item regarding
513 eliminating the area on West Ten Road. If you think about it,that criteria is the same sort of spreadsheet gymnastics that we're
514 talking about if you think about it in much the same way that a homeowner could sue regarding the donut hole saying the
515 property rights are being taken away on this last one. Someone could sue. Aiso, on page 29, I have gotten feedback from a
516 couple of citizens regarding the impervious surface ratio and lot size. They were concerned about that there are some lots
517 because of how the lot is laid out has an extremely long driveway. You may have a farm person who has a 10 acre lot cut out in
518 the middle surrounded by 80 acres for agricultural use with a 1,200 foot driveway that would use a lot of the impervious surface
519 so those people are wondering if there could be any square foot limits to allocate a certain percentage otherwise you are
520 penalized. You could pass that on for part of citizen feedback.
521
522 Craig Benedict: Public comments that come to the board before your vote tonight are part of the records so we will include that.
523 For small lots,we try to get the little better ratio but for the bigger lots 6%has to be 6%.
524
525 Pete Hailenbeck: The diagram is great but they are all square lots on roads and this is just a particular type of lot that is common
526 in rural areas.
527
528 Mark Marcoplos: My understanding is that it is the staff's job to work with these issues that involve an understanding and gather
529 new information and present it to the Board of County Commissioners. I don't see how we can say to the staff you came up with
530 an idea that may have merit but we don't want you to tell that to the Board of County Commissioners. These issues evolved,if
531 the rules were always right,we wou�d not be revisiting rules made in 1994. Government is a process of understanding, learning
532 more, a consciousness of land and how we live on it. I think it is essential that the staff's ideas on how these issues can be
533 viewed is communicated to the Board of County Commissioners so I don't think we should muzzle the staff on this.
534
535 Jeffrey Schmitt: My comment on Craig's is that it not be included in the written record. If Craig wants to say this is what the
536 Planning Board said,this is some alternatives you can have. What practically happens if you have the house way at the end,
537 you can't put rock on your driveway that you have drive over the dirt.
538
539 Craig Benedict: I don't think we have run into any stream cases like that. They may be asked not to put the house there but
540 closer to the road.
541
542 Jeffrey Schmitt: We are going to ask these people to put their house somewhere else?
543
544 Craig Benedict: If it is an existing house,there are more houses with more impervious than our standards apply and they are
545 grandfathered in with that standard.
546
so
547 May Becker: I just wanted to add that I agree with what Mark said as to whether one should include the comments of staff and
548 the discussion of the Planning Board. I don't see how in good conscience you can leave them(the comments)out.
549
550 Brian Crawford: The outstanding issue is to include Craig's potential fixes or suggestions on whether we want to send that along
551 with our comments on this section.
552
553 Larry Wright: We are saying, yes, send this along and we will tell the Board of County Commissioners we approve of Mr.
554 Benedict is saying knowing there will be adjustments and they can look at the adjustments we reaily didn't act on.
555
556 Samantha Cabe: What seems to be the concern is the board voted on accepting the 2.7 issue without considering Mr.
557 Benedict's comments so I think it would be appropriate if people want to include his comments stating that we didn't vote on that
558 because it was a 9�h hour suggestion,it was not fully flushed out but he is certainly obligated and free to investigate to see if this
559 is a good suggestion. He may change his mind once he thinks longer about it and rereads the definitions to see if it would really
560 work but the board did not vote on the 2.7 including his change so it shouldn't be presented to the Board of County
561 Commissioners as part of that but if he wants to include the fact that he made suggestions but we did not vote on the because
562 they were not fully flushed out.
563
564 Larry Wright: I support that.
565
566 Jeffrey Schmitt: That may be right,what Craig drew but I think a geologist needs to make some recommendations. That needs
567 to be brought up by someone in a professional capacity.
568
569 Brian Crawford: What do you need for us to vote on right now?
570
571 Craig Benedict: Pages 21 through 33 which is the text that describes all this and the map that is the culmination of graphing a
572 line around all these definitions.
573
574 Perdita Holtz: It is the red line they voted on.
575
576 Craig Benedict: Zoning text on ages 21 through 33 and the zoning map that was the compilation of all the line shown on maps
577 2.1 and 2.7.
578
579 Brian Crawford: Can I have someone put that forth in a motion?
580
581 Samantha Cabe: The zoning text, as it is currently printed,does that include that weak definition of the isolated area, it would
582 include the isolated area?
583
584 Craig Benedict: Yes.
585
586 Samantha Cabe: If you voted for approval on the text you would be voted for inclusion on the isolated area?
587
588 Craig Benedict: Yes but with the clause that we are going to include the minority opinions.
589
590 MorioN: Samantha Cabe made a motion to include that we vote on the text and the map but include as instruction to the Board
591 of Counry Commissioners that the concerns about the isolated area also apply to the text and not the maps because they need
592 to match. Seconded by Larry Wright.
593
594 Mark Marcoplos: Getting into these parliamentary tricks,one of the things that has concemed me is the original criteria which we
595 seem to now treat as if it was handed down to Moses from the mountain that these are scientifically fool proof, legally
596 unchallengeable,they are the final word and i find that hard to believe. I think we need to acknowledge that we couldn't get a
597 bunch of scientist to say these are the only complete criteria and these cover all we know about movement of water and pollution
598 and we know all we need to know now. There is something about this criterion that we've elevated it to the point that things will
599 live and die by this criterion. I guess I'm asking is this criterion the best, most fool proof,scientifically unchallengeable, legally
600 unchallengeable or is it a work in progress and.could we imagine better criteria because I think we could. I think we're trying to
601 handie all the stuff on this criteria as if we don't need any referees,just go with the criteria. Craig, is it the pinnacle of scientific
602 certitude.
603
604 Craig Benedict: In 2010, this is our best available technology and knowledge. Who would think 15 years ago we would be
605 buying bottled water. This is an upgrade to our 1994 to our technology and water quality consciousness so I think for 2010 this is
606 appropriate. I think all our zoning and environmental regulations are an evolution and we wiil amend them accordingly.
607
61
608 Samantha Cabe: I would like to offer an amendment to my old motion to address the concern he expressed. I would suggest
609 that the Board of County Commissioners consider some type of ability to apply for additional impervious surface use for the
610 purpose....there needs to be some opportunity to apply for additional impervious surface if it is needed for the properry. If
611 Michael says there is a process in place then forget it.
612
613 Michael Harvey: Article 6,Section 623.3,page 6.34.
614
615 Perdita Holtz: You have this on page 32 of the agenda packet.
616
617 Michael Harvey: I don't think it will address your total concern but there is a procedure in place.
618
619 Samantha Cabe: If there is a variance procedure and a process to obtain that variance, I will not include it in my motion. My
620 motion was to vote on sending the current text as amended and the current map showing the entire outline of the watershed to
621 the Board of Counry Commissioners with the explanation that the concern we have expressed regarding the map also applies to
622 the text so they need to match it up.
623
624 Larry Wright: Is it the map or the maps?
625
626 Samantha Cabe: This is the outline of the entire critical area. If you applied the definition as they are defined it would include
627 the isolated area but it would include the isolated area basically saying it is surrounded by everything else. I am saying the
628 concern we expressed when we went map by map that might be a good enough definition.
629
630 Larry Wright: I withdraw my second.
631
632 Samantha Cabe: I am saying we submit it recommending they address it but consider the text needs to match.
633
634 Larry Wright: That I wiil second.
635
636 Samantha Cabe: With the same concerns we have expressed with the maps applied to text.
637
638 Larry Wright: Maps plural,yes I second.
639
640 May Becker: I would like to add in addition to the concerns about Section 2.7,also point out the concerns expressed in Section
641 2.4.
642
643 Larry Wright: That is why I said maps plural.
644
645 Samantha Cabe: I move we send the text as it is currently amended along with all the maps regarding voting on the individual to
646 send with comments now we are looking at the big map so the text and the outline of all the small maps to the Board of Counry
647 Commissioners but reiterate the concerns we had when we addressed the small maps that they also apply to the text in the large
648 map.
649
650 Perdita Holtz: When you say"I vote to send to the Board of County Commissioners"do you mean send with a recommendation
651 to approve with those comments about reconciling,your concerns with the text and the map?
652
653 Samantha Cabe: Yes.
654
655 Perdita Holtr: When you say send I didn't know if that meant approval.
656
657 Craig Benedict: Recommend approval.
658
659 Samantha Cabe: I guess my motion is that we recommend to the Board of Counry Commissioners that....
660
661 Craig Benedict: Tina has it written down;you don't have to repeat it.
662
663 Samantha Cabe: Perdita pointed out. I was recommending they were sent for approval but approval .....what I think I voted on,
664 as far as individual maps, was that I was not in favor of approving as is but everyone pointed out concems they had with
665 individual maps so I would recommend sending it to the Board of Counry Commissioners for approvai but considering of these
666 concerns because my recommendation wouid be to not approve it unless these concerns were addressed. It is their decision to
667 make.
668
62
669 Brian Crawford: We still have to recommend it for approval because when we voted as a board,the majority rules so you can
670 send it along for approval but you can say there was sufficient discussion among the Planning Board of concerns that we would
671 like to Board of County Commissioners to consider this but we still have to send it along with approval.
672
673 MorioN: Samantha Cabe made a motion to send the text as it is currently amended to the Board of County Commissioners for
674 approval along with all the maps and include the comments that address the concerns of the Planning Board. Seconded by
675 Larry Wright.
676
677 Vore:Passed 6—1 (Marcoplos)
678
679 Mark Marcoplos: Let me explain why. As Craig ailuded to earlier when he talked about the ridge line and the movement of the
680 water,there is enough hydrological uncertainry here that calls into question the criteria and I am not going to vote for something
681 that is such an abstract motion that we will send it on and we are endorsing something that is not even done yet. It cails into
682 , question a lot of uncertainty about the definitions and I can't see supporting definitions that would presumably interpreted to say
683 that donut hole so close to those reservoirs is absolutely okay just as is.
684
685 Brian Crawford: Do we need to do anything for the Land Use Element text and map amendments?
686
687 Craig Benedict: Page 87 is the reiteration. The Land Use definition matches the Zoning definition. This is an excerpt from our
688 existing comprehensive plan land use element with the text in red and includes similar definitions not there previously. This
689 describes,in less detail than the zoning code, the critical areas and what a Class 1 and Class 2 reservoir is and then if that is
690 decided our land use map also reflects the watershed critical areas.
691
692 Samantha Cabe: I wouid like to make one recommendation but it would be helpful if the sections of the zoning ordinance were
693 cross referenced here because when you are shortening the denser definition there is always the chance of a different
694 interpretation. I think there needs to be a cross reference.
695
696 Pete Hallenbeck: On page 89 what part of the maps being amended?
697
698 Perdita Holtz: This is the existing map with the old overlay. The new overlay would replace the old overlay.
699
700 Samantha Cabe: So this is not the actual map?
701
702 Perdita Holtz: No. The outline you just recommended with comments is the new overlay.
703
704 Brian Crawford: Any other comments.
705
706 MorioN: Larry Wright made a motion to recommend this to the Board of Counry Commissioners. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt.
707 VoTe:Unanimous
708
709 Craig Benedict: In your packet,there is an item Mary Bobbitt-Cooke asked for about the interconnections between the various
710 municipalities and counties.
711
712 Larry Wright: There is a small water line that goes into Western Orange County into fhe Buckhorn area.
713
714 Craig Benedict: This was based on what couid use Jordan Lake waters
715
716 ..*......*,.�,,,.*,......,,�;...#.,��#..,..,..�.
717
Attachment 6
63
Relevant Supporting Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE
Objective LU -2.5:
Adopt and implement policies that specify appropriate land uses and intensities of
development in Protected and Critical Water Resource Areas that will not have potential
adverse impacts on water resources.
Objective LU -2.6:
Protect prime reservoir sites from adverse development impacts and ensure that
regulations for these areas are appropriate.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the
revision of County policies and regulations.
EROSION CONTROL
Objective EC -5:
Minimize sedimentation and erosion to reduce the transport of sediment and pollutants
to surface waters.
Objective EC -6:
Protect and maintain the existing aquatic, riparian and terrestrial habitats -of fish and
wildlife.
64
This Page Intentionally Blank
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
The following table shows basic regulations pertaining to the Upper Eno "Protected" and "Critical Area" watershed.
Further information can be found in Section 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
v
0
3
CD
M
Cn
Upper Eno "Protected"
Upper Eno "Critical Area"
Land Use
• No discharging landfills are permitted.
• No new landfills are permitted.
Restrictions
• Industrial use is limited to non - hazardous
• No commercial or industrial uses are
light industrial uses characterized by low
permitted except within the Cedar Grove
water use [defined in Section].
Rural Community Activity Node where the
properties at the intersection of Efland Cedar
Grove and Carr Store Roads, running
westward from the intersection approximately
eight hundred fifty (850) feet, shall be allowed
to be developed for commercial purposes
consistent with the requirements of the
Ordinance.
• No new golf courses are permitted.
0 No residual (sludge) application is permitted.
Residential Density
Maximum density is as permitted in the
• 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres.
underlying zoning district. [Staff Note:
most areas affected by the proposed
amendments are zoned AR (Agricultural
Residential) with permitted density of 1
dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet,
subject to the ability to locate a septic
system and septic repair area on the lot].
v
0
3
CD
M
Cn
Impervious Surface/
Detention Pond
Requirements
(Residential)
Impervious Surface/
Detention Pond
Requirements (Non -
Residential)
Upper Eno "Protected" I Upper Eno "Critical Area"
• 12% impervious surface limit for existing
and new lots outside of Transition Areas
as designated on the Orange County
Land Use Plan.
• BMPs [Best Management Practices]
cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements.
• 30% impervious surface limit for
developments which exceed a density of
1 du /acre within Transition Areas.
Structural BMPs are required if
impervious surface exceeds 12 %.
• 70% impervious surface limit in
Commercial and /or Industrial Nodes as
designated in the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan (high- density
option) with structural BMPs if impervious
surface is greater than 12 %;
AND
50% impervious surface for all fire
stations and solid waste collection
centers outside of Commercial and /or
Industrial Nodes as designated in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, with structural BMPs if impervious
surface is greater than 12 %;
AND
• 12% impervious surface for all other non-
* 6% impervious surface limit except for lots
smaller than 2 acres which existed prior to
1/1/94, which are subject to a sliding scale
contained in Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. (Will be amended to lots smaller
than 5 acres which existed prior to 6/1/2010, if
adopted).
• BMPs [Best Management Practices] cannot
be used to satisfy watershed impervious
surface requirements.
• 2 -acre minimum lot size and 6% impervious
limit.
• BMPs [Best Management Practices] cannot
be used to satisfy watershed impervious
surface requirements.
2
rn
rn
9
Upper Eno "Protected"
Upper Eno "Critical Area"
residential uses outside of Commercial
and /or Industrial Nodes as designated in
the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan (BMPs cannot be
used to satisfy watershed impervious
surface requirements);
AND
• On -site infiltration of the first inch of
stormwater runoff;
AND
• A limit of 1,151 acres of non - residential
use throughout the Upper Eno Protected
Watershed (5.0 %).
Undisturbed Area
• As required pursuant to an approved
• The area necessary to meet impervious
grading permit or erosion control plan.
surface requirements shall remain
undisturbed during the construction process.
• The area to remain undisturbed shall include
portions of the lot utilized for stormwater
infiltration.
• All clearing limits shall be clearly marked and
observed.
Minimum Stream
• The buffer width shall be as calculated
• The buffer width adjacent to streams shall be
Buffer Width
using Method A [defined in Section
the width calculated using Method A [defined
6.23.7], or 150', whichever is less, except
in Section 6.23.7].
where density exceeds 1 du /acre and
• The same method shall be used to calculate
impervious surface exceeds 12 %.
the buffer around the reservoir itself. New
• Where density exceeds 1 du /acre and
structures shall be located at least 150' from
impervious surface exceeds 12 %, the
the reservoir or outside of the stream buffer,
9
Upper Eno "Protected"
Upper Eno "Critical Area"
buffer width shall be calculated using
whichever is greatest.
Method A, but shall not be less than 100'.
Water
No new treatment system will be
New septic tanks, pump tanks and their
Supply /Sewage
permitted where effluent disposal occurs
appurtenances shall be located outside of any
Disposal
on a separate lot from the source of
stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a
wastewater generation; provided,
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on
however, off -site systems shall be
the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 150
permitted when located in a Flexible
feet from a reservoir.
Development subdivision approved in
New nitrification fields shall be located outside
accordance with Section IV -B -10 of the
of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet
Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
from a perennial or intermittent stream as
• New septic tanks and their nitrification
shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and
fields shall be located outside of any
at least 300 feet from a reservoir.
stream buffers and at least 100 feet from
Water supply and sewage treatment systems
a perennial or intermittent stream as
shall be limited to individual wells and septic
shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps.
systems or individual on -site alternative
disposal systems; provided, however, off -site
systems shall be permitted when located in a
Flexible Development subdivision approved in
accordance with Section IV -B -10 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Attachment & 9
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
From: David Stancil, ERC Director
Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager
Date: February 12, 2010
Subject: Seven Mile Creek Conservation Remains Highly Important
The Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) feels that the
proposed changes to the Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area are consistent with the
County's longstanding goal to protect and conserve the County's important natural
and cultural land resources; consistent with the BOCC adopted priority ( #1) to
conserve high priority natural areas, wildlife habitat and prime forests; and
consistent with the Lands Legacy program.
Conservation in this area will help protect critical natural areas, guide growth away
from sensitive water resources, protect prime forest and wildlife habitats, preserve
historic landscapes, and provide new park and recreational opportunities. A
multifaceted approach to conserving this area, including both land conservation
(public and private) and overlay zoning, will help implement the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan and the Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan.
It is highly important to maintain supplemental protection for the Seven Mile Creek
area of the Watershed. This area is recognized by Orange County and the State of
North Carolina as an important natural area and wildlife corridor. Seven Mile Creek
and its tributaries contain high quality surface waters that provide habitat for state
and regionally significant flora and fauna. Despite some siltation due to runoff from
upstream, these creeks harbor healthy populations of darters, shiners, pickerels, and
other species of fish, along with abundant mussels. The creeks then flow directly
into a section of the Eno River possessing aquatic habitat of national significance.
The Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County, North
Carolina 'describes this area as one remarkably high in biodiversity of native species
of flora and fauna, providing strong reasoning for their protection. The Inventory
1 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County, North Carolina (Sather et al., 2004),
N.C. Natural Heritage Program, DENR, Raleigh, NC.
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2510
70
identifies a number of important Natural Heritage sites, among them Sevenmile
Creek Sugar Maple Bottom and Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge.
Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottom is the richest combination of bottomland
and deciduous forest remaining in the county, and deemed of state significance.
The area supports regionally rare plant species, state - listed plants, and state listed
aquatic species. The expansive Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge is part of an
important '"wildlife reservoir" with optimal habitat for turkey, bobcat, deer, and other
upland game animals. The ridge is an important link in an overland wooded corridor
connecting the Cape Fear (Haw) and Neuse (Eno) River systems.
Finally, Orange County has a long -term vision of establishing a Seven Mile Creek
Preserve. The County purchased 160 acres in the 1970s (for watershed
protection) and another 134 acres in 2001 to establish the nature preserve. The
County recently acquired another 13 acres adjacent to historic Moorefields for a
future public gateway into the Preserve and access to the planned North Carolina
Mountains -to -Sea Trail, which would travel through this area. The planned
nature preserve and recreation area now stands at 307 acres and further
acquisitions of critical natural and cultural resource lands are underway.
Please contact us if you have any questions or would like more details on the
information provided herein.
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2510
Expanding the Nature Preserve Concept for Additional
Opportunities (Upper Eno Preserve)
May 3, 2006
Background
Attachment 8.171
The adopted Lands Legacy Program Policy document (April 4, 2000) formally
introduced the concept of a Nature Preserve - coordinating the protection of significant
natural resource lands in close proximity to each other, as a "critical mass" for
conservation purposes. Since this time, this concept has been operationalized in
subsequent Lands Legacy Action Plans, with two emergent Nature Preserves (Seven -
Mile Creek, New Hope) that are being created over time.
In this sense, a Nature Preserve is generally defined as an area with a primary purpose of
the protection of identified natural areas and wildlife habitat, prime forests, or lands of
other ecological significance or sensitivity. A Nature Preserve is something between a
Park (which has generally open public access) and a Natural Area (an identified habitat
site protected but not open to the public) in that the most sensitive portions of a Nature
Preserve site are left undisturbed and protected from human impacts, but a secondary
purpose of limited public access, nature study and low - impact recreation in the less -
sensitive portions of the site is appropriate. There are a number of examples, both locally
and nationally, of this approach.
Lands Legacy Action Plans since 2001 have elaborated on that concept to pursue the
creation of a nature preserve in the Seven -Mile Creek basin southwest of Hillsborough.
The Seven -Mile Creek basin is a self - contained unit of the larger Upper Eno watershed,
and remains largely undeveloped and has few crossing roadways.
More recently, acquisitions in 2005 by the County, other local governments, and land
trust partners have begun to protect a corridor of land along the lower New' Hope Creek
between Erwin Road and the Durham.County line. This grouping of acquisitions, known
as the fixture New Hope Preserve, is continuing at this time.
Meanwhile, at Seven -Mile Creek, acquisitions have been accomplished and are still
underway to tie together 160 acres acquired by the. County in the 1970's with additional
adjoining lands of resource significance. Approximately 300 acres is now owned by the
County for the Preserve, with ongoing activity by both the County and the Eno River
Association expected to add to that total in coming years.
In recent years, additional acquisitions in nearby segments of the larger Upper Eno
watershed have been accomplished to protect water quality or sensitive natural resource
lands, and other opportunities are presenting themselves. The McGowan Creek Preserve
(63 acres of former Duke Forest lands) and the Confluence of the Eno conservation
easement (24 acres) are examples of projects completed in this area to date, and there are
72
other pending projects in the current Lands Legacy Action Plan that would further add
protected lands along the Eno.
Looking at the larger picture and emerging opportunities, there appears. to now be
potential for expanding the Seven-Mile Creek Preserve concept northward to the Upper
Eno, creating a larger Upper Eno Preserve network of lands along the Eno and its main
tributaries.
Likewise, opportunities may exist for expansion of the New Hope Preserve westward
along the headwaters of New Hope Creek in conjunction with Duke Forest and other
conservation partners.
Further study and formalization of this concept may also assist other County goals,
including watershed protection and growth management. For example, a Nature Preserve
could also work in tandem with a Transfer of Development Rights program, if
implemented in the future, as a possible "sending area."
Considerable additional detail is needed for these projects, including formal inclusion in
the Comprehensive Plan, how public access would work, and what lands would be
priorities for possible acquisition from willing landowners, to further the creation of such
nature preserves. A draft Interim Stewardship Plan for the Seven -Mile Creek Preserve (as
has already been prepared and presented for the Blackwood Farm property), has been
created and will be presented to the Board as part of the report proposed below.
Recommendation
Staff proposes to create a report during FY 2006 -67 that explores the potential for an
expanded Upper Eno Nature Preserve of natural areas and open space lands, including
priority lands generally from the West Fork Reservoir /Lake Orange area south to the
Seven -Mile Creek lands. The'report would also assess possibilities for expansion of the
New Hope Preserve westward along New Hope Creek. The report would further refine
the components and characteristics of a Nature Preserve,- which could accomplish a
variety of different goals. This would be consistent with the work accomplished to date
on the Natural Areas Component of the planned Natural and Cultural Systems Element of
the ,Comprehensive Plan, and. the recommendations of the State of the. Environment
reports of 2002 and 2004.
In addition, the report would address the mechanisms for working with landowners and
potential partners, and explore appropriate locations for public access areas. Possible
interactions with other County goals, including transfer of development rights and
watershed protection,' would be explored with the assistance of County staff. Finally, the
report could also examine whether the potential for other nature preserves exists for
current protected lands in the County, and look at nature preserve programs in other
counties around the Unites States.
73
It. should be noted that a Nature Preserve in this context is not envisioned as an area
where all lands would be protected, but rather a corridor of strategic locations, working
with willing landowners, where critical masses of open space lands could be acquired and
linked together with other parts of the preserve. In many ways, one could view the
evolution of Eno River State Park over the last 20 years as. a mirror of this model.
As always, the Lands Legacy Program seeks to acquire priority lands voluntarily -
working only with willing landowners. The creation of a Nature Preserve by necessity
would evolve over years; or even decades, as lands become available and funds permit.
74
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment 8.2
Lands Legacy Program
Action Plan 2006-2008
(For the period July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2008)
,Casual rurk dam during, low flow pernol cri S'cvcw .ildr ( 'reek (R. Shaw)
Orange County
Environment and Resource Conservation Department
P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919/245 -2590
76
For the period July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2008
Introduction
The Lands Legacy Program was adopted by Orange County in April 2000. Administered
by the Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD), the program's mission
is to help protect the county's most important natural and cultural resource lands before
they are damaged or lost to incompatible development activities. The program is guided by
an Action Plan developed by ERCD and adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The first
Action Plan was a one -year plan adopted in May 2001. The now biannual Action Plan
guides Lands Legacy acquisitions and protection for the specified years.
The process of developing the Action Plan begins with staff identifying potential projects
and asking the Board for initial guidance. Staff then meets with advisory boards for their
input on development of priorities for the upcoming years. Using the advisory board
recommendations, a draft Plan is presented to the Board of Commissioners for their
consideration and input. The Action Plan is finalized in conjunction with the CIP process.
The following is an Action Plan for the fiscal years 2006 -2008. The plan incorporates
comments from four advisory boards, coupled with the continuation and completion of goals
and objectives from the previous action plan. The Action Plan contains goals, a summary of
advisory board comments, specific action objectives, and a priority list of land acquisition
and protection projects for the coming two years. Also attached is a brief Performance
Table for the first six years of the Lands Legacy Program (2000- 2006).
(Note: Plans to continue to pursue grant funding for County projects are implicit.)
1. Upper Eno and Upper New Hope Riparian Buffers: Continue to protect riparian
buffers in the Upper Eno River watershed critical area (including additions to Seven
Mile Creek Preserve) and the Upper New Hope Creek watershed.
2. Faucette's Mill and Hall's Mill Historic Areas: Continue efforts to acquire
conservation easements that would protect properties with historic structures and
archaeological sites in the Faucette's Mill and Hall's Mill areas.
3. Agricultural Conservation Easements: Continue working with willing sellers (and
partner entities) to acquire agricultural conservation easements in priority watersheds
with assistance from the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program.
4. Bingham Township Park: Identify locations for potential land acquisition to
establish a new community park in the White Cross area (Bingham Township)—the
last remaining park identified in the 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan.
5. Natural Areas and Prime Forests: Protect the highest priority natural areas and
prime forests identified in the Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas and lilrl I*
Habitat (2004 update) and the Landscape with Wildlife reports (1997 -99). Begin to
structure these areas within a framework of nature preserves, where possible.
77
Lands Legacy Action Plan 1006 -08 Adopted 9112106
6. Joint Town /County Open Space: Continue collaborating with the towns and other
entities in acquiring land for establishing or expanding rustic trails or greenways
identified in town plans that tie together important County -wide open spaces.
7. Natural Areas on University -owned Lands: Continue working with University of
North Carolina and Duke University on the protection of natural Areas on university -
owned lands through various voluntary means.
A. Commission for the Environment (CfE)
Continue efforts to protect Jordan Lake Macrosite (e.g., Mason Farm Oak -
Hickory Forest), Seven Mile Creek Preserve (e.g., Sevenmile Creek Sugar
Maple Bottoms), Upper Eno riparian buffers, Upper Bolin Creek corridor, and
University natural areas. Pursue protection of highest priority natural areas
still unprotected: Meadow Flats, Currie Hill, University Lake Slopes and
Morgan Creek Bluffs. Identify key tracts for the proposed NC Mountain to Sea
Trail along the Eno /Seven -Mile /Crabtree to Cane Creek corridor. Continue to
explore potential pilot project to restore or reconstruct a piedmont prairie site
B. Agricultural Preservation Board (APB)
Continue purchase of farmland conservation easements from willing sellers.
Focus on active farms in the Cane Creek, University Lake, Upper Eno, Little
River and Back Creek watersheds — working to build a critical mass of farm
easements in those watersheds. Augment County funds by pursuing grants
(e.g., FRPP) in cooperation with partner agencies (e.g., OWASA, NRCS /Soil
and Water Conservation District). Continue outreach to farm community.
C. Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC)
Acquire land for a new community park in Bingham Township. Consider
lands with access to public water, sewer and public transportation so that
future facilities could accommodate large public gatherings. For instance,
RPAC would like to see such facilities as an amphitheatre or multi - purpose
gymnasium, which would serve public needs and also generate revenue.
D. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
Continue efforts to protect areas of historic significance in the Hall's Mill and
Faucette's Mill communities. Pursue the protection of archaeological sites in
New Hope Creek corridor (possible Native American site), McGowan Creek
corridor (mill site and tobacco plug factory), and ammunition bunkers near
Smith Level Road. Protect "heritage corridors" with both cultural and scenic
value (e.g., St. Mary's Road) and other cultural /archaeological sites whenever
possible (e.g., Murphey School). Establish "archaeology emergency fund" for
unanticipated costs associated with protecting archaeological sites and /or
2
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2006 -08 Adopted 9112106 78
historic roads. Acquire sites with historic structures so long as those
structures are appropriately preserved and maintained.
Lspecific Ac uisition Objectives
The following are more specific acquisition objectives developed from existing plans,
discussions with land conservation partners— in some cases expanding upon or
refining advisory board recommendations. These are not listed in priority order.
A. Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
• Work with partners to protect (through acquisition or other means) the higher
priority Natural Areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife
Habitat (2004 update), including Mason Farm Oak - Hickory Forest, Meadow Flats,
Currie Hill, University Lake Slopes, and Morgan Creek Bluffs
• Protect the highest priority prime forest areas identified in A Landscape With
Wild life: Part 2 (Wiley, Ludington and Hall, 1999)
• Work with the Eno River Association and others to protect (through acquisition
and other means) critical land for the Seven Mile Creek Preserve, including
Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottoms
• Work with the Eno River Association and others to protect (through acquisition
and other means) other priority riparian lands and upland habitats in the Upper
Eno River watershed critical area and lands adjacent to Eno River State Park
• Work with Triangle Land Conservancy and others to protect (through acquisition
and other means) priority riparian lands and prime forest lands located in the
Upper New Hope Creek watershed in central Orange County
• Work with the Town of Carrboro, University of NC and the Friends of Bolin Creek
to identify priority lands for potential protection (through acquisition and other
means) the headwater section of the Bolin Creek corridor
B. Farmland Preservation
Work with the Orange NRCS /Soil and Water District and OWASA to identify and
prioritize willing seller(s) and donor(s) of conservation easements.
(Where possible, build a critical mass of protected lands in these watersheds.)
Preserve farmland that also contains riparian buffers to help meet multiple
conservation objectives (i.e., water supply protection, wildlife habitat) in the
Cane Creek, Upper Eno, University Lake, Little River and Back Creek watersheds.
Work with the Orange NRCS /Soil and Water District to secure grant funds from
the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for acquiring agricultural
conservation easements
C. Parklands and Open Space
• Identify potential locations for future acquisition of land in the White Cross area
of Bingham Township for a community park
3
Lands Legacy Action Plan 1006 -08 Adopted 9112106 79
Acquire key "missing link" properties for proposed Northern Chapel Hill Township
Rustic Woodland Trail (linking Chapel Hill /Carrboro /County parks with the New
Hope Creek corridor, including Duke Forest, and eventually Eno River State Park)
Identify key parcels needed for a combination public pedestrian trail and wildlife
corridor that would connect Occoneechee Mountain to the Cane Creek reservoir
for the proposed NC Mountains to Sea Trail
In all acquisitions, be cognizant of the potential for meeting other objectives of
protecting riparian buffers, natural areas and historic /archaeological sites
D. Cultural and Archaeological Sites
• Continue working with landowners in the Faucette's Mill and Hall's Mill areas to
protect the combination of historic and natural features in those communities
• Conduct archaeological surveys of county properties acquired for future parks
and nature preserves (e.g., McGowan Creek Preserve, Millhouse Park)
• Work with the HPC and others to accomplish preservation of cultural and
archaeological sites associated with land acquisition projects
E. Watershed Riparian Buffers
• Protect riparian corridors in the Upper Eno River protected watershed; partner
with the Eno River Association and others; pursue grant funds from the NC Clean
Water Management Trust Fund, Ecosystem Enhancement Program, and Upper
Neuse Clean Water Initiative
• Identify and protect priority areas in the Little River watershed; partner with the
Eno River Association and Triangle Land Conservancy where appropriate; pursue
grant funds from the Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative
• Identify and protect priority areas in New Hope Creek corridor; work with New
Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee and the Triangle Land Conservancy
• Identify priority areas for protection in the Morgan Creek corridor in cooperation
with the Morgan Creek Valley Alliance and others
• Identify priority areas for protection in the Bolin Creek corridor; collaborate with
Friends of Bolin Creek, the Town of Carrboro, the University of NC, and others
• Preserve riparian buffers in other water supply watersheds through parkland
acquisitions and agricultural conservation easement projects
a]
0
T`1
O
IO
Q
C
m
a
O
Q
0
N
41
0
L
L
L
�O
L
CL
m
73
tn to
Ca
o6
C
c E r CL
m
4. U
o
•+
1^
0
Cd y
�
Y
CL
v o 0 C
' G 3 Gra
CL
N
' t�
a
v
S '� v O
m
>4 a~i n�
Epp c0
a`� bOO
C C
vii
p 0
Q
'T G 4. .:
y
v Y
0 O O U v 0
0 r.- 00 O
O 7 O O
LJ c0 Z V
U 3 N U
_O
0
LD
En
E
a
CS
O c. C LZ c0
UM "Q v c0 O y
V 'd
C C y p U
v
O
cq r- co U L7 v 0.>
a a i+ Q {Z.
tn to
Ca
o6
c E r CL
o ` i
4. U
•+
1^
Cd y
Y
v o 0 C
' G 3 Gra
N
' t�
N
0 n
v
S '� v O
`yT N
>4 a~i n�
Epp c0
a`� bOO
C C
vii
p 0
p
'T G 4. .:
to
v Y
0 O O U v 0
0 r.- 00 O
O 7 O O
LJ c0 Z V
U 3 N U
U
U f1 v U
0
C co O
En
E
y
a
CS
O c. C LZ c0
UM "Q v c0 O y
V 'd
C C y p U
v
O
cq r- co U L7 v 0.>
a a i+ Q {Z.
C• C 4 d d
p O p" E
v
E
v a y� O �
O O�� w
^ 'co 0. p
cn O
O U U N
,� 0. -v
C 3 L1 .0 c7
� 2 .o v v
_o O N CC co
E a o
O n Z ca �-
cvi C
ca 0 O¢ c0
E ca
O O .t: O5 O
yq qL v"
b9 Y O 0
w
o�yy ti ro
o C 3a• c0
0 c0a p°qU
o° v °�S
(Z
O k ro
L U
Q O
y {ca
U x c0
v O O
b9 >� m 0. cC w m
Ln
CJ
�
.
,°vyov
vv
E
gO
� oE "Et;c
^3��wc3
¢oE
p` E o. v
v0 3 x"
0 C G U
c0 as -- w m
v ro c0 — O
C ti
m 0
c0 c0 Czi
E C h 6J _
` 3
v m
v
c- v °�
cCO v U
co A 0
U C v O
00 or, r-
C C C
v.=
v > r
a
Y oU
ca
o
"
a�
v
vs
v
c0 L 'x
O O
cv, _o
to C m, m
E,,
I:.1 U
.�
Vi " rn 3
= 7•,
> v
�
d
a o•
o
H
v,
C `�
D o i
C, U' C y v
N r.�,.,
o
>
E
C_
ro
U °_' o
o
vv E
•� w U 0
`° O c0 v
r.
a 9 ua
ti v y C
_
.
�.
R C C�
qj
Z •�
` ar v 0. na
0. G b O
_
> C O U ..
eU0
Q etOi vai QLa
' w E .° i
v� C� c U 3
:1
LIM
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2005 -08
Upper Eno Riparian Buffers: I Protect riparian buffers in a water ! $500.000 from LLO Fund
I Continue to acquire conservation i supply watershed critical area. and/or alternative financing
ieasements to protect riparian I Protect prime forest and wildlife for conservation easement
buffers in the critical area of the i habitat along upper stretches of the purchases. Pursue grants from
Upper Eno protected watershed. j Eno River and Seven Mile Creek. NC Clean Water Trust Fund.
Partner with Eno River Association. I NC Ecosystem Enhancement
and other sources.
Adopted Sept. 12, 2005
Identify priority tracts and
willing sellers /donors by Jan
2007 and secure options by
June 2007. Negotiate
acquisitions for closings
between July 2007 - June 2008.
New Hope Preserve & Trails:
I) Connect portions of existing open
$300,000 from 2001 Parks
I Collaborate with partners
Acquire easements and small
space network along/near New Hope
and Open Space Bond & PIL.
(TLC. Chapel Hill, and
parcels for public pedestrian trail
` Creek. 2) Connect Duke Forest to
I Pursue grants from NC Clean
Durham County) in pursuing
to link existing trail segments
1 trails in Durham consistent with the
i Water Trust Fund or NC
kev lands that are economically
along New Hope Creek corridor.
i New Hope Creek Master Plan. 3)
Ecosystem Enhancement
practical by June 2008.
Protect riparian buffers.
Program.
University Natural Areas:
Achieve the permanent protection of
$10,000 for transaction costs
Resume discussions of sites
Work with Duke University and
1 important natural heritage sites
(LLO), if necessary, for
and protection alternatives with
University of North Carolina on
through the use of conservation
County held conservation
university representatives by
j formalizing protection of natural
easements. state nature preserve
i dedication means.
I easements.
i December 2006. Seek the
I of highest -priority
areas on university property.
and other
protection
sites by June 2008.
r Faucette's Mill Historic Area:
; Protect priority historic structures
$25.000 to $100,000 total,
Continue discussions with
I Acquire additional conservation
j and potential archaeological sites,
depending on the total acres
interested landowners and
ieasements to protect the
and in doing so also protect prime
placed under easement and
negotiate acquisitions for
combination of historic,
{ forest and wildlife habitat associated
i what portion are easement
closings by June 2008.
archaeological and natural
with a relatively undeveloped
donations. Potential cost-
; resources in this area. Partner
with Eno River Association.
i segment of the Eno River.
share with NC Clean Water
I Mvmt Trust Fund.
` - Cost estimates are rough estimates based on expected per acreage land prices, and actual negotiations may produce different results. As acqur fbw opportwnGes are renewed and evaluated, the cost esumates will be refined.
M
00
T
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2006 -08
I1. Potential new projects for 2006 -08
Adopted Sept I2, 2006
00
N
Meadow Flats Natural Area: Protect remaining unprotected Unknown
Unknown
Work with Duke University to I sections of this significant upland
protect last remaining unprotected swamp forest —a natural area of
sections of this highly important National significance. Partner with
upland depression swamp forest. Duke University, which owns
adjacent Duke Forest lands.
Currie Hill Natural Area:
Protect remaining undeveloped
Unknown
Unknown
Acquire conservation easements
; portions of this natural area of State
(
I
to protect an important hilltop
significance. consistent with areas
j
forest and wildlife refuge.
( already protected by County and
I
Triangle Land Conservancy
Little River Riparian Buffers:
Protect riparian buffers in a water
Unknown
Unknown
Acquire conservation easements
`; supply watershed critical area
to protect riparian buffers in the
pursuant to the Upper Neuse Clean
higher priority sections of the
Water Initiative. Partner with Eno
Little River protected watershed.
I River Association, Triangle Land
1 Conservancy. Durham City and
Durham County.
Bolin Creek Corridor:
Preserve one of few remaining
Unknown
Unknown
Protect the Bolin Creek corridor
wooded stream corridors in Chapel
between Estes Road Extension
Hill - Carrboro area and natural area.
and Homestead Road.
to create nature preserve with
recreation trails and outdoor
education. Partner with Carrboro,
UNC, and Friends of Bolin Creek.
Mountains to Sea Trail:
This more detailed planning is
Unknown
Unknown
Identify specific parcels suitable
needed to further the efforts of
for potential future acquisition for
establishing this section of the
proposed natural trail from Cane
planned public trail corridor
Creek Reservoir to Oeconeechee I
through Orange County.
Mountain State Natural Area
Coordinate with OWASA.
Others as opportunities arise.
N/A !
Unknown
Unknown
00
N
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2006 -08
In addition to specific acquisition
objectives, the following actions and
strategies will be pursued to facilitate
long -term land conservation:
1. Explore the potential for
establishing and managing a
system of larger Orange County
Nature Preserves, including an
Upper. Eno Nature Preserve and
an expanded New Hope Preserve.
2. Work with advisory boards to
develop a Countywide
Farmland Protection Plan for
possible adoption as part of the
Lands Legacy Program.
3. Explore the potential for
establishing an Orange County
Land Trust or Open Space
Authority as envisioned by the
Lands Legacy program document.
4. Begin identifying key parcels for
the proposed segment of the NC
Mountains to Sea Trail
corridor between Occoneechee
Mountain and the Haw River.
5. Re- convene the Orange County
Land Conservation Alliance
to discuss progress and potential
opportunities for collaboration
with other conservation partners.
6. Continue exploring potential pilot
project to restore /reconstruct a
Piedmont prairie site in
partnership with others (NC
Botanical Garden, universities,
NRCS).
7. Continue outreach with civic
organizations, neighborhood
groups, and others to discuss
the Lands Legacy Program and
conservation options.
8. Compile land acquisition inquiries
and potential opportunities from
landowners and other partners,
and present to the Board's for
direction on whether to pursue
acquisition.
The first five years of the Lands
Legacy Program saw tremendous
strides in the protection of priority
resource lands, with 1,641 acres
permanently protected (as of May
2006) and several more projects in
the works.
The FY 2006 -08 Action Plan will build
on projects from previous years, and
includes additional projects in each
of the Lands Legacy priority areas
(natural areas, parkland, cultural/
historic resources, prime farmland
and riparian buffers in potential
wildlife corridors and public water
supply watersheds.
This Action Plan will further the use
of 2001 parks and open space bonds
funds to protect high priority
resource lands in Orange County.
ERCD will also continue to pursue
grant funds from a variety of state
and federal sources.
0
83
84
Lands Legacy Action Plan 2006-06,--,7�—�
Legend
HistoddCultural
f _ I
Prime Farmland
® Riparian Buffers
i
® Natural Areas
Parkland/Trails
'r I major_stmn
� N
w E
r
Mebane af S
Hillsborough
1 0.50 1 2�.�.
This map is not a certified
urvey and no reliance may
be placed in its accuracy
j
` ; I
S
j { .�.wrWwsM�i4M w.us�s YVrir
i ! rrM.l.O Ywles.ai�cYa�fi�M d2Ww
� ate^' , r�.r.,®+s +ra►+.�
���.e,.�.rrwfreis�n®sR
ibr4s.��Pmr�w�n.r Y.fd J.NMe�
4 ewY1.��>•wMf
Y ... '�, .rro rrr�.. ..aewvr..r•
�� .re..sl rlr,w�•r+.w�r.
$ � r Wer.a Yvs�lwnar t4ywena
# Carr'bor0 Chapel Hilt county,NC
Environment&Resour:e i
Conservation Department
306-A Revere Road
Hillsborough,NC 27278
PH(919)245-2590
_.. ,-.__-....W..._........r___.._ �_...__M.v-..-..J Sep6embrr22.2ULX
K YOUM
I
Land Legacy Program 85
Acquisitions 2000-2006
Lewis' Heartleaf
Preserve
Northern Park
Little River
Regional Park
Walters I
Walters II
Confluence of
.�o the Eno
Ward Farm
McGowan Creek
Preserve
Seven Mile Creek
Preserve
M
Steep Bottom 0 __- 2 Mlles
McPherson Farm Blackwood Farm ---�
Branch
Starfield
Shy Farm & Future Millhouse
Natural Area Road Parkland
06 "Af Cheek Farm New Hope
Preserve
Lloyd Farm Twin Creeks
Keith Arboretum &
Preserve
Adams
Preserve
Land Legacy Acquisitions t2uO0-2006)
Conservation Easement —
Purchase Oran
ge County t
Streets Environment&Resource
Conservation
County M Jones 9122,-06
:.
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment 8.387
Executive Summary
Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats for
Orange County, North Carolina
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Orange County Environment & Resource Conservation
Department
March 2005
::
SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY
Orange County is located near the eastern edge of the North Carolina Piedmont, within the popular and rapidly
developing Research Triangle region of North Carolina. Typical landscape features of the county include gently rolling
hills, broad, upland ridges, and low energy streams with narrow floodplains. The two most common natural communities
are Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and Dry- Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest, types of eastern deciduous forest.
The natural communities of Orange County are strongly associated with the variety of topographic, geologic, soil, and
hydrologic conditions found throughout the county. Geologically, much of the county's 396 square miles is within the
Carolina Slate Belt, which is composed of diverse, generally metamorphosed volcanic rocks. Two geographic features in
Orange County stand out against the background of typical Piedmont formations. The southeastern most corner dips into
the Triassic Basin, which is a low- elevation area of sedimentary, easily eroded rock. Orange County's lowest elevation,
240 feet, occurs in an area of Piedmont Swamp Forest along the western margin of the Triassic Basin. Many of the
animals found here are normally distributed in the Coastal Plain.
The other important geographic feature is the monadnocks, which are hills capped with rock that is more resistant to
erosion than the surrounding terrain. The highest elevation in Orange County is the monadnock summit of Occoneechee
Mountain, at 860 feet high. Monadnocks are rare in the outer Piedmont, and their flora and fauna often show distinctly
montane affinities. The group of monadnocks nearest to Orange County is in the Uwharrie range, and their summits have
a similar montane biota. Orange County monadnocks are smaller in area. While the habitat on Occoneechee Mountain is
the most unique and important, Orange County has a significant cluster of these isolated hills, including Blackwood,
Bald, Pickards, McCauley, Crawford, and Mitchells "mountains." Other higher elevation areas occur along Morgan
Creek, New Hope Creek, and the Eno River, where steep slopes have been cut by water action, but these rarely exceed
150 feet in relief. Many of the most unique natural areas of the county, such as rhododendron communities, pine — oak
bluffs, and all of the dry, rocky slopes are restricted to these steep, stream -cut slopes.
Though a small area, Orange County has an unusually high degree of diversity in its aquatic species, due to the presence
of three different river basins (Cape Fear, Neuse, and Roanoke) within its limits. Orange County contains the headwaters
of numerous streams that flow into these rivers. New Hope Creek, Morgan Creek, Cane Creek, and Back Creek flow into
the Cape Fear River system via the Haw River, which forms the county's southwestern corner. In the north, the Eno
River and Little River (North and South forks) flow eastward into the Neuse River. South Hyco Creek and Lynch Creek,
in Cedar Grove Township, flow north into the Roanoke River system, which soon enters Virginia. The Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi) is probably the most restricted animal that occurs within Orange County. It is found only
within the Neuse and Tar River systems of North Carolina and reaches it westernmost limit in the Eno River within
Orange County.
There are no natural lakes in Orange County. Small examples of marshy terrain are found in some of the larger semi-
permanent beaver ponds, and around the margins of University Lake and several other long - established reservoirs.
Humans have generally altered seeps and springs, except in situations directly within floodplains, where these important
amphibian- breeding habitats have been allowed to persist.
The natural area inventory conducted in Orange County during 2001 -2002 identified 53 significant natural heritage areas,
including 3 sites of national significance, 10 sites of state significance, 8 sites of regional significance, and 32 sites of
county significance. Of the three nationally - significant sites, two are entirely within North Carolina Public Waters and
one is privately- owned; of the ten state - significant sites, one is entirely within North Carolina Public Waters, two are
privately- owned, one is partially in private conservation, one is publicly - owned, two are partially publicly -owned and in
private conservation, one is entirely publicly -owned or within private conservation, and two are partially within a state
park. Of the eight regionally - significant sites, three are privately - owned, two are partially publicly- owned, one is
partially within a state park, two are partially in private conservation.
Frequently, sites occur in clusters with strong geographical connections and ecological relationships. Such clusters of
sites are designated as "macrosites ". The natural heritage areas of national, state, and regional significance in Orange
County are summarized below, and are grouped according to their occurrences within macrosites. Isolated sites (those
not in a macrosite) are placed in a stand -alone group.
Funding for this project was provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust fund and Orange County, North
Carolina. The inventory was updated by Bruce Sorrie and Rich Shaw and published by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program.
SITES OF NATIONAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE IN ORANGE COUNTY
Sevenmile Creek/Cane Creek Macrosite
Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottoms (regional significance) is the richest bottomland remaining in the county, and is
located just west of Hillsborough. All other rich, basic bottomlands along upland streams have been brought under
cultivation. Nowhere else occurs such a large stand of southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum), hackberry (Celtis
laevigata), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). The most important value of this site, however, is the
amazingly profuse herb layer. Particularly impressive are the large patches of such regionally rare species as maidenhair
fern (Adiantum pedatum) and blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides); this is, in fact, the only known site for the blue
cohosh in Orange County and much of the surrounding Piedmont. Ownership of this site is by Orange County and
private landowners.
Uaoer Eno River Macrosite
Eno River Aquatic Habitat (national significance) has an extremely diverse aquatic fauna, including nine rare mussel
species, three rare fish species and one rare amphibian. This site runs in two narrow east - southeast corridors in the central
to eastern portion of the county (the site continues over the Durham County line). Also, several important terrestrial sites
are adjacent to the Eno River. The Orange County portion of the Eno River contains one federally endangered mussel
species —the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). It has been found at one location in the county. In addition,
the federal species of concern and state endangered brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) and green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) have all been found in the
Orange County portion of the Eno River. This site is entirely within North Carolina Public Waters.
Occoneechee Mountain (state significance) in the central part of the county is the highest point in Orange County and in
the Triangle Region. As part of the overall massif of Occoneechee Mountain, this area forms an important wildlife
reservoir; its position along the Eno further enhances its value since the valley of the Eno is one of the most significant
wildlife corridors in the county. Naturalists have long recognized the Panther's Den ravine as state significant because of
the several disjunct plant species that reach their easternmost limits at this site. The site is owned by the State of North
Carolina, the Town of Hillsborough, the Eno River Association, and private landowners.
Eno River /Cates Ford and Uplands (state significance) are located in the eastern section of the county, and this large
site combines five contiguous sites that had been listed separately in the original 1988 inventory. They are the Rich
Mesic Slopes, Uplands and Vernal Pools, Buckwater Creek Ridge and Slopes, Cox's Mountain and Cate's Ford. These
areas include some of the richest forest slopes in Orange County, with north - facing slopes supporting a mesic mixed
hardwood forest with an outstandingly diverse herb layer, massive rock outcrops, upland depressions and a very well -
developed riparian community. Part of this site is within the Eno River State Park, the rest is in private ownership.
Middle Eno River Bluffs and Slopes (state significance) is in the eastern section of the county and extends into Durham
County. Several different habitats and state - listed species are found along the nearly two -mile portion of the site in
Orange County. At the driest extreme is a community growing on a steep, 80 -foot bluff near the reservoir near the
western boundary of this natural area. On gentler, less- exposed slopes occur mixed mesic hardwoods. At the bottom of
these slopes, the herbaceous layer is very rich, as evidenced by the presence of maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), wild
ginger (Asarum canadense), and bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis). Most of the site lies within Eno River State Park,
the rest is in private ownership.
ERSP Mountain Spleenwort and Rhododendron Bluff (regional significance) in the eastern section of the county, is
the easternmost known location in the Carolinas for the mountain spleenwort (Asplenium montanum), a regionally rare
plant species disjunct from the mountains. Additionally, the steep north - facing bluff on this bend of the Eno is the
location of one of only nine populations of catawba rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense) in the county. A
regionally rare disjunct animal, the red - backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), is found here and at only two other sites
in Orange County (Kings Mill and Mason Farm Pond: M08). Part of this site is within the Eno River State Park, the rest is
in private ownership
Cates Creek Hardwood Forest (regional significance) is in the central area of the county. Though reduced in size by
surrounding development, this site is a good example of bottomland forest occurring over basic clay soils. The
impermeability of this clay and the circumneutral pH provide habitat for such basophilic species as slippery elm (Ulmus
rubra) and redbud (Cercis canadensis). The atamasco lily (Zephyranthes atamasco), found at scattered locations
throughout the county on wet clay soils, is also present here. This site is on private land.
tAlr
Universitv Lake Macrosite
University Lake Aquatic Habitat (national significance) is a human-made impoundment in southern Orange County,
protected because it serves as the water supply for the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. University Lake is the most
significant site in North Carolina for the federal species of concern and state endangered Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma
pullus). This site is entirely within North Carolina Public Waters.
Berryhill Rhododendron Bluff (regional significance) in southern Orange County contains a large stand of catawba
rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense) and over two dozen individuals of ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). The
rhododendron is disjunct from the mountains and locally rare in the lower Piedmont; the ginseng is a state - listed species
of special concern. This is the only site where either of these species occurs in the Town of Carrboro. This site is
partially owned by the Triangle Land Conservancy and also privately owned.
Jordan Lake Macrosite
Morgan Creek Bluffs (state significance) in southeastern Orange County combines several sites that had been listed
separately in the original 1988 inventory, including Stillhouse Bottom, Stillhouse Bend (Graybluff) Rhododendron Slope,
Stillhouse Bend Glade —Morgan Creek Anemone Glade, Hunt Arboretum Rhododendron Bluff, King's Mill
Rhododendron Slope, and the Mason Farm Pond Rhododendron Slope. The driest of these areas contain slopes of the
mountain disjunct catawba rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense) and other rare plants and animals such as
Southern Anemone (Anemone berlandieri). Portions of this site are owned by the State of North Carolina and managed
by the NC Botanical Garden as a natural area; other portions are protected by conservation easements held by the
Botanical Garden Foundation.
Mason Farm Oak - Hickory Forest (state significance) in the southeastern corner of the county is the largest forested
area on diabase rock in the county. The soil weathered from this rock formation is more basic than those more typical of
the Piedmont and many plant species grow over these formations that occur nowhere else in the region. The southern
shagbark hickories (Carya carolinae- septentrionalis) growing in this tract are particularly numerous and this stand has
been recognized by the NC Natural Heritage Program as the best in the state, if not the entire range of this species. A
portion is owned by the State and managed as a natural area by the NC Botanical Garden. A large portion remains in
private ownership and is unprotected.
Big Oak Woods (state significance) in the southeastern corner of the county is the largest tract of old growth forest in the
county, and probably the largest in the entire Triangle. It is certainly the largest tract of mature bottomland swamp forest
remaining in the Piedmont. The breeding density of birds is the highest in the county, reflecting the prime conditions
present in this mature bottomland forest. This state -owned site is managed as a natural area by North Carolina Botanical
Garden, however it is not registered or dedicated with NC Natural Heritage Program.
Morgan Creek Floodplain Forest (regional significance) in the southeastern corner of the county combines portions of
two sites that had been listed separately in the original 1988 inventory as Morgan Creek Swamp and Morgan Creek
Hackberry Bottom. Several animal species occur in the swamp that are far more typical of the coastal plain than the
Piedmont, reaching their westernmost limit in these broad lowlands of the Triassic Basin. The floodplain along this
stretch of Morgan Creek contains one of the oldest stands of alluvial forest in Orange County; particularly noteworthy is
the number of large hackberries (Celtis laevigata) that occur here, forming the county's best stand of this species.
Ownership of this site is by the State of North Carolina (Mason Farm Biological Reserve), United States of America
(New Hope Gamelands, managed by the NC Wildlife Resources Comssion), and private landowners.
Bald Mountain/Meadow Flats /Currie Hill Macrosite
Meadow Flats (national significance) in the south- central part of the county combines two contiguous sites (Meadow
Flats and Bald Mountain Gabbro Depression), which had been listed separately in the original 1988 inventory. This is the
best example of upland depression swamp forest in Orange County. This forest is growing on the most extensive area of
Iredell soil in the county, and the underlying gabbro sill is, likewise, the largest within the county. This type of geological
formation is circumneutral in pH and is extremely poorly drained, covered with standing water in the spring but bone -dry
in the summer. The majority of the site is within Duke Forest multiple use lands located within the Rural Buffer zoning
district and the some is in other private ownership.
Za
Bald Mountain (state significance) in the south - central part of the county features one of the most mature chestnut oak
forests in the county and the only monadnock without any sort of development on its upper slopes and summit. Large
hollowed -out stumps of chestnut oak, now extremely rare due to a long history of lumbering, provide traditional nesting
sites for turkey vultures (Cathartes aura). Scenic features include both the rock formations on the summit and the
unbroken ridgeline as seen from the surrounding countryside. This site is part of Duke Forest multiple use lands located
within the Rural Buffer zoning district, and the rest is in other private ownership.
Currie Hill (state significance) in central Orange County contains an unusual rock formation, a conical plug of diabase
rather than the more usual dike formation in which this rock occurs. Growing on the basic soil weathered from the
diabase is the best and largest example within the county of a dry basic oak -- hickory forest growing in a hilltop situation.
In addition to the unusual vegetation, noteworthy wildlife includes wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and perhaps the
rare northern hairstreak butterfly (Fixsenia ontario). This site has demonstrable significance as an upland wildlife
reservoir. Scenically, the site is important as one of the few undeveloped hilltops left in the county that is visible from a
major thoroughfare. This site is privately owned; portions of the natural area are protected by conservation easements.
New Hone Creek Floodnlain Macrosite
New Hope Creek Slopes (state significance) in southeastern Orange County combines six contiguous sites that had been
listed separately in the original 1988 inventory, which are Gate 24 Purse Web Spider Ravine, Wooden Bridge Bluff, Duke
Forest Rhododendron Bluffs, Hollow Rock Rhododendron Bluffs, Alluvial Forest and Piney Mountain. This area is one
of the most important study sites for both forestry and biology within the southeastern United States. Part of this site is
within Duke Forest multiple -use lands and the rest is in other private ownership.
Henry J. Oosting Natural Area (regional significance) in southeastern Orange County is an excellent forest of mature
mixed mesic hardwoods with outstanding spring floral displays. One state - listed herbaceous species of significantly rare
status has been reported to occur along the rich bottom, the Lewis' heartleaf (Hexastylis lewisii). Aesthetically, this is one
of the most pleasing forest areas of its size in the county: The large beeches (Fagus grandifolia) and other mesic
hardwoods lend it a cathedral -like atmosphere. A portion of the riparian corridor is protected by the Triangle Land
Conservancy as part of its Johnston Mill Preserve, another portion is part of Duke Forest, and the rest is privately owned.
Mud Creek/Couch Mountain Macrosite
Couch Mountain (regional significance) in eastern Orange County is a large hill located on the edge of the Triassic Basin
that has one of the oldest stands of upland hardwoods in the county; the canopy contains many individual white oaks
(Quercus alba) that are over two feet in diameter and some of which exceed 300 years in age. This forest is also unusual
in composition: sweet pignut hickory (Carya ovalis) is the dominant hickory on the summit, while southern shagbark
hickory (C. carolinae- septentrionalis), a species indicating a basic soil type (perhaps due to an unmapped diabase dike) is
frequent along the slopes. Part of this site is within Duke Forest multiple -use lands and the rest is in other private
ownership.
Stand -alone Sites
Little River Aquatic Habitat (state significance) runs in two narrow west -to -east bands in the northeastern portion of the
county. The North Fork and South Fork of the Little River converge just east of the Durham County line to form the
Little River. The North Fork portion of the site has a diverse aquatic fauna, including several mussel species. The federal
species of concern and state endangered Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
have both been found in the North Fork. Additional rare mussels found in this portion are the state threatened eastern
lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) and creeper (Strophitus undulatus), and the state special concern notched rainbow
(Villosa constricta). An undescribed Lampsilis species and several more common species (Elliptio spp., Elliptio
complanata, Elliptio icterina and Pyganodon cataracta) have also been found in this portion of the site. Furthermore,
rare fish at this site include the federal species of concern and state significantly rare pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus
matutinus). The South Fork portion of the site has records for some of the same species as the North Fork, with the
exception of the yellow lampmussel, eastern floater ( Pyganodon cataracta), the undescribed Lampsilis species, and the
pinewoods shiner. This site is entirely within North Carolina Public Waters.
Persimmon Nursery Flats (regional significance) is an unusual hardpan that contains a mixture of wetland and upland
species, located in the southwestern corner of the county. It is a flat upland area with Iredell soils that contains a fair
quality, mature Basic Oak Hickory Forest (Mixed Moisture Variant), which is poorly known or described in the state.
This site is privately owned.
92
1
U '
rn )
p -
0
U
u
C
__ ro
Q
S�
O
i
O
4J
u
0
U-
T _J
93
4k.
MI bANI
r _
~.. .ri r' -
r. w4C 7o'
CHAPEL MILL
.i6"
44RPOOR0
t?h
yra
1 j ,
,i
r•
N majut Roads Figure 2. Major towns, roads, and
Reservoirs&lakes hydrography in Orange County �..
" Major Streams
wva,J Us n
6 Fe-
Gxrxantu.DY,LUCY
••io.es Y2i t•+
94
Oanoke SOUTH
NYCO CREE FLAT RIVER
t�
LITTLE RIVER
Neuse
BACK �)
CREEK
UPPER
ENO
Mtaexe LOWER ENO
t
r
CANE CREEK
Cape Fear
X
(WAIT!HILL
l�
UNIVERSITY
HAW RIVER LAKE
JQRDAN LAKE
River Basins
Q wateNios
Reservoirs&Lakes Figure 3. River basins and watersheds
MajorStreamr' in Orange County
M O—64:3Jd
95
IAA
y .
1 0 1 2 Miles
rsv , Ea„
fa:5 t
1
St VEEVUARE(Nt *.l .�r7 �iC"Rrr.Vt CROSA
:'A!!r'(:RE6�tuAerzps+rk +� +xt5 aa.r,cF+ErK agar.Ros+rt
6R p WWN YAlN
=PLATS
r rytr
NEW H(pt C LEO
h.u'Yw't�rN uuRCSSt rp
rzi 1
r.+; O tkPEl MILL
6
861
, r
arxx�x,�rE '
UI'A
,s" A
w+o M+2
.ti'WLAN INtE .
AREAS WC
'.hanye County Mauusnex
Natural Areas 2+XA
Mam Roads
Reswwrts&takes
Figure 4. Natural Areas and Macrosites
in Orange Counrty
Cities �........M
Table 1. List of Orange County Natural Areas and their Significance (Page 1 of 2)
National significance (3 sites) Regional significance (8 sites)
State significance (10 sites) County significance (32 sites)
Site Name (bv Watershed)
Bolin Creek Watershed
Bolin Creek
Battle Park *
Cedar Terrace Bottoms
Cane Creek Watershed
Cane Creek Reservoir
Haw River Alluvial Terrace
Lower Cane Creek Slopes and Bottom
OWASA Mitigation Tract
Persimmon Nursery Flats
Eno River Watershed
Site # Significance Features
BO1
County
Mature hardwood forest
B02
County
Mature hardwood forest, rare plant
B03
County
Swamp forest, rare dragonfly
CO1
County
Mature hardwood forest, wildlife habitat
CO2
County
Floodplain levee forest
CO3
County
Mature forest, rare mollusk, otter,
nesting black vultures
C04
County
Mature hardwood forest, wildlife habitat
C05
Regional
Unusual hardpan soil, species mix
Sevenmile Creek / Cane Creek Macrositel
Regional
Camp Chestnut Ridge E04
County Mature chestnut oak forest
Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge E05
County Upland wildlife habitat
Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottoms E06
Regional Mature forest, rare plants
Upper Eno River Macrosite National
Eno River Aquatic Habitat E01 National
McGowan Creek Preserve & Floodplain E02 County
Eno River Duke Forest Mesic Slopes E03 County
Occoneechee Mountain
Poplar Ridge Slopes and Bottom
Eno River / Cates Ford and Uplands
ERSP Mountain Spleenwort
& Rhododendron Bluff
Middle Eno River Bluffs and Slopes
Cates Creek Hardpan Forest *
Cates Creek Hardwood Forest
Stony Creek Spring *
Hyco Creek Watershed
Cedar Grove Heartleaf Ravine
Penecost Road Nestronia Flat *
E07
State
E10
County
Ell
State
E12
Regional
E13
State
E08 County
E09 Regional
E14 County
H01 County
H02 County
Rare aquatic species
Hardwood forest, wildlife habitat
Rich hardwood forest, excellent
wildflowers, rare aquatic animals
Numerous rare plants, rare butterflies; pine- heath-
bracken community, mature chestnut oak forest
Rare animals, extensive bottomland forest
Rare plants, rare dragonfly, upland depressions,
hardwood forest, mature post oak forest,
extensive bottomland
Rare plants, rare salamander
Rare plants, rare animals
Bottomland forest
Rare plant community
Large spring, rare salamander, rare dragonfly
Rare plant
Rare plants
' The Sevenmile Creek / Cane Creek Macrosite also includes standard sites C1, C3, and C4
* Stand -alone standard site (not within a larger macrosite)
97
Table 4. List of Orange County Natural Areas and their Significance (Page 2 of 2)
Site Name (by Watershed)
Little River Watershed
South Fork Little River Marsh *
Forrest Creek Beaver Pond *
Jimmy Ed Road Heartleaf Flat *
Breeze Road Heartleaf Ravine *
Little River Aquatic Habitat *
Site # Significance Features
LO1 County
L02 County
L03 County
L04 County
L05 State
Beaver pond and marsh
Beaver pond and marsh
Rare plant
Rare plant
Rare aquatic species
Morgan Creek Watershed
State
Morgan Creek Bluffs
Pickards Mountain *
MO1
County
Excellent chestnut oak forest
Calvander Laurel Bluff and Bottom *
M02
County
Rare salamander
University Lake Macrosite
Ml l
National
Morgan Creek Floodplain Forest
McCauley Mountain
M03
County
Mature upland forest
University Lake Slopes and Wetlands
M04
County
Rare plants, rare mollusk, mature forest
University Lake Marsh
M05
County
Marsh, good birdlife
University Lake Aquatic Habitat
M06
National
Rare mussel
Berryhill Rhododendron Bluff
M07
Regional
Rare plants, rhododendron bluff
Jordan Lake Macrosite
State
Morgan Creek Bluffs
M08
State
Laurel Hill Ridge and Vernal Pool
M09
County
Mason Farm Oak - Hickory Forest
M10
State
Big Oak Woods
Ml l
State
Morgan Creek Floodplain Forest
M12
Regional
New Hope Creek Watershed
Bald Mt. /Meadow Flats /Currie Hill Macrosite National
Bald Mountain
NO1
State
Meadow Flats
NO2
National
Eubanks Rd Xeric Hardpan Forest
NO3
County
Blackwood Mountain
N04
County
Steep Bottom Branch
N05
County
Currie Hill
N06
State
Camp Pipsissewa *
N07
County
New Hope Church Road Basic Forest *
N08
County
New Hope Chestnut Oak Forest *
N09
County
New Hope Creek Floodplain Macrosite
State
Henry J. Oosting Natural Area
N10
Regional
New Hope Creek Slopes
Nl l
State
Mature hardwood forest, rare plants & animals,
rhododendron bluffs, excellent birdlife
Large upland forest, rare plant
Rare forest type on diabase rock
Old growth swamp forest
Swamp forest, rare animals
Mature chestnut oak forest, nesting turkey vultures
Rare plant, rare animals, upland depression
Xeric hardpan forest
Mature upland forest
Mature forest
Basic forest on diabase rock
Mature bottomland forest
Forest on basic rock
Chestnut oak forest
Mature hardwood forest, rare animals
Mature forest, rare plants and animals,
rhododendron bluffs, sandstone outcrops,
mature alluvial forest, xeric bluff forest
Mud Creek / Couch Mountain Macrosite Regional
Couch Mountain N12 Regional Mature upland forest, very large trees
* Stand -alone standard site (not within a larger macrosite)
rel n.
tWej
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment 8.4 99
Surface Water Identification Training and Certification Program
NC Division of Water Quality, Wetlands /401 Unit
Hydrologic and Water Quality Functions of Headwaters
Streams and Riparian Zones
James D. Gregory
Department of Forestry, NC State University
January 30, 2002
Introduction
The smallest steams in a watershed (headwaters streams) in aggregate are the
principal connection between the land (terrestrial ecosystems) and the stream network
(lotic ecosystems). Headwaters streams drain excess water and associated inorganic
and organic constituents (dissolved and solid) from the watershed land areas and
transport that water with associated constituents to the major tributaries and the main
stem of a river system. Hydrologic, biological, and chemical processes that occur in the
riparian zones and within the stream channels serve to remove many of the dissolved
materials and solids that are transported off the land. Headwaters stream corridors in
which ecological functions occur at the maximum levels found under natural conditions
are, thus critical to maintaining acceptable water quality in the major tributaries, the
main stems of rivers, and the large estuaries to which the rivers of the state discharge.
The term "headwaters streams" is increasingly being used in the hydrology,
geomorphology, and regulatory literature without clearly defining what is meant. Often,
writers are referring to the portion of the stream network that is located farthest from the
mouth of a watershed. In all cases, "headwaters" refers to the smallest streams in a
stream network. However, I prefer to define headwaters steams in the context of the
hydrologic role of small steams in a watershed as follows.
Headwaters stream — refers to the first order and second order streams of a watershed
without regard to location in the watershed or their classification as intermittent or
perennial. Thus a headwaters stream can occur in the highest elevation area of a river
basin at the farthest location from the mouth of the river or as a first or second order
tributary to the main stem of river near the estuary.
In terms of the regulatory application of the stream origin and stream corridor
functions discussed in this training program, I also offer the concept of the "regulatory
stream origin ". Identifying an intermittent or perennial stream origin in the field is an
opinion based on best professional judgment. However, the stream definitions outlined
below that have been adopted by the NC Environmental Commissions and the
procedures for applying those definitions in the field are based on the following policy:
The origin of a regulated stream is the most upstream point on a first order stream
where the ecological functions of a stream are present and operating at a minimal level.
S: \2_Boards \BOCC \2010 BOCC Agendas \6 -1 -10 \Upper Eno Critical Area Amendments\Att 8\Att 8.4 - Stream Order Info.doc
100
Stream Network Elements Defined
Stream order — A system for designing the relative location of a stream within a stream
network and the degree of branching of the stream network within a watershed. The
most upstream, unbranched stream segments (intermittent or perennial) are denoted as
first order. A segment is denoted as second order where two first order streams (or
segments) join. A segment is denoted as third order where two second order segments
join, etc. By convention, stream order is labeled in accordance with the streams
depicted on a USGS 1:24,000 scale map (Figure 1). Note that low order streams (first
or second) often discharge directly to much larger and higher order streams. In the
example of Figure 1, several first order streams discharge directly to the fourth order
steam reach near the mouth of the drainage basin. However, those first order streams
still meet my definition of headwaters stream.
4
0
0.5 LO
1.
km
1
kr'
1:'� 3
1'
1 2/1
\; ,
1
12 it
2 .
2
12
. 1
i• :1
1
'
Figure 1. Diagram of a Piedmont watershed illustrating the procedure for designating stream order.
In terms of the regulatory application of the stream origin and stream corridor functions
discussed in this training program, I also offer the concept of the "regulatory stream
origin ". Identifying an intermittent or perennial stream origin in the field is an opinion
based on best professional judgment. However, the stream definitions outlined below
that have been adopted by the NC Environmental Commissions and the procedures for
applying those definitions in the field are based on the following policy: The origin of a
regulated stream is the most upstream point on a first order stream where the ecological
functions of a stream are present and operating at a minimal level.
S: \2_Boards \BOCC \2010 BOCC Agendas \6 -1 -10 \Upper Eno Critical Area Amendments\Att 8\Att 8.4 -Stream Order Info.doc
Upper Eno Watershed Stream Orders 101
• J
-C
w
�W
Legend
�. f - Stream Order
3 g/ . 1st
2nd
t 3rd
y --4th
A
t —5th
• Proposed Upper Eno Critical Area
F�d 13
\I
4 ,
6 F(s
0
R
T j
Vo
1 \
ac0
0870 w i ! •
J �
W., w
•
• S" trtdl®
• \Q.2
0 0.5 1 2 3 Oren ga—nty Plannrq aM lnagarSbrs Oaga—t
Miles GIS Map Rep W Minim Cdeman,February 18,2010
Rojeclion:NaM Carolina Stefe pare(feeQ
Wtvn:NoM Rmerian 1983
102
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment 8.5103
WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION IN ORANGE COUNTY
Terry Hackett, Stormwater Resource Officer
Erosion Control Division - Orange County Planning and Inspections
January 2010
Introduction
Orange County is often referred to as a "headwater" county, meaning the county is located at
the upper end of larger watersheds or river basins. Most streams actually originate in the county
rather starting elsewhere and simply flow through. This is an important distinction because of
the designated water supply reservoirs located downstream. Equally important are the water
supply reservoirs located within the county. For these reasons protecting water quality has been
an important aspect in planning development and land use within Orange County.
Headwater Streams and Watershed Health
Research suggests that headwater streams play a critical role in the overall health of
watersheds. Headwater areas influence the supply, transport and quality of water downstream
(Alexander, et al., 2007). Many natural biological, chemical and microbial processes occur in
these headwater streams, making them vulnerable to land use changes. Research suggests
that protecting these areas are vital in maintaining downstream water quality and aquatic
ecosystem health. Headwater streams are critical for maintaining ecological health and
biodiversity of watersheds (Doppelt, et al., 1993). In Orange County, this is even more
significant because our watersheds are relatively small and the streams draining them become
critical elements in protecting water quality within the watershed.
Need for Protecting Larger Streams
Protecting small first and second order headwater streams is only one aspect of a successful
watershed protection program. Protecting larger, perennial streams such as third, fourth, and
fifth order streams is also necessary. Higher order streams are typically perennial and contain
higher flow. Perennial stream flow often equates to higher diversity in aquatic species,
especially fish, mussels and crustacean species. Greater species diversity relates to better
stream health and provides recreational opportunities, such as fishing.
Larger streams can be more susceptible to spills and other pollutants. Studies indicate that
larger streams have fewer biological, chemical and microbial processes occurring compared to
first order streams. Thus, larger streams have less ability to remove or reduce a pollutant before
transporting it downstream through higher stream flow. For instance, a chemical spill in a
headwater stream, while bad for the environment, typically has a greater chance that natural
processes can conceivably reduce the impact when compared to a spill that reaches a higher
order stream with higher stream flow. Higher stream flow equates to faster transport rates of the
pollutant, which in turn increases the likelihood of that pollutant reaching a downstream water
supply reservoir.
For these reasons, the state of North Carolina requires protection zones upstream of surface
water intakes. There are two basic zones, a "critical area" and "watershed protection area ".
Critical areas are designated 1/2 mile upstream of an intake and include both water and land.
Critical areas are given more stringent protection since there may be limited time for a water
plant operator to react to a spill and shut down the intake. Beyond the critical areas are
Page 1 of 3
104
watershed protection zones, which can vary based on potential sources of pollutants.
Watershed protection areas occur from beyond the critical area allowing an operator to shut
down should a spill or other water quality issue arise. Protecting streams between reservoirs is
equally important as protecting the reservoirs themselves.
Excess Nutrients and Eutrophication
Many reservoirs in the southeast are susceptible to eutrophication. Eutrophication is caused by
an increased concentration of nutrients within a lake or reservoir that in turn increases algal
growth and subsequently reduces water quality. In fact, as algae goes through their life cycle
and die off, dissolved oxygen in the water can be greatly reduced, causing fish kills and other
adverse impacts. While this is a natural process, changes in land use can greatly increase
nutrients reaching a reservoir and accelerate eutrophication. Increased impervious surface area
leads to decreased stormwater runoff infiltration, which in turn leads to increased nutrient load in
stormwater runoff reaching surface waters. This is currently happening to both Jordan and Falls
lakes.
Excess nutrients are a problem in many watersheds and therefore researchers have looked at
sources, impacts and reduction strategies. Research has shown that headwater streams
contribute a larger percentage of nitrogen compared to higher order streams (Alexander, et al.,
2007). However, due to various biological, chemical, and microbial processes occurring in these
smaller streams, less nitrogen may be delivered downstream. On the contrary, higher order
perennial streams, while contributing less nitrogen, actually transport more due to stream flow
and fewer natural processes occurring in larger streams (Alexander, et al., 2000). This
underscores the need for protecting both headwater and larger streams, but they may require
different methods to protect them.
Watershed Protection Measures
One protection method includes riparian buffers. Forested buffers along streams can reduce
nitrogen loading from stormwater runoff. To be most effective, stormwater runoff needs to
infiltrate where soil processes remove more nitrogen (Mayer, et al., 2005). Stream buffers also
reduce erosion and sediment reaching streams. They are particularly important in temperature
regulation of perennial streams. Shade from trees maintained along streams keeps surface
water cooler and cooler water contains more dissolved oxygen that is needed by fish and other
aquatic species. Stream buffers are especially useful in protecting smaller headwater streams,
helping to maintain the natural biological, chemical and microbial processes that occur in these
streams.
Riparian buffers are also important for larger streams, but due to the reasons previously
discussed, other protections may be warranted. Since excess nutrients (especially nitrogen) are
a major concern locally and larger streams have increased transport rates due to stream flow,
buffers may not be able to assimilate all of the excess. Encouraging infiltration of stormwater
runoff is key. Managing imperviousness by allowing lower development densities can
encourage greater infiltration. Preservation of open space and cluster development also
encourages infiltration of runoff. This is why the state prescribes watershed protection areas
beyond the designated critical area. These protection measures, such as lower density and
lower imperviousness, regulate both land and water resources that can adversely affect water
quality within water supply reservoirs.
Page 2 of 3
105
Groundwater Benefits
These protection measures also help to maintain groundwater quantity and quality. By
encouraging infiltration, more water soaks into soils where it eventually becomes available for
potable use by installing wells. As stated above, when runoff infiltrates into the ground, natural
processes help to filter the water so that it is cleaner. During dry periods groundwater provides
base flow to streams. Thus, by encouraging more runoff to infiltrate the effects of drought on
streams and other surface waters can be reduced.
Conclusion
Protecting water supply sources within and downstream of Orange County has been a priority of
local staff and officials. Since land use does not remain static, periodic review of watershed
protection measures are warranted. As potential pollutant sources change, protection measures
may need to change. As described above, protection measures must be appropriately applied to
both large and small streams and land use draining to them. Without this level of planning, both
surface water and ground water quantity and quality cannot be maintained nor improved.
References
Alexander, et al, 2000. Effect of Stream channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen to the Gulf of
Mexico. Nature, Volume 43.
Alexander, et al., 2007. Role of Headwater Streams in Downstream Water Quality. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association. 2007
Dopplet, Bob: et. Al. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save America's River
Ecosystems. Island Press. 462pp.
Mayer, et al., 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover and Nitrogen Removal
Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. U.S. EPA, Office or
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
Page 3 of 3
1.
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment1s0 7
APPROVED 416/2010
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 22, 2010
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 22, 1010 at 7:00
p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members May
Becker, Mary Bobbitt- Cooke, Pete Hallenbeck, Tommy McNeill, Earl McKee, Jeffrey L. Schmitt,
and Larry Wright
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Mark Marcoplos, Judith
Wegner, and Rachel Phelps Hawkins
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM and asked everyone to observe
the public charge.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment and Comprehensive Plan — Land Use
Element Text and Map Amendment: To receive public comments on proposed text
amendments to Section 4.2.27 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) and Article 22
(Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan — Land
Use Element Application of the revised text will result in changes to the Zoning Atlas and
Land Use Element Map. The purpose of the amendments is to:
A. Revise the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts pertaining to "Critical Area.
B. Revise and add definitions pertaining to watersheds, critical area, and water supply
reservoirs.
C. Use best available technology to map written descriptions of Watershed Critical Areas.
D. Correct general typographical errors in Section 4.2.27.
108
Planning Director Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation and made an
introduction of the notices. He said that for the people that received a post card, there will be no
changes to their land. Of the other people that were noticed, about 300 people were notified
that they could be potentially included in the new critical area and about 300 people were
notified that they would be excluded based on the new definition.
Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Amendments
Quarterly Public Hearing
February 22, 2010
What's Being Proposed?
- Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
• Criteria used to designate Critical Area
• Definitions
- Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
o Ensure consistency
- Zoning Atlas (map) and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendments
o Depiect new definitions /criteria with a redefined overlay map
Why Change?
- Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan calls for re- evaluation of Seven Mile Creek area
- Zoning Ordinance Text and Atlas need to match
• Present Atlas does not match text in some areas
• Can lead to disputes
- Potential reservoirs protected in 1994 are no longer suggested
- Focused economic development growth areas
Proposed Criteria
- Based on straight -line distances:
• From normal pool elevations of reservoirs (Class I and Class II)
• From centerline of third order and higher streams for a specified distance
- Excludes areas designated as "Transition Areas" (i.e., growth areas) on the
Comprehensive Plan Land use Element Map
Rationale for Change
- Town of Hillsborough has built its West Fork reservoir. Future Phase II is permitted
- No plans by Town or County for additional reservoirs so delete language
- Clarify that there are State - Required and County- Designated Critical Areas (same
regulations — density, lot size, impervious surface)
- Removes from "critical Area" designation lands in Efland area designated for
growth/economic development
Why Change? (continued)
- Continue to protect:
• Water quality
• Headwaters
• Fragile water supply
• Groundwater resources
• Aquatic environments
- Remove text -map Conflicts
109
Applying Proposed Criteria
- Results in:
• Some areas being removed from County- Designated Critical Area ( -1,154 acres)
■ (change from "Critical Area" to "Protected ")
• Some areas being included in County Designated Critical Area ( +2,274 acres)
■ (change from "Protected" to "Critical Area ")
• Net increase in Critical Area of 8% (1,120 acres)
■ Critical Area is approximately 14,000 acres
• Entire Upper Eno watershed contains 38,500 acres
Differences Between "Protected" and "Critical Area"
- Most significant differences are:
• Maximum Density
• Critical Area: 1 unit per 2 acres (sometimes not achievable due to soil
limitations and septic requirements)
■ Protected Area: generally 1 unit per 1 acre (but often not achievable)
• Impervious Surface Limits
■ Critical Area: 6% and /or Sliding Scale
■ Protected Area: 12%
• Table is Attachment 8 of packet
Countywide Impervious Surface Limits
A surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water
into the soil. Such surfaces include all concrete, asphalt, and gravel surfaces. These include,
but are not limited to, streets and parking areas, sidewalks, patios, and structures which cover
the land.
Property Values /Taxes
- Taxes based on property values
- Property values based on market values
o Determined by Tax Administration Department
Public Outreach
- Website up and running February 5, 2010
- Public Information Meeting held February 17, 2010 (approximately 75 attendees)
Required Public Notification
- In accordance with Zoning Ordinance:
• Legal ad in newspapers
• Notices mailed to affected property owners (approximately 665)
• Notices mailed to property owners within 500 feet of affected properties
(approximately 1,010)
• Signs posted in strategic areas of affected areas (40 signs)
Recommendation
- Receive proposal
- Conduct public hearing and accept comment
- Refer to Planning Board for recommendation in time for the June 1, 2010 BOCC meeting
- Adjourn public hearing until June 1, 2010 in order to receive and accept planning
Board's recommendation (any comments after tonight must be in writing)
110
Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7.18 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Shu -Fai Fung has property in this area. He said that he wants Hillsborough to be his
future home. He is concerned about the market value of his property if this is approved. He is
worried about whether he can resell his land if the impervious area is limited. He asked about
the 12% ratio.
Craig Benedict said that with this particular land, he could go to 11 %.
David Turner said that he has property — over 3 % acres — that is in the protected area,
but it is to be transferred to the critical area. He said that the road easements that his neighbors
use to get in and out of their property will be countered against the 6% limit that applies to his
lot. He thinks that they should be applied to the 6% limit of the neighbor's lots.
Craig Benedict said that if there are roadway easements that were part of a minor
subdivision, sometimes in the language of the subdivision it says, "where the impervious area is
assigned." He said that he would have to look at the roadway easements to see if there could
be a transfer of shared impervious surface.
Ben Lloyd said that Orange County has 18,000 acres of land in the critical area, which
has no public water or sewer, no commercial, and no industrial activity. He said that the intent
is to protect the water supply and he supports this. He has been on the Orange- Alamance
Water Board for 40 years and he is Secretary and Treasurer of the board. He said that Orange -
Alamance Water is noted throughout the State in having the cleanest, best - drinking water in the
State of North Carolina. He said that some of these areas are identified as the most potential
areas in the State for good economic development, which is needed in Orange County. He
owns some of this property in the critical area and he supports some of the changes that have
been made, but not all of them. He pointed out an area on the map around Eno River. He said
that the water flows away from the river and some consideration needs to be given to the way
the water flows rather than the way the crow flies. He also made reference to a three -acre tract
around the Efland exit, which is in the proposed critical area, but the water from there flows out
of the critical area. He thinks that this should be removed from the critical area. He suggested
that the County use the stream flow rather than the half mile, and also, in the critical area, if
water and sewer is available, some development should be allowed because the water is much
more protected with water and sewer than with septic tanks.
Gordon Brown said that his farm is bordered on the north side by West Ten Road and on
the east by Mt. Willing Road. He said that his involvement began in 1970 when the stakes were
driven on his farm. He said that for the last 40 years, they have been in a state of some
uncertainty as to what would happen to this land. He said that he has tried to be a good citizen
about it. He said that it appears that there will not be a reservoir on this land. He asked the
County Commissioners and Planning Board to let it go and to not impose the proposed
regulations upon the land. He said that the water quality critical area that is there should be
released. He said that the four -mile stretch along West Ten Road has become an area for
intense development, such as the proposed Buckhorn Village, Gravelly Hill Middle School, and
the soccer park. He said that Orange County should not be wed to the planning concepts of
yesteryear. He thinks that the Planning staff has the knowledge and the guidance to get to
where the County needs to go. He disagrees that you cannot run water and sewer within the
water quality critical area.
Bob Lee said that he is concerned with where the County is going to get water in the
future. Lake Orange was dry two years ago. He suggested coming up with some more water to
supply the economic development zone other than Lake Orange.
Bill Few owns about 37 acres on the east side of Dimmocks Mill Road. He said that his
plan has always been to ultimately develop this land as a residential subdivision. He said that,
listening to the proposed regulations, he is overwhelmed by the impact of the implementation of
these regulations in this area. He said that the 6% impervious surface limits will render his
property totally undevelopable from an economic standpoint. He made reference to a research
paper that he came across that indicated that residential lots developed between Y2 acre and 1
acre have a range of 13 -16% of impervious surfaces. The paper also indicated that there has to
be over 10% impervious surface before there is any measurable impact on water quality. He
said that it seems that the proposed 6% impervious surface is unreasonable and unnecessary.
Joe Phelps asked if a house burned down if it would be able to be built back as the
same size that it was before it was changed into this new designation. He also asked what
would happen if there is a fuel leak or a chemical spill. He said that there are no plans and this
needs to be considered rather than changing a small area.
Jeremy Browner is currently not an Orange County resident or landowner, but he has
property under contract in Orange County. He agreed with the comments about economic
development. He said that 1 -85 is the best hope for the future for economic development. He
said that another million people are going to be moving into the Triangle area in the next 10 -15
years. North Carolina is the fourth fastest growing state in the country. He said that closing this
off with this regulation is not allowing Orange County to grow the way it should be. He said that
Orange County has to be able to raise its commercial tax base.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was input from Hillsborough or Orange - Alamance
Water on these designations. Craig Benedict said that staff has communicated with the Town of
Hillsborough and the Town Board would like to provide some comments. There has been
dialogue over the last few years with Orange - Alamance Water about protecting Corporation
Lake and the direction for future water sources.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 1, 2010 BOCC regular meeting.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson
to adjourn the public hearing until June 1, 2010 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to adjourn the quarterly public hearing at 8:18 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
111
112
This Page Intentionally Blank
Attachment Id
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 22, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area - Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment
and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text and
Map Amendments
2. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text and
Land Use Element Map Amendments
3. Various Maps
4. Document Regarding Water Supply
Watershed Protection in Orange County
5. Property Owner Letters and Notification
Certification
6. Planning Board Ordinance Review
Committee Summary Notes
7. Relevant Supporting Objectives of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan
8. Table of Zoning Ordinance Requirements
for Watershed Protection Overlay
Districts
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director
Perdita Holtz, Planner III
245 -2592
I I I�II..1..11111.1�1
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on County initiated amendments to certain Sections of
the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Atlas, and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Element Text and Map. Specifically, the following portions of the Zoning Ordinance text are
proposed for amendment:
• Section 4.2.27 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
• Article 22 (Definitions)
Application of the text amendments will result in changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay
District boundary depicted on the official Zoning Atlas and on the Land Use Element Map of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text changes in "Track Changes" format are included
in Attachments 1 and 2. The existing and proposed Critical Area boundaries are depicted on
Map 3.1 in Attachment 3. Map 3.2 depicts.areas proposed for inclusion into or removal from the
Critical Area designation.
BACKGROUND: At the August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public hearing (non - public hearing portion
of the agenda), staff presented the proposed work plan to begin implementation of the adopted
small area plans. Changes to the "Critical Area" of the Upper Eno watershed is one of the
114
2
higher priority items to accomplish further implementation of the Efland- Mebane Small Area
Plan which calls for a re- evaluation of the Critical Area boundary for Seven Mile Creek.
The current Critical Area boundary is based upon a potential reservoir (1987 Study) being
created on Seven Mile Creek and the full pool elevation of the reservoir was used as the
calculation point for the % -mile Critical Area boundary in 1994. Staff gave a presentation on this
topic at the October 13, 2009 BOCC work session and the BOCC directed staff to proceed with
the proposed amendments.
At the time the initial Critical Area boundary was adopted (1994), the Town of Hillsborough was
going through the process of deciding which potential reservoir site on the Upper Eno River
should be chosen for its needed reservoir. The County adopted a Critical Area boundary that
protected three identified potential reservoir sites (see Map 3.4 in Attachment 3):
• West Fork on the Eno
• Eno River above McGowan Creek
• Seven Mile Creek
Ultimately, the Town chose to build its reservoir on the West Fork on the Eno site, which was
constructed to allow for a future Phase II expansion. The Town has no plans to construct an
additional reservoir. For this reason, County staff is suggesting that references to potential
reservoir sites be removed from the Zoning Ordinance text and that the Critical Area boundary
be amended accordingly.
State and County Critical Areas
When the Critical Area text and map boundary was adopted by the BOCC in 1994 in response
to State mandates to protect Class I Water Supply Reservoirs, Orange County opted to adopt
protection measures beyond the State - required minimum. A local government is permitted to do
so under the State Rules. Staff is suggesting that the County regulations more clearly indicate
that a portion of the Critical Area is State - required while other portions are County - designated.
It should be noted that both State - required and County - designated Critical Areas are proposed
to be subject to the same regulations. Map 3.3 in Attachment 3 depicts the State - required and
County - designated Critical Areas.
New Definitions
Staff is suggesting the Zoning Ordinance text be amended to reflect new technically descriptive
criteria for the County - designated Critical Areas. Specifically, staff is suggesting that Class II
reservoirs (West Fork on the Eno and Lake Orange) receive the same protection as Class
reservoirs (Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnson). The amendments to Article 22
(Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance (see Attachment 1) includes the technical definitions of
Class I and Class II reservoirs. In layman's terms, the difference between the two types of.
reservoirs is that the intake pipe for a water treatment plant is located in the Class I reservoir. A
Class 11 reservoir does not contain the intake pipe. Staff is also suggesting that certain
important streams receive County - designated Critical Area protection. Staff is proposing this be
accomplished by protecting streams of a certain hierarchy (stream order). Attachment 4 is a
staff "white paper" that further explains why this is important.
115
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
A Text Amendment to Chapter 5. land Use Element of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive
Plan is also being proposed to revise existing Conservation Land Use Categories and add additional
Categodes/Definitions to be consistent with the changes proposed for water supply watersheds,
reservoirs, and critical area in the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment 2 contains the proposed changes
to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 7 contains several supporting Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Rationale For Amendments
Rationale for the proposed amendments include:
• Matching the Zoning Ordinance text with the Zoning Atlas (map).. The present Zoning
Atlas does not match the text language, which can lead to disputes.
• Clarifying and adding definitions pertaining to watersheds, critical area, and water supply
reservoirs.
• Using best available technology to map clearly written descriptions of Watershed Critical
Areas.
• Correcting general typographical errors in Section 4.2.27.
• Revising the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts pertaining to "Critical Area."
• Protecting headwaters of fragile water supply and groundwater resources.
• Improving water quality for consumption and endangered aquatic species.
• Ensuring the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain similar provisions
in regards to Watershed Protection Overlay Districts with this concurrent amendment.
Effects of New Criteria
The proposed revised criteria in Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance will change existing
boundaries of Critical Areas in the Upper Eno watershed. If the amendments are adopted, some
properties (2,274 acres) will be removed from "Protected" designation and placed into "Critical Area"
designation. Other areas (1,154 acres) will be removed from "Critical Area" and placed in the
"Protected" designation. It should be noted that in the Upper Eno watershed, all properties are
classified as either "Protected" or "Critical Area" under the Watershed. Protection Overlay District
regulations.
Adoption of these amendments will result in an increase of designated Critical Areas in the
Upper Eno watershed of approximately 8% (13,230 acres in 1994 boundary; 14,350 acres in
2010 boundary, an increase of 1,120 acres). The entire Upper Eno watershed is comprised of
approximately 38,500 acres.
The protection criteria proposed by staff in Section 4.2.27 is expected to result in the following
positive environmental impacts:
• Reduced sediment
• Slowed eutrophication by reduction of nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Larger streams (third order and higher) have been suggested for protection within certain
distances from Class I reservoirs because these streams have a:
• Greater capacity to transport pollutants
• Greater capacity in the event of a spill to rapidly affect a down stream water supply
116
4
If adopted, the proposed amendments.will:
• Continue Orange County's long history of water resource and environmental protection,
especially in the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek confluence natural areas. Portions of
the Seven Mile Creek and Upper Eno areas have been designated significant natural
heritage areas and the County currently owns more than 300 acres in these areas for the
purpose of permanently 'protecting the lands through open space. Planning staff has
worked .with staff of ERCD on these proposed amendments.
• Release some lands identified for growth and economic development in the Efland area
from "Critical Area" designation.
• Accurately reflect the fact that potential reservoir sites were designated for protection in
1994 while the Town of Hillsborough was deciding where to site its needed reservoir.
The Town's reservoir has since been constructed and the Town has no plans to site an
additional reservoir.
Attachment 8 contains a chart showing the basic zoning regulation differences between the
"Protected" and "Critical Area" designations. The most salient differences between the two
designations are maximum density and impervious surface limits.
Zonina Officer Analysis
As required under Section 20.3.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Officer is
required to: 'cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners'. In analyzing this proposal, the following. information is offered:
1. Staff was authorized by the BOCC at the October 13, 2009 work session to initiate the
proposed amendments in order to further implement the adopted Efland- Mebane Small
Area Plan.
2. The request for the amendments has been deemed complete in accordance with the
requirements of Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposed language will bring the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Text
up-to-date in regards to current reservoir plans in the Upper Eno watershed. Additionally,
the proposed language will provide protection to sensitive water resources that flow into
water supply reservoirs.
4. Applying the proposed language to the Watershed Protection Overlay District will result in
an up -to -date Zoning Atlas and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map upon which
citizens can rely because of technical and descriptive language.
5. The amendments correct inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning
Atlas (map).
Notification Procedural Requirements
In accordance with Articles 2 and 20 of the Zoning Ordinance, the public hearing for this item
was advertised consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance. Legal ads were placed in
two newspapers of general circulation in the County for two (2) successive weeks; notices were
mailed to affected property owners and property owners within 500 -feet of affected properties;
and a total of 40 signs were posted in strategic areas of the affected areas, in accordance with
State statutes. Attachment 5 includes the following:
117
• Notification letters
- one for property owners whose property is proposed for inclusion into the
Critical Area (approximately 400 individual owners)
- one for property owners whose property is proposed for removal from the
Critical Area (approximately 265 individual owners)
Notification postcards (6" x 11") for property owners within 500 feet of affected
property (approximately 1,010 individual owners)
• The proof of the notification signs (sign is 24" tall x 32" wide, mounted on a wire "H"
frame) and photos of three posted signs
• A map showing locations of posted signs
Additional Public Outreach Efforts
Planning staff will hold an "open house" style Public Information Meeting on Wednesday,
February 17, 2010 to provide interested persons the opportunity to speak one- on-one with
Planning staff in an informal setting. The meeting will be held in the new West Campus County
Office Building at 131 W. Margaret Lane in Hillsborough from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. A staff
presentation will be made at 5:30 p.m. Notice of this Public Information Meeting was included in
the legal ad, mailed notification letters /postcards, and on the website created for this project.
Planning staff created a website for the project to provide information and maps to interested
persons. The site was up and running beginning on Friday, February 5, 2010 at:
http : / /www.co.oran-ge. nc.us/ planning /CriticalAreaAmendments.asp
Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee:
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
(ORC) on January 6, 2010. The Summary Notes for the meeting are included in Attachment 6.
The ORC's main concern is the possibility that formally removing the previously identified
potential reservoirs from County - designated Critical Area protection may preclude construction
of future reservoirs. Planning staff has pointed out:
• There are other potential reservoir sites . in Orange County slated for future use as
reservoirs (i.e., quarry site on Highway 57 and American Stone quarry site on Highway
54)
• The County has an allocation of one million gallons per day from Jordan Lake which is
not being exercised at this time. It is possible to use this water through existing inter-
connections and inter -local agreements (to be developed) in the future if necessary or
desirable.
• Amending the Critical Area line does not preclude future development of an additional
reservoir(s) in the Upper Eno watershed. Rather, if a reservoir were constructed in the
future, the Critical Area boundary could be amended as needed at that future time.
• The County - designated Critical Areas continue to protect the vast majority of potential
reservoir sites in the Upper Eno watershed.
118
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for Small Area Plan implementation were included in the FY09 -10
Budget. Following is a breakdown of expenditures related to the required notifications on this
project:
• Legal Ad: approximately $1875
• Signs: $917
• Postage for Mailed Notifications: $737
• Printing of Notification Postcards: $116 (professionally printed and cut down to size
using cardstock Planning Department had on hand)
• Notification letters (paper, printing, labels, envelopes): used supplies Planning
Department had on hand
• Total staff time used for all aspects of notification process: approximately 65 hours
Staff time to research, write, coordinate, and map the amendments was significant and was
accomplished using existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance Text and Atlas and Chapter 5 of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map.
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the June 1, 2010 BOCC regular
meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until June 1, 2010 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 3, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area - Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment
and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text and
Map Amendments
2. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text and
Land Use Element Map Amendments
3. Various Maps
4. Document Regarding Water Supply
Watershed Protection in Orange County
5. Planning Board Ordinance Review
Committee Summary Notes
6. Relevant Supporting Objectives of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan
7. Memo from ERCD (Environment and
Resource Conservation Department)
8. Information on Stream Orders
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director
Perdita Holtz, Planner III
245 -2592
245 -2578
119
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on
the County initiated amendments to certain Sections of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Atlas,
and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map. Specifically,
the following portions of the Zoning Ordinance text are proposed for amendment:
• Section 4.2.27 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
• Section 6.23.3 (Stormwater Infiltration and Detention)
• Article 22 (Definitions)
Application of the text amendments will result in changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay
District boundary depicted on the official Zoning Atlas and on the Land Use Element Map of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text changes in "Track Changes" format are included
in Attachments 1 and 2. The existing and proposed Critical. Area boundaries are depicted on
Map 3.1 in Attachment 3.. Map 3.2 depicts areas proposed for inclusion into or removal from the
Critical Area designation.
BACKGROUND: At the August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public hearing (non - public hearing portion
of the agenda), staff presented the proposed work plan to begin implementation of the adopted
small area plans. Changes to the "Critical Area" of the Upper Eno watershed is one of the
higher priority items to accomplish further implementation of the Efland- Mebane Small Area
Plan which calls for a re- evaluation of the Critical Area boundary for Seven Mile Creek.
120
2
The current Critical Area boundary is based upon a potential reservoir (1987 Study) being
created on Seven Mile Creek and the full pool elevation of the reservoir was used as the
calculation point for the %a -mile Critical Area boundary in 1994. Staff gave a presentation on this
topic at the October 13, 2009 BOCC work session and the BOCC directed staff to proceed with
the proposed amendments.
At the time the initial Critical Area boundary was adopted (1994), the Town of Hillsborough was
going through the process of deciding which potential reservoir site on the Upper Eno River
should be chosen for its needed reservoir. The County adopted a Critical Area boundary that
protected three identified potential reservoir sites (see Map 3.4 in Attachment 3):
• West Fork on the Eno
• Eno River above McGowan Creek
• Seven Mile Creek
Ultimately, the Town chose to build its reservoir on the West Fork on the Eno site, which was
constructed to allow for a future Phase II expansion. The Town has no plans to construct an
additional reservoir. For this reason, County staff is suggesting that references to potential
reservoir sites be removed from the Zoning Ordinance text and that the Critical Area boundary
be amended accordingly.
State and County Critical Areas
When the Critical Area text and map boundary was adopted by the BOCC in 1994 in response
to State mandates to protect Class I Water Supply Reservoirs, Orange County opted to adopt
protection measures beyond the State - required minimum. A local government is permitted to do
so under the State Rules. Staff is suggesting that the County regulations more clearly indicate
that a portion of the Critical Area is State - required while other portions are County - designated.
It should be noted that both State - required and County - designated Critical Areas are proposed
to be subject to the same regulations. Map 3.3 in Attachment 3 depicts the State - required and
County - designated Critical Areas.
Now Definitions
Staff is suggesting the Zoning Ordinance text be amended to reflect new technically descriptive
criteria for the County- designated Critical Areas. Specifically, staff is suggesting that Class II
reservoirs (West Fork on the Eno and Lake Orange) receive the same protection .as Class I
reservoirs (Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnson). The amendments to Article 22
(Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance (see Attachment 1) includes the technical definitions of
Class I and Class II reservoirs. In layman's terms, the difference between the two types of
reservoirs is that the intake pipe for a water treatment plant is located in the Class I reservoir. A
Class II reservoir does not contain. the intake pipe. Staff is also suggesting that certain
important streams receive County- designated Critical Area protection. Staff is proposing this be
accomplished by protecting streams of a certain hierarchy (stream order). Attachment 4 is a
staff "white paper" that further explains why this is important. Attachment 8 is information on
stream orders.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
A Text Amendment to Chapter 5. Land Use Element of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive
Plan is also being proposed to revise existing Conservation Land Use Categories and add additional
Categories/Definitions to be consistent with the changes proposed for water supply watersheds,
reservoirs, and critical area in the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment 2 contains the proposed changes
to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
121
Attachment 6 contains several supporting Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Rationale For Amendments
Rationale for the proposed amendments include:
• Matching the Zoning Ordinance text with the Zoning Atlas (map). The present Zoning
Atlas does not match the text language, which can lead to disputes.
• Clarifying and adding definitions pertaining to watersheds, critical area, and water supply
reservoirs.
• Using best available technology to map clearly written descriptions of Watershed Critical
Areas.
• Correcting general typographical errors in Section 4.2.27.
• Revising the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts pertaining to "Critical Area."
• Protecting headwaters of fragile water supply and groundwater resources.
• Improving water quality for consumption and endangered aquatic species.
• Ensuring the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain similar provisions
in regards to Watershed Protection Overlay Districts with this concurrent amendment.
Effects of New Criteria
The proposed revised criteria in Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance will change existing
boundaries of Critical Areas in the Upper Eno watershed: If the amendments are adopted, some
properties (2,274 acres) will be removed from "Protected" designation and placed into "Critical Area"
designation. Other areas (1,154 acres) will be removed from "Critical Area" and placed in the
"Protected" designation. It should be noted that in the Upper Eno watershed, all properties are
classified as either "Protected" or "Critical Area" under the Watershed Protection Overlay District
regulations.
Adoption of these amendments will result in an increase of designated Critical Areas in the
Upper Eno watershed of approximately 8% (13,230 acres in 1994 boundary; 14,350 acres in
2010 boundary, an increase of 1,120 acres). The entire Upper Eno watershed is comprised of
approximately 38,500 acres.
The protection criteria proposed by staff in Section 4.2.27 is expected to result in the following
positive environmental impacts:
• Reduced sediment
• Slowed eutrophication by reduction of nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Larger streams (third order and higher) have been suggested for protection within certain
distances from Class I reservoirs because these streams have a:
• Greater capacity to transport pollutants
• Greater capacity in the event of a spill to rapidly affect a down stream water supply
If adopted, the proposed amendments will:
• Continue Orange County's long history of water resource and environmental protection,
especially in the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek confluence natural areas. Portions of
the Seven Mile Creek and Upper Eno areas have been designated significant natural
heritage areas and the County currently owns more than 300 acres in these areas for the
122
4
purpose of permanently protecting the lands through open space. Planning staff has
worked with staff of ERCD on these proposed amendments.
• Release some lands identified for growth and economic development in the Efland area
from "Critical Area" designation.
• Accurately reflect the fact that potential reservoir sites were designated for protection in
1994 while the Town of Hillsborough was deciding where to site its needed reservoir.
The Town's reservoir has since been constructed and the Town has no plans to site an
additional reservoir.
Zonina Officer Analysis
As required under Section 20.3.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Officer is
required to: 'cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners'. In analyzing this proposal, the following information is offered:
1. Staff was authorized by the BOCC at the October 13, 2009 work session to initiate the
proposed amendments in order to further implement the adopted Efland- Mebane Small
Area Plan.
2. The request for the amendments has been deemed complete in accordance with the
requirements of Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposed language will bring the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Text
up -to -date in regards to current reservoir plans in the Upper Eno watershed. Additionally,
the proposed language will provide protection to sensitive water resources that flow into
water supply reservoirs.
4. Applying the proposed language to the Watershed Protection Overlay District will result in
an up -to -date Zoning Atlas and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map upon which
citizens can rely because of technical and descriptive language.
5. The amendments correct inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning
Atlas (map).
Notification Procedural Requirements
In accordance with Articles 2 and 20 of the Zoning Ordinance, the public hearing for this item
was advertised consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance. Legal ads were placed in
two newspapers of general circulation in the County for two (2) successive weeks; notices were
mailed to affected property owners and property owners within 500 -feet of affected properties;
and a total of 40 signs were posted in strategic areas of the affected areas, in accordance with
State statutes. The Quarterly Public Hearing Agenda included a full attachment of public
notification information (not included in this agenda packet in the interest of minimizing paper
usage).
Additional Public Outreach Efforts
Planning staff held an "open house" style Public Information Meeting on Wednesday, February
17, 2010. Approximately 75 people attended this meeting. Notice of the Public Information
Meeting was included in the legal ad, mailed notification letters/postcards, and on the website
created for this project.
123
5
Planning staff created a website for the project to provide information and maps to interested
persons. The site was up and running beginning on Friday, February 5, 2010 at:
hftp://www.CO.orange.nc.ua/Riannin-q/Critica[AreaAmendments.asp and has been updated with
additional information as necessary.
Plannina Board Ordinance Review Committee:
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
(ORC) on January 6, 2010. The Summary Notes for the meeting are included in Attachment 5.
The ORC's main concern is the possibility that formally removing the previously identified
potential reservoirs from County - designated Critical Area protection may preclude construction
of future reservoirs. Planning staff has pointed out:
• There are other potential reservoir sites in Orange County slated for future use as
reservoirs (i.e., quarry site on Highway 57 and American Stone quarry site on Highway
54)
• The County has an allocation of one million gallons per day from Jordan Lake which is
not being exercised at this time. It is possible to use this water through existing inter-
connections and inter -local agreements (to be developed) in the future if necessary or
desirable.
• Amending the Critical Area line does not preclude future development of an additional
reservoir(s) in the Upper Eno watershed. Rather, if a reservoir were constructed in the
future, the Critical Area boundary could be amended as needed at that future time.
• The County- designated Critical Areas continue to protect the vast majority of potential
reservoir sites in the Upper Eno watershed.
Quarterly Public Hearing
This item was heard at the February 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing. Approximately 40
people attended the hearing 8 people addressed the Boards with comments. Comments
included the following (staff responses are in italic font):
1. Concerns over the change in the impervious surface limit for properties being added to
the Critical Area. The proposed amendments to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
(discussed in section below) should adequately address concems regarding changes in
impervious surface limits. It should be noted that impervious surface limits and maximum
density regulations in other water supply watershed in the county are more restrictive
than those proposed for the Upper Eno watershed.
2. Concern regarding a private road easement crossing a lot being counted toward the lot
owner's impervious surface limit. New subdivisions (last 10 years) take this into
consideration. Older subdivisions may need a case -by -case review and special
guidelines.
3. An opinion that Critical Area boundaries should take into consideration stream flow
distance and direction, not just straight -line distances from the centerline of streams.
Straight -line distances are used because it's consistent with State - Required critical areas
and distances are more easily measured. Customization based on stream flow and
direction would likely require significant field work by staff and may or may not result in
many differences. Additionally, there are some people who might argue against
implementing results that are not fairly easily replicable by a layperson.
4. An opinion that if development is connected to public water and sewer, it should not be
included in the Critical Area boundary. While there is merit to the position that it would be
better to not have septic systems in a Critical Area, there is still the issue of impervious
124
6
surface. Higher impervious surface limits in severed areas would be expected to lead to
greater runoff into sensitive streams.
5. An opinion that if Seven Mile Creek reservoir is not going to be built, the entire Critical
Area associated with the sub - watershed should be removed; the area is well- protected
with the "Protected" designation and AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning. As the memo
from ERCD in Attachment 7 indicates, there are significant aquatic resources in the
Seven Mile Creek area that warrant continued protection.
6. A question regarding where future water supplies will come from and an opinion that
other reservoir possibilities need to be looked at if economic development is desirable.
See discussion above under the "Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee" heading
regarding additional future water sources for Orange County.
7. An opinion that cutting density in half and reducing impervious surface will make a 20-
acre tract undevelopable for a subdivision — the stated purpose of acquiring the property
in the vicinity of Dimmocks Mill Road. Although one may not be able to have as many
lots in a future subdivision as is currently potentially allowed, this does not render a
property " undevelopable." As was discussed at the Quarterly Public Hearing, often soil
types in the county do not allow for smaller -sized lots because soils do not perk well.
While the zoning district may allow for lots as small as 40, 000 square feet (0.92 acres),
developers often need to plat larger lots in order to locate a well, septic system, and
septic repair area on a lot.
8. A statement that, when developing a subdivision, the subdivision's roads are subtracted
from the 6% impervious surface limit so the resulting impervious surface limit is less than
6% on a per -lot basis. This is correct. Lots in subdivisions fall under the provisions
adopted with subdivision approval which may be different from long- existing lots or
parcels located outside of major subdivisions.
9. A question regarding whether a destroyed non - conforming house can be re -built to the
same size. Yes, it can be rebuilt since the lot has not changed.
10.A concern that Interstate 85/40 is very close to Lake Ben Johnson and what would
happen if there is a chemical spill on the highway. Proximity to the Interstate is one of
the reasons the Town of Hillsborough did not construct a reservoir on Seven Mile Creek
and instead chose West Fork on the Eno. Orange County Emergency Services
Department has a Hazard Plan in place that includes addressing spills on the highway or
railroad tracks.
11. An opinion that some driveway surfaces should not be considered impervious surface.
Driveways are counted because the County does not count other semi pervious areas
such as lawns which can be up to 70% impervious.
12. An opinion that regulations do not allow the county to grow and increase tax base.
Orange County has designated targeted areas for growth and is pursing policies and
programs to bring economic development to these targeted areas. There are numerous
examples throughout the country where unplanned, haphazard growth has led to
suburban sprawl and inefficient provision of services as a result of the sprawl. Orange
County endeavors not to re- create problems other jurisdictions are dealing with due to
inefficient growth patterns.
13.A question on whether non - residential uses are allowed in the Critical Area. In the Upper
Eno Critical Area, non - residential uses are allowed only in the Cedar Grove Rural
Community Activity Node, in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
14.A question on whether input has been received from the Town of Hillsborough or Orange -
Alamance Water System (OAWS). Town of Hillsborough staff is aware of the proposed
changes and may provide comment at a later date. County staff has communicated with
125
7
OA WS over the years about water quality protection but has not received comments
regarding this, specific proposal.
Written Comment Received
Staff received one written comment from a real estate agent representing the property owner of
the 79.23 acre parcel in the Efland area immediately north of Interstate -85/40 and west of the
US70 Connector. A portion of this parcel is currently in the Critical Area designation and will not
be fully removed from the designation under the proposed criteria presented at the Quarterly
Public Hearing. The comment requests that the Critical Area designation be removed from the
parcel completely and that the interstate be used as the Critical Area boundary line. Staff
comment: staff concurs that this area is designated for growth/economic development in the
Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan. Staff is suggesting that the proposed criteria in Section 4.2.27
be revised to exclude the area north of West Ten Road, west of the US70 Connector, and south
of the railroad track from the Critical Area designation. The proposed text and maps
incorporating this suggestion are not yet available but will be distributed at the Planning Board
meeting.
Proposed Impervious Surface Amendments
In response to concerns voiced by property owners regarding impervious surface requirements,
staff re- visited Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (the section pertaining to impervious
surfaces). Staff is proposing additional amendments to this section to make it clear that
property owners with existing smaller -sized lots (under 5 acres) in the Critical Area are allowed
Impervious Surface Ratios higher than 6 %. This information was part of the Quarterly Public
Hearing presentation. The proposed amendments to Section 6.23.3 are included in Attachment
1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for Small Area Plan implementation were included in the FY09 -10
Budget. Following is a breakdown of expenditures related to the required notifications on this
project:
• Legal Ad: approximately $1875
• Signs: $917
• Postage for Mailed Notifications: $737
• Printing of Notification Postcards: $116 (professionally printed and cut down to size
using cardstock Planning Department had on hand)
• Notification letters (paper, printing, labels, envelopes): used supplies Planning
Department had on hand
• Total staff time used for all aspects of notification process: approximately 65 hours
Staff time to research, write, coordinate, and map the amendments was significant and was
accomplished using existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Board:
1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments.
2. Make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 1,
2010 BOCC regular meeting.
126
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 7, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
.SUBJECT: Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area - Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment
and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text and
Map Amendments (current version —
includes exclusion presented at 3/3/10
Planning Board Meeting and map of
excluded area)
2. Maps Showing Application of Each
Criteria
3. Information on Natural Areas
4. Information on Third Order Streams and
Map of Upper Eno Watershed Stream
Orders
5. Information on Regionality of Water
6. Letter from Town of Hillsborough
7. March 3, 2010 Planning Board Abstract
and Attachments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director 245 -2592
Perdita Holtz, Planner III 245 -2578
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on
the County initiated amendments to certain Sections of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Atlas,
and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Text and Map. Specifically,
the following portions of the Zoning Ordinance text are proposed for amendment:
• Section 4.2.27 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
• Section 6.23.3 (Stormwater Infiltration and Detention)
• Article 22 (Definitions)
Application of the text amendments will result in changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay
District boundary depicted on the official Zoning Atlas and on the Land Use Element Map of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text changes to the Zoning Ordinance are included in
Attachment 1; this text includes the excluded area north West Ten Road as discussed (and
voted upon in a "straw vote ") at the March Planning Board meeting. For your use and
information, Attachment 7 is the March Planning Board abstract and attachments.
BACKGROUND: Please see Attachment 7 for more in -depth Background. At the March
Planning Board meeting, the Board conducted a "straw vote" on the majority of criteria that
comprise the proposed Critical Area to determine how the Board wished to proceed with this
item. The "straw vote" resulted in each considered criteria (maps in Attachments 2.1 through
127
2.6) receiving an affirmative vote to apply the criteria. Some votes were not unanimous and the
Table below shows the straw voting results.
Results of "Straw Vote" for Application of Each Criteria
Criteria (by Map in Attachment 2
Vote Result
-Map 2.1
Include unanimous
Map 2.2
Include unanimous
Nap 2.3
Include unanimous
Map 2.4 (with modification to exclude area
Include (1 no vote -- Board member did not
north of West Ten Road)
think area north of West Ten Road should be
excluded
Map 2.5
Include unanimous
Map 2.6
Include two southern streams — Crabtree and
ID 2109 (unanimous)
Include two northern streams — Dry Run and
ID 1498 (3 no votes - see lines 706 through
715 of draft Minutes for discussion of votes
At the April meeting, the Board must consider one last criteria that was not considered at the
March meeting due to time constraints: the application of the "Critical Area" designation in an
isolated area within the overall Critical Area Boundary (see Attachment 2.7).
Attachments 3, 4, and 5 are responses to information requests made at the March Planning
Board meeting.
On March 18, 2010, the Town of Hillsborough sent the County a letter supporting the continued
protection of the Town's drinking water supplies through the proposed Critical Area
amendments (see Attachment 6). Additionally, the Planning Director met with the Orange -
Alamance Water System (OAWS) Board of Directors on March 25 to discuss the proposed
amendments and continued cooperation and collaboration between OAWS and the County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Attachment 7 (March meeting materials) for a breakdown of
expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Board:
1. Conduct a "straw vote" on the Isolated Area criteria.
2. Discuss the amendments further, if required.
3. Make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 1,
2010 BOCC regular meeting.