Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19841105.~'~ ~ ?" T ~•I t1 T E 5 ORrI~GE cour~m~ BOARD OF COrdb'ISSIOr'ERS nrGUaAR I$EF.TTPTG 1 ~1OT?s It was pointed out thzt proper notice had not been given in con~~letc compliance with tre r?orth Carolina Open A!eetings Law and therefore no action was taken on any of the items listed on the agenda far 4:00 t~.m. Chair T7illhoit submitted ~ letter received from the Durham Herald to - be entered into the recore (copy is an the permanent agenda file). Donald Holloway, Iv.C. Department of Adrinistration, r?. C. Land Fecores I?anagement Program, gGve his observations of the Orange County Land Records L'rogram Status anc: organization Placement: 1. The land records system in Orange County began in 1°7S; 2. the system in Orange County is exemplary and reviewed by other Counties and states; 3. Oran;~e County has originated economies in computerizing land records to provide correct data; 4. Orange County has a cooperative staff that vror{cs for the betterment of the program vrith an outstanGing Data Processing Department; 5. six (G) other couraies in rTorth Carolina have lard record departments; and 6. the system is rapping oriented consisting o= an integrated land records system. Betty .7une Hayes, °egister of Deeds, indicated that a meeting was held by the County tTanager with a].l persons involved and the responsibilities and duties for this project were agreed upon. An e`fort has been made to write rules and guidelines for the program so the different departments c•:i11 know what to e:;pect. Tiay2s explained how the maps fit into the system. r?OTE: The 7:30 meeting was moved to the Superior Courtroom. The Orange County Eoard of Commissioners met in regular session an Monday, ?Tovember 5, 19II~ at 7:30 in tl?e Superior Courtroom ir. the Courthouse in fIillsboraugh, north Carolina. Commissioners Present: Chair Don T?illhoit, and Commissioners Ben Lloyd, Shirley rlarshall, r?crman T•lalker and Richard T.7hitted. A • p ~ ''ITS Chair T~Tillhoit added si:: (6) items to the Boars agenda as listed an the agenc,a sheet. Also two (2) additional items Caere added: (1) a report and information on the °f land Sevrer Tine from the Snviranmental I4anagement _ Commission, and (2) proposed expenditures for the Efland Multipurpose center. _._... Chair t'illho~t suggested that items Al-6, and F, through F6 be considered et this meeting and the remaining items be considered at an adjourned meetinr_,. There was a cansensus to adjourn the meeting after Ttem F6 until r:onday, P?ovember 12 at 7:30 in the Commissioners' Room of the Courthouse in ?iillsborough, north Carolina. Commissioner r•Ihitted added to the agenda a discussion on the feasibility of the proposes Efland Sevrer. A. TTEI-4S FDR DECIGIOr1 ~,, EF!n ~r~G P rn nwr, ,. n , rr , F T*' T 1. ~~P ~ _..o-.:,._ P ,~, _.~? s-E._us Ar.~, Q •~At13~A_zor., PLr-,r.~.~ ~~ Iation eras made by Commissioner tiarshall, seconded by Cor.:missioner r?1-hitted that a Centrzl Lar.c: Records Department be establishes: eaith the missian, specific functions, oversight, resorting and staffir.c as recommended by the Cot-•.nty ?•Ianacer. Commission Lloyd indicated that since this item was listen on the aaendc foz discussion instead of decision, he was not prepared to vote or, this item. Commissioner !°Iarshall objected to considering any of the remaining 5 items. _ Co~imissioner L1o~rd withdrew his objection and stated he t•~ou1d abstain from votinc. Commissioner '?bitted painted out you can only abstain if you have a conflict of interest anc the abstention screed upon by the entire board. Chair ~•zillhoit delayed action on the Land Records item until the adjourned meetinc on P?ovember 12. By consent of all ^noard members the first six items lister on the agenda twill be added to the agenda for the I?ovember 12 adjourned meeting. Commissioner L1oyc zequ~sted that the Public Hearing on the Designation of ^?star duality Critical Areas for University Lake and Cane Creek '•,Tatersheds ~e delayed until ??o.vember 12. Chair ^?illhoit arnaunced that the Public Hearine~ was duly advertised. Tse pointed out that in >`?ovember, 1983, a Public ?searing teas held on the G•7ater duality Critical. Area Standards. They Caere placed on the agenda in April along faith the e:;tension of zoning and Land Use Plan for Cheeks Tovrnship. The Lard Use Plr.n tags adopted vahich included the designation of the C4ater Duality Critical Areas for those reservoirs in Cheelcs Totanship. The Zar.inG Ordinance Amendments and the zoning of Chee;;s tans approved on October 1, 1954 faith the amendments for the ihTater Quality standards carried forward to '<ovember 5. On October 3, the motion was made to have a Public Hearing on the 4?star Quality standards and the designation of the. T•?star Quality Critical Areas for alJ. three townships. Action. had. already been taken on the designation of the Taster duality Critical Area in Cheeks. This Public Hearing will be on the establishment of the ??a ter Quality standard Amendments and the designation of the ?cater 4uality Critical Area for University Lalce and Cane Creek. The amendments and the designata.on'of the T?ater Quality Critical Area for these tvao areas will be forthcoming with a recom~tendation from the Planning Board for decision by the Boars',. Commissianer Lloyd clarizied he taants the Public Hearing to be held as scheduled but also extended to the adjourned r?ovember 12 meeting far -. further corsnents. 'Qavid Shan}:lip, Planninc Soard member, commented he understood the Public Hearing 6PaL1G be on all ?Pater Quality Critical Areas in the County. Chair TPillhoit c_arified the purpose of the Public hearirc vai11 be to consider tl:e designation of the ~7ater Quality Critical Frea as proposed by the Planning Staff and Board for Cane Creek and University La};e I•~atersheds; the vrater quality standards are not up for Public Hearin.^. B. Ay>7rFr;ci, co}.iF.:Er:ms 1. i1F'-;TE?2S '~'?,i'~iC ~?TZ7?+F~P_ I:CP TO T•'one. 3~C. •,~m~~ v t~ 7_ r.TTF~~ r?OT 4L' ~~E~~,..~..._ AG.~T7 Pone. C. ~??LTT°S Motion was r,.ace by Ce,amissierer Marshall, seconded by Commissioner ?^?bitted to approve the July 2, 1984 minutes as circulated. VOTE: UP?AI?II?OUS Iiotion was made by Gammissioner T~.'hitter, seconder by Commiwsior.er Iiarshall to approve the August 6, 1984 minutes as circulated. vp^~F; : ur?Ar?xllpus .Motion e;as made by Commissioner T.+?hittec, seconder by Commissioner Iiarshall to approve the August la. 198' minutes as circulated. VOTE: UIdAP?II]pUS , flolian ryas made by Commissioner i~;arshall, seconcec by Commissioner ?+Ihittec to approve the August 21, 1984 minutes as circulated. VOTE: UIIP.P?IPdOUS Tlotion was made by Commissioner ?7hitted, seconded by Commissioner Iiarshall to approve the August 27, 1984 minutes as circulated. VOTE: UI?AIiII•lOUS Iiotion ti•.*as made by Commissioner Iiarshall, seconded by Commissioner Tahi'~ted to approve the Septembez 4, 1984 minutes as circulated. VOTE: UI?AT?PIOUS Iiotion F•ras made by Commissioner t~?bitted, seconder: ~y Commissioner (arshall to approve the September 13, 1984 minutes as circulated. VOTE: Uf?AT'I'"OTJG Iiotion raas ma~:e by Commissioner I~lazshall, seconred by Commissioner Lloyd to apI?rove the September 18, 19E4 minutes as circulated. VOTE': UI?AIVI`:OL]S Motion ~~:as made by Commissioner T7hitted, secanc7ed by Commissioner °-"arshall to approve the October 1, 1984 minutes as circulated. VOTE': UI`IAT?II~'OU5 Notion caas mace by Commissioner T~~hitted, seconder: by Commissionez i•?arshall to approve the October 3,.198a minutes as circulated. VOTE: UI4AP'IlipilS A. AP?CID? ,r'~'T, T'1`,y_T~4 '3ation was made by Commissioner t~Ihitted, seconder ay Commissioner Iiarshall to appoint Dr. Philip Singer to the Orange County Health Board. VOTE: iIP?AhIIIOUS f.otion was r.,ade by Commissioner I~larshall, seconded by Commissioner ~?hilted to appoint Joan Bishop, Lynne Chamblee, Gretchen 1]awson, Jonathar. Faucette, Shirley Harper, Joseph Jackson, Bree Fiala and Steven Sutton to the Youth Services Ideens Taslt Force. VOTE: UI•?AI?IIROUS Commissioner tlal'.:er nominated Chris Best for the Orange County Planning Board. Commissioner Lloyc nominates Tom Bacon for the orange County :°lanning Board. Vp~,^E: Tom Eacon - Cor:.missioners i~Tillhoit, T•rhitted, t•Iarshall and L1oyG. Chris Besl -Commissioners ?•?alker. E. PLT?LIC HEARITT(; 3`1i r..'r? _~~- 5~~9Et'ByRS ~r_~J'~5"r,~- Chain Alice GorGOr., Franl; Pearson, Nancy Laszlo, 5he.rlene Pilk~y, David Shanklin, Valerie Greenber„ Steve Yuhusz, anc Carl T•Talters AAA?TdTD'C_ STl~>:;~ PP•.FGrl~,'- `arvin Collins, and Susan Smith Dr. Alice Gorden, Planning Board Chair, chaired t;1e Public Hearing. E1. DESIG.I'~ATSt>r] _~?~' ZT~~rR ;1L?r_L,~TY c~212r1a:~„~.~a~,~_~~r_U~Y~";sr~X...~A?cr Arr~ CAI`11; CREEI; T•?F1,^~.F~;~HFDS The purpose of this public hearing item is to receive public comment on the proposed designation of the ?•later Quality Critical Area fur Cane Creek and University La!:e water supply watersheds in the Orance County Land Use Plan and man. ,_ , The 3oard of Con7issioners ap~+rovec7 the designation of the T•?ater Quality Critical Area for the rortions of the ilpper ano watershed in the Tdest Orange Area Study ir. Airil 1984. Application of 4 similar elan designation to the other t:vo water supply watershed designated protected on the Lane Use Plan is c;esirable to establish uniforrity in s*_andard throuchout i:he Co~:nty. mhe designation of the i~Tater S?uality Critical Area for the University La!;e and Cane Cree}: watersher'.s vaould provide for uniform treatment ~= the watersheds c'.esignated on the Land Use Plan as r+rotectec and would subject the zoned portions of the three watersheds to a set of development standards anc? regulations specified for the T•7ater Quality Critical Area zoning district. Collars rage the staff presentation. Collins reviev~ed the actions taken by tl;e Poard following, a public hearing on the T,dater ~ua].ity Critical Area standards and designation of T7~CA for portions of the Upper Eno. He clarified that the•purnose of this public hearing is to hear public comment on the T•?ater nuality Critical Area desi.cnatian for the LTniversity Lake and Cane Creels watersheds. Collins reviewed the methodology for application of the ??~?CA designation noting that it includes the reservoir, shore.lands (lands draining directly to the reservoir ~eithout an intervening stream) and nor.-basin drainage areas (lands draining to the first level of stream directly i`eeding the zeservoi r) . He inc,icated that the T•7(~CA for Cane Creel: includes 3766 acres or 5.A square miles, ,accounting for 1.5v of the total County land area, and that tl~e G•1~CA for University Lake includes 2790 acres on 4.35 square miles, accounting far 1`~ of the total County land area. Everett Billingsly, Bsecutive birector of QT4ASA, spoke to this item, indicating that his comments v:ould also address the standards for the T?a'ter duality Critical Area and T•az zoning districts which vaere submitted to public hearir.a ir. *?ove-~ber 1903. (copy of Billingsley's comments ar. page of these minutes) Gordon responded that the Board had ruled that such comments were appropriate a_nd difficult to separate from discussions an the designation of ?7h CA arras. Billingsley CO;lClllded that OT,~?P.SA supports the County effor4s, but felt that the areas designated should ceperd on what is included on the standards. '_?illingsley added th~.t the Durham City Director of '-rater Resources vrould li!:e the County to adc7ress standarc':s •FOr tlZe Ero Piver feeding ?7urha;.i's seater supply. 3~{~ 5 Commissioner Lloyd as',:er: ii O[~7ASA's comments were c?irected at the r~atershec or specifically at the T~Ze~CA. Billingsley resL~onc'ed his comments addressed the- watersheds. •_?e e::prssseu concern that the 1•~~CA shotvr. is not large enough. Collins again rzviet*ed the ;~ethodolosy emplo~~ec on the designation of G7(7CF. ?~illingsley expressed concern about undesignated areas so close to the im~?oundment. Commissioner '_arshall noted that the propasal provides for an overlay district r~hich wool:' not chanc,.e the ur.derlyirc Land Use Plan.. Robert r~ichols, Cedar Grove Totnship. asked i f pt7ASI~ services areas on the t•~atershed. Billingsley responder. there teas limiter. service provision. Nichols as;`er if the area perks. ?~illingsley responded the area is only provisionally suitable for septic tanks. t?ichols as{:ec 3illingsley to state whether public sewer anc: water i s ~referwble to inc.ivid~ual septic tanl:s ir. the University Lalce T.7;?C:±. P.,illingsley responc:ec: that he taould prefer a properly oper~.ting waste disposal system of either type. >;d Johnson, 5ir.gham Township, posed the following questions am comments: Kota many people are located in the s.reas affected, how would the proposals affect the Ora;_ce Grove Volunteer Fire company's underground gasoline tanlc and on-site storar.e of fire fighting chemicals. The clam location and '•7nCA designation is imprecise, if the reservoir is not constructed. taould the designation be taithdr3wn. Commissioner ?Iarsha.ll asked staff to answer the question rega.rdinq the status of existin Peptic tanks. I'uhasz inquired if this would apply to failinc systems located within the 300' set back. Smith responder: that a failing syster..v:culd have to be replaced inc. reloc`ted in compliance t++ith the standares prior to issuance of a building permit or subdivision anoroval. She notes that a failing system rot invclving a building permit or subdivision, taould ae addressee, by the Health Department. James Foust, Bincham Township, expressed concern a~aout the costs and effect of the standards on ~ro_rerty otm ens.. Ee asked that the standards ba sent to the Bingl-ham "`AC for comment. Fie ex-~ressed concern for farm otaners. Gmith clarified that farm operation are not sub;ect to zoning requirements. Foust expressed concern about hors buffer requirements effecter fs:rm operations. Commissioner i~aillhoit noted that monies may be available far conservation purposes. Ro;aert r?ichols asked how the requirement of no structure within 300 feet of a body of water is to be applied. Collins responded that a "body of t;•ater" is a perennial or intermittent stream as designated on the U5G5 quadrancels. 1?ichols esker. that the standards specify "public" teeter supply impoundment and not private pond on impoundment. ^_71Ci1015 e:pressed concern about future zoning plans for Little River and Cedar Grove Toe~nships and the effect of the standares in that area. Jeanette ~dc,y - President of tl~e League of T~7omen . Voters of Chapel ?±i11, preser_ted a statement xrom the League of ~r•Toner_ `Joters supporting the planning and manacement of taster resources to improve and protect water quality. She, on behalf of the League of tdamen Voters, urged the Commissioners to tale action to designate the ?^7ater nuality Critical LS ~' ~. J Area of Care Creel: and Ur.iv©r.sity LaY,e v,atersheds ar_c: to acont strict water Quality Critical 1'_Yoa Standwrc~s• '-iurgaret L3oltan of Chapel Hill spoke to the need for grater protection. the noted that protection of our major water supply shoulc: be the priority of any governmental agency that has that responsibility. She stated that designating the tyro tratersheds or water critical areas vrould give citiaens more assurance that the water they drinl: sroulci stand less chance of becoming contaminated. She felt that the area c,esignated ryas perhaps pat large enough. She further noted what, frith the growth notr taking Mace, the time 1,ad came for the County to take stringent protection measures for the water supply. She states that it ryas easier to prevent than to 1?eve to clean up. Orange County 'does not have too many areas that can !~ecome sources of drip};inq water. Gorc.on srotrn of Chanel ?ill thanked the Com:;,issioners for giving such attention to this important issue. He felt the stardarc~s beir.r e.:tended to ?•;i:,ghara '"otrnship are too restrictive. 1?e felt that. no extension of vrater and set•rer in the ^FQCF, is a mistake and that it eras inconsis:.ent with the conrort behinc'~ T•7c;CA. The bl?nket prohibition oy industrial/commercial use in '7!?CA is also unnecessary. There may be new technologies that twill r^al:e it tiossible to allow this economic Growth. '3e cited the standards adopted b~7 T'?a::e County. ~'e felt it erould be contrary to the best interest of the public and the landowners in those areas to be so restrictive with water and server extension. Cc~;.missioner T•dillhoit inquired of 6ir. Brown if T.7a}.e County standards required 2 acres r.:ir.imum lot sire and he responded yes. He alsc noted that Fa11s Lake woulc soon raecome exclusive vrater supply for !~aleigh and his point ryas tvhy vroulc. not the standards rrorlc for our C9C1CA. T7illhoit responded that every jurisdiction has approached this issue differently for different reasons. Although T?a::e County allowed wester anra server extension they still recuire 2 acre minimum tat size. E~rot•rn's response to this eras if water and server extension is prohibited from the outset you'll never know if it works or not. t°1.r. Brown still felt that the Commissioners vrould not want to go vrith recommendations that would be too restrictive. Stanley Bennett noted that he did not want contamination of groups vrater or city t•rater. People come to this areG to live because it is a good, safe place to live. The continued prosperity depends upon }seeping these good safe conditions. He urged that we bear in mind the "broad good" for the entire county and that most residents want to safeguard this reneral welfare of the er.t?.re area. i•Te can be sensible, adopt gooc: standa.res and protect the interests of those most affected. He urged the Commissioners to suppor*_ the proposals before them, to do whatever is necessary in the future to amend the boundaries and to impose conditions as necessary to protect the population for which.they are responsible. ;;d Johnson asked for the opportunity to spoil: again. He no4eG that he felt the T7~CA could be Extended to a flat ape mile. ue ;risked to second the ic:ea that 3ingham Tr~C meet an2• have w Planning Staff member present to Get their inpGt to go to Pub].iC Eiearinc. Gorc.or. noted that the TAC could get their recommendations to the Planning Iaoard for their meeting on r.ocrember 19 and they rvoulc. consider ahem before- the reco,~,mendations from Planning poard to Commissioners. ~ti 4 7 Cor.:rnissioner Lloyd rloved, Commissioner Flarshall secon~.ec the adjournment of this Planning Hearing item to D?ovembor 12th zt 7:30 p.:n. VO'.C'E: UD?AP?I";OU,S E.2 ~,E~.:~~Z'-II~'c= QRn~"?AP1CB--CLA~?O~y~~ Staff presentatien by Collins. This agenc.a item is to receive public comment on a rre??ased text ar:endmer:t for clarification to Article S• 5ectian d.2.27b)1 of the Orange County . 7,oninq. il~p text a.mendnent is needed to clarify to what areas of the _ county the Protected i~72^tershed II (P?^7II) and Plater nuality CriticGl P.rea (?•7701) zoning, districts ap~:ly. The text amendment is as follows: Amend Article 4 Section n.2.27b) 1. ~ctec~~~ T•7ater~heS~T~ (P?•7II) Aistrict of the ozangs County Zoning Ordinance to read: This cistrict vrill be ap*~1iec to the zoned portions of University Lake Cane Creel; and the Upper Eno watershed as designated on the Lane Use Plan. The te~:t amendment would clarify the Ordinance Provisions. Planning Boars member Shan;:lir. notes that vie are protecting just the bottom portion of the Upper Eno vrith this action. Ido restrictions are on the Cec~Gr Grove Township while there are restrictions on Cheeks. ie noted contamination could comp just as easily from up the creel: as dot•rn the creels. This matter urge then referred to the Manning Board for their consideratior, at their t?ove~ber lgth meeting. This conclude: the Public Hearing portion of the Agenc',a. F. ITE'.S FOR ny~.~~-T~y~ 1. ~T~is'~Q•TL*:`- Fn-3-Sa (All Articles belocr are contained in the S~eeial Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance). Susan Smith, Plainer, gave the presentation. A public hearing on the rezoning rec;uest by :yamnton Booms seas held on August 27, 19£?4 vrith continuations on September 18 and October 1, 1984. .Approval of the request would allow far residential development of the site vrith 8 units to the acre. ?'he Planning Board recommends approval of the request subject to 17 conditions. Commissioner =.arshall cuestioned the consistency of the health. safety anc: vrelfare standards and stated that the problems on the specifics seem to make a difference fro:a place to place. There are general statements in the beginning of the Zoning Ordnance for planned cevelonment districts that relate to the general recuirements of health, safety anci welfare. Section 7.1 states: "the :Manned Development districts shall be so re~.ated to the general develop,:ient patterns and the objectives of the com_r_rehensive plan as to provine for the comfort and convenience of residents, facilitate the protectior. of the character of surrounding neighborhoods and reduce automotive traffic congestion." Section 7.x}.3 states: "the site shall be suitable for development in the matter proposed without hazards to persons or property on or off the tract, free from the Probability of flooding, erosion, subsidence or slipping of the soil or other dangers. Canc:ition of soil, ground water level, drainage anc topocraphy shall be appropriate to both the ]cincl and pattern of use intended and lists other specifics to meet all recuirements in carnection therewith as yell as to ~aravide r.eceasary • protection against adverse relationships between uses in i.he district and uses in the surrounding Grpas." 3~~~ Geoffrey Gledhi7.1, County Attorney, notes the Board is determining taro things: (1) consider whether or not to rezone the *~ronerty and (2) considering tahether or not it meets the special use requirements. Commissioner 'Marshall referred to Article 8.E.9 anr', notes; it does r.ot set the conditions to give access to the site by John Brecl:enridc:e Drive. Smith noted that n9 is related to the site plan. T're 3oard made a *?ositive finding on items 1 through 12. Commissicner !•Iazshall indicated there is still the question of whether or not the L•Tilmore pump station can provide for all the develop:~ent as proposed in that area. The developer indicated he caould negotiate with the Tovrn of Hillsborough. !lotion eras made by Commissioner T?arshall, seconded by Commissioner `•T1litted to approve a negative finning an Article 8.2.4a. VOTE; : U?'dANI!~OUS !•lotion r:as ^:ade ~y Commissioner l~Thitted, seconded by Commissioner ~TarshaJ.l to approve a positive findinc on Article 8.2..~a. VOTT:: UTJAPI2:"iOUS notion was .made by Commissioner ?Thittec~, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve a negative finding on Article 8.2.~c. VOTE': i7I?AP1IC20UC !?onion teas made by Commissioner ;Thitted, seconded. by Commissioner ?•-arshall to apprave a positive finding of fact for Frticle a.2a and 4.2b. VOTE : UNl•SP72I20US Commissioner ;•Thittec; referred to Article n.2c and stated that the entire project suitability enc. rezoning request que5t7.On5 if it is appropriate to have a zoning that caill allow multifar^ily use in t,~is location where the traffic from this use woulc' go through a single family community. Chair '7illhoit noted the testimony. was vary persuasive in that the volume of traffic going through a lo:aer density single family residential residential neighborhood would be inappropriate and it should be by a Hare direct access. Plotion was made by Chair T:^?illhoit, seconded by Commissioner !iarshall to approve a negative finding on P_zticle a.2c. VOTE': U?dAA'I?•lOUS Commissioner i•?alker noted this was one of the conditions for approval as recommended by the Planr:ing Board. -. Chair T7illhoit r_oted this is a finding of fact for direct access. Commissioner ?'?al~:er noted it dons have direct access by idC86, however, what is stated is true. Chair CTillhoit pointed out it is a direct access to arterial or collector street; the finding was that it is a subccllector street vrhich is - contrary. Commissioner !?arshall feels the definition has been stretched to qo beyond the public health, safety and ~•relrare. Chair "illhoit noted that it is not conducive to public safety ' 9 ~~{~ arc'. welfare to have the su'odivision sul~collector street used as a: Direct access to the arterial. voT>=: LJr:ANlrioUS I'.ota.on was made by Commissioner rsarshall, secendec: by Comr,issior_er Lloyd to approve a positive finding on Article 4.2d. VQTE: UIdANII''iOLJ5 notion was Wade by Commissioner Ilarshall, secanc:ed by Commissioner t~ihitted to deny the rezoning recuest because of a negative find ing on Art~~le Q.2c - the c:irect access to an arterial cr collector street. Smith noted that the Planning Boazd recommenc?ations one thrcugh eight address the deniaJ_. Commissioner :~^_arshall noted that recommendations ono through eight cao not ac;dress the fact that John F3reckenridge Drive is going to be. • used as direct access. Commissioner Lloyd pointed out that the Planning ~oarc recommended approval. Chair L•ail.lhoit said he dons not concur ~.+ith the Planning Board's reasoning because the problem c-could es:ist with the traffic going through the c:evelopment fram the high :]ensity that caould be created. at the bacl; or the property. Commissioner I;arshall noted that even if phase four is built, the conditions do not stipulate building Oakdale Drive out to Route 86. VOTE: dyes, 3; P7oes, 2 (Comrissioners Lloyd and t^7alker) 2. OCCOP]EPC?IEE POI?~T - SPF~LP.L LJSS PERr9IT - g~n_~a Smith indicated the Planning Eoard reviev:ed this recuest and submits this to tl:e 13aar[. for approval vrith thirteen conditions that address road access and standarc:s, L~ublic water and server facilities and other concerns. Ilotion ~;;+as made by Comr:;issioner tThitted, secondeu by Commissioner rlarshall to approve a positive finding on Articles 1 through 17.. VOaE: UPJAIJII-fpLJS ?otior. was made by Comrissioner r~4arshall, seconc'ec; by Commissioner t•Thitted to approve a positive findino, on P.rta.cle 2a.3.2a,b,c,d and e. VO^s E : UP7AI?II"OLDS i=otion was made by Commissioner T.~Jhitted, seconded by Commissioner Lloyc'. to approve a *~ositive finding on Article R.2.4a,b and c. VQTE: CJIJP.PJI?1pUS ??otinn was mace by Commissioner t•~hitted, seconuec: by Commissioner ?7arshall to approve a positive finding an Article 7.x.1,2 and 3. - VOTE : UNANII.90US Lotion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner '•,Talker to approve a positive finding on Article 7.5.2a,b and c. VOTE': UP?l==?•iI?SOUS •?otion was raade by Commissioner T.•7hitted, seconded by Commissioner .'IGrshall to approve a positive findinc on Article 7.15.5,6,7 and 8. - VOTE: UI`AP]I?,OUS rdotior, was made ~y Co,.,missioner rTarshall, secondea by Commissioner i•lhittefi tc approve a negative finding on Article 7.15.9. 3 <? la voTF: vrrAr?I.7OVs I7otian v:as made by Commissioner i7arshall, seconded by - Commissioner T~'hitted to approve a positive finding on Article 7.15.10`1, and 2. VOTE: UPIANII7OUS G7otion c•~as mace by Commissioner T~7hitted, seconded by Commissioner r`_arshall to approve a negative finding on Article 7.15.10a3. - VO"A'E: Ui?Ar'I.IOTJS LTotion ~,=as made by Commissioner T,loyd, seconded blr Commissioner -'" AThitted to apnrave a positive findinc or: Art;c12 7.15.10a3a, and b. VOTE : UI'rANII7OUS Lotion vas gads by Commissioner Piarshall, seconc:ec, by Commissioner 'vTY:itted to approve a positive finding for the first tv~o paragraphs of Article 7.15.10a3d and a negative finding on paragraph three conditional u~on future development. VOTE: LTITAI?II~ROUS "lotion 1:=as mace by Commissioner t~Thitteu, SECOndod by Commissioner Lloyc to approve a positive finding on Article 7.7.5.1Ob. VOTE : UIdAr?PIOUS Motion Baas made by Commissioner I•?bitted, seconder: by Commissioner Lloyd to ap^rove a positive finding of Article 5.1.2a and e. VO~`E : UI?l-~LJ7T ~OLT5 TIotion c•~as made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconder by CpmmiSSioner Fiarshall to approve a positive finding of Article 6.2~4a,~a,c. Chair T•?illhoit asked an a point of clarification an 6.?nb aaout the applicFnt being re,~uired to have a detailed landscapinc plan Gnc Commissioner :'?arshall noted that one of the conditions for approval is for the developer to have a detailed landscaping plan. VOTE: Clr1Ar?h1OLTS tlotion v:as made by Commissioner '.7arshall, seconded by • Commissioner T'Thitted to approve a positive finding on Article fi.l2a,c and d. voTE: ulvAr.?Tr,ovs Tlotion teas made by Comr.Tissiener T•7hitted, seconded by Commissioner ?•7arshall to approve a positive finding on Article S.2~d. VpTE : UT_dAPIIP•7OCT5 Fiotior. s•;as made by Comr.,issioner T~hitted, seconded by Commissioner 'Marshall to anprcve a positive finding an Article 6.2~e1, 2,3, and a negative finc:ing on Article 5.24e4. VOTE: UNAr'IrIOTJS Com*;~issioner TThitted Stated -that in the recommendations made by the ]?lapping Boars the sigrage is covered in recommendation n12. Commissioner ITarshall noted that the screening anc? the other negative findings are ta';en care of in recommendation ~9, and that the board needs to act on Artic'_e 8.2.2 of the general findings. I7otion ~-gas mace b=r Commissioner darshall to approve the special use permit for Occoneechee point because there is a preponderance of evidence ~~:Y_ich indicates compliance with the general stanc;ards, specific rules rovernine~ the specific use, and that the use complies v~ith aJ.l recuired re7ulatior,s and standards rnd has not been found, Yn some specific mar_ner, that: (1) the use wzll not promote the public hearing, safety and ~4ti~ 11 general vael~are, if located where proposed and developed and operated accorcing to the plan submitted; (~) the use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous pro?~erty; and (3) the use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these reculaticns or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Or~;nge County Board of Commissioners. __._ Gledhill indicates? this Article really relates to a situation where all of the specific findings are net but vrhere there is some s_ecific health, safety arra welfare reason why the project was turned docan. a Commissioner t•Iarshall notes; she was tryinc to aclc;ress this. Gledhill noted that what has been done is to say there are no things rot satisfied. Cor..missioner T•7hitted seconded the motion. VOTE:. C1P7I`.r?II70US Commissioner ~^hitted noted that recommendation ;kS from tl-_e Planning Boc-:rs, satisfies the lancscaping and screening finding. Conr.:issioner t,tarshall noted there is nothing to spool: to the negative findinc on Article 7.15.3 concerning setbacks. Comr,.issianer ?•?hit.ted noted the condition that the developer be on notice of the required setbacks. Chair T•'illhoit pointed out that if the rezoning resulted in more restrictions, the owners could not 'be put or. property that already ~aGs -- underc:evelopec:. Gledhill pcir,ted out teat if this recuires setbacks accorc~ine to the existing zoning, then the applicant would have-to build it according to those setbacks. Commissioner ?ihitted suggested adding a condition .that the requires: setbacks be met. Gledhill suggested Condition ;~9 be changed from "be submittes: for approval" to "be submitted and approved". Chair 97illhoit noted condition ~$ should indicate that the applicant obtain approval instead of negotiate to obtain approval. .-!oticn was made by Commissioner [•lhitted, seconsed by Commissioner 1`Tarshall to approve the special use application caith the inclusion of the above recommendations ans; the recommendations as cutlined by the Planning ]hoard. VCTE: L11JAP'Tt$OC1S ~~~~- _ "iarvir. Collis , Planning Director, noted this request was _._. considered by the Planning Board on October 15 and recommended approval subject to six conditions a.s listed in the agenda abstract as well as the findings as listed. Potion :•~as made b,~ Commissioner i•'hi.t.ted, seconded by Commisioner • Lloyd to approve a positive finding or: Articles 8.6, c~.8, l through 1?.. VOTE': U1•?At]?tlOCiS Motion ~•~as made by Commissioner *Thitted, seconded by Commissioner YTalker to ap~+rave r~ positive finding on Article 8.2.~a, b anc c. Cor;missioner '•'hitted as~:ed for clarification of Article P. 2. ~ and was to].s, there ;_~i?.1 be a total of 15 re: iderts.. 3~4 17. Chair C~Iillhoit noted. there were alternate systems for providing adequate sewacre disposal facilities. T•lotion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner [+?alker to aPprov~ a positive findir:g for Article 7.~.20.3a,b,c,d and e. vo~>a : uriAr-xT•lons • Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded bj, Commissioner Lloyd to ap?.~rove a positive finding on'Article 4.2a,b,c,d and e. VOTE: U~'AT'I.lOUS 2lotion eras made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner - Marshall to approve a positive finding on P.rticle 7.x.1, 2 and 3. VOTE:- UPTA2IIT1OU~ ?_otion was made,by Commissioner iJhitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall }o apTarove a positive finding on Article 7.15.5,6 and 7.' VOTE: Ur7At7I°1OUS T•lotion was r;ade by Commissioner Marshall, secondeda by Commissioner Whitted to approve negative findings on Articles 7.15.8 and 7.15.9. - VOT?; ; UI•'Ar: TT•lOUS Motion was made by Commissioner [9hitted, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve a positive finding on all £ive parts of :`article 7.15.10. VOTE: Ui~APT2?`1OLTS Alotion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Chair C-Tillhoit to approve ar_ositive finding on all six items in Article 7.15.10a. VO'T'E: U?~APiI?-1OLTS '.lotion eras made b,' Commissioner [~7hitted, seconded by Commissioner - tda.rshall to approve a pasitive ;indi_nq on all area dimensions. VOTE: Ur.,Ap'Ir.[OU5 l;otior. was made by Commissioner T~?hitted, seconded by Commissioner tarshall to approve a positive finding on Article C.12. VOTE: UPIANST'QUS Tlotion was mace by Commissioner ~^7hitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall that since there is no evidence to the contrary to approve the special use application subject to the six conditions as outlined by the Planning Board. VOTE : TJtJA?32MOLT5 Motion was made by Commissioner FThitted, seconded by Commissioner Tarshall to reconsider the motion. VOTE: UFdAC'?'r~OUC "Motion was made by Comrissioner CJhitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the xroject as findings in 8.2.2 and subject to the sip: conditions as outlined by the Planning IIoarc except in "2 that the sentence end after the word persons. VOTE: U1dAri2"d0U$ d•~`pq n .'~.~~r'TS _,~$.~SS,~LL?~5~_~F:??T"IT P~('~,,'r1OIJ^- PI]-~ 8 d Collins commented that the Planning Board met on October 23 and recommends approval subject to the 7,S conditions as listed in the a5enc?a abstract. The property is presently zoned CC3. '.'otion was made by Commissioner I~~arshall, seconder by Commissioner [~7hittec: to approve a positive find±ng on Articles II.6 and f~.8.1-12. VO^E; T?1~7Ax'I.TiOUS 34~ • 13 ',otion was made bµr Commissioner Tlarshall, seconded by Cormissioner "5hittec: to appreve a positive finding on Article 8.2. aa, and b. VOTE: Ur'Ar?1'Tl0iJ5 Gledhill notes the Planning Board's recomr.:enc:ations to the iaoarc, ?,sere made during the Public Hearing and the minutes of the Planning ?;oard's deliberation is Hart of the evidence for consideration. Smith commented that the Planning Board made their recommendations and findings or. the original plat submitted at Public Hearinc. •._ -. 'lotion ryas made by Commissioner ?•7hitted, seconded by Coricissioner Flarshall to approve a r.enative finding on Article 8.2.nc. VOT$ : Ur?ArlIT4OUS T!~otion i?as made by Commissioner t^7hitted, seconded by Commissioner I9arshall to approve a positive fincAing on Article 7.4a,b,c,d and e. VOT?~ : UNANI_iOUS T4otion was made by Commissioner T2rshal]., seconded by Com,::issioner t°'hittec to approve a positive finding on both parts of Articles 7. a.l anc: 7.4.2. VOTE : UrIA'~ T i•10US T-lotion was made by Commissioner T•larshall, seconciod by Commissioner '.Written to approve a negative finc:ing on P_rticle 7.4.3. VOTE : UPTArTI'IOLTS r?otion was mace by Commissioner T•larshall, seconded by Commissioner ?°?hitt2c~ to approve a negative finding an 7.J.4.3a1, 2 and 5, a, d a positive finding on 7.14.3x3 and n. VOTE: UNAT_7ZT~IOUS I:otior. was made by Commissioner l7hitted, seconded by Commissioner I~~arahall to approve a positive fincinv in 7.14.3x6, 7.14.3b1,2 and 2b and a negative finding on Article 7.14.3x7 and 7.14.3b3. voT>;: urrANil•TOUs • Tlotion was mace by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner ?~lhitted to approve a positive finc;ing on Article 5a, b, c, d, and e. vo~iyt~: ur~ArrzTlous T7otion vies made by Car:;missioner ?^~hitted, seconded by Cammmissioner Lloyd to approve a positive finding on Article 6.12x, b, c, d, e, f, c, and Article 6.13.1. VOTE: UI?Ar'IT•?OUS Commissioner T?hilted asked the Board if in their opinion tl?e 1S recommendations incluc:ec the site plan as presented at Public Bearing as revised by the cenditions set forth by the Chapel Hill Planning Board, and _ suggested addir_c contrition r20 ststing that a site plan incorporate the firs;; lg recommendations. __ f?otion was made by Commissioner r~Thitted, seconded by Commissioner T3arshall to approve 8.2.2 with the 19 conditions as recommended by the Planning Boars and the additional condition as stated above. Chair '?illhait as!:ed what conditions that Chapel Fill recommended v~ere not included in the recommendations anc was referred to the minutes of the Plannina 5oa.rd meeting anc': further ruestioned the ?Tanning Board's raison for not ircluding the conditions ;^resented b_y Chapel I3i.11. Commissioner '"_arshall indicated there seems to be .a strong feeling on the Planning °oard for rot wanting a public s~reet going ti~rough the midcle of the development because n€ the volume of traffic because of the ;i 41 1~ health sa{ety and welfare arr there t~rould be G negative affect on the people in the develo~~ment. Chair G•?illhoit asl;ee for a delay in the decision so he could compare the recommendations from Chapel F_i11 and study Evhy the Planning Board rejected the:>e recommendat:~ons. Commissioner Plhitted rrithdrew the motion and recuested Yo table this item until r?ovember 12, 1984 for continuation. Commissioner ?Marshall seconded this motion. VO7`E: UNAr?II.1OUS 5. ~TtE~'~?x' VALL~'~'_iiIT3DTVTS - ~ r,7 d ~T Smith presented for approval the preliminary plat for Greene Valley Subdivision. The property is located in Chapel Hi11 movrnsY:ip on S 1839 (Ale sander Drive), lot.17B, tar. map 19. The tract is designated as Rural Buffer or_ the Tana Use Plan and is zoned Residential-1. ThEre are seven (7) lcts proposec: out cf c.57 acres. The Planning Board recommends approval of the ?reliminary Plat subject to the nroaerty lines beine~ sho~•rn to the center of t:~e rivate road. PTotion eras made by Commissioner F~arshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the Preliminary Plat for the Greene Valley Subdivision as recommended by-the Planning Board. VOTS: Ur~AA'Il1OUfi 5- g~VERm1ii w Anne s D , ., , n P~PTC~' Ar?n r.nr?n p a ^1' T^ AF~'P r,^ . ~,1~ (ad is on page 280 of permanent agenda file) P1o objections ~•rere voiced by the Board. AD tZ ~P'F ' riotian oral rade by Commissioner fiarshall, secorced by Commissioner ~°rhitted to adjourn the meeting until _Tonday, rlovember 12 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner's Room in the Courthouse in f?illsborough, ?vTorth Carolina. VOT~ : UP~A192~1OUS Aon ~•1i11hoit, Chair Beverly A.. Blythe, Cler{; -. ~ ORANGE WATER AND SEWELZ AUT110R1TY - Everett Billingsley, Executive Director STATEr1FsNT GId 'tHL PRO: CSyD PEViSIONS TO T:lE 1'ROr1:CTLb 6dA1"ERS°..ED DxSTRICT IN T11E ORANGE COITrTTY ZONZPIG ORDZNh•,?iCB Presented at bhe November 5, 19II4 Public Bearing Y am Everett Billingsley, }i~:ecutive Director of Orange ldater and Sewer Authority. Orange [dater and Sewer Authority is responsible for providing a high .quality supply of drinking water to more than 50,000 residents of Cha.pe7. Hill, Carrboro and outlying areas in Orange, Durham and Chatham Caunties_ 7 can assure you that this is a responsibility talcen seriously. Ta fulfi.].l this obligation, OWASA must have available adequate sources a~ good quality raw watt~. University Lake, of course, is presenL.ly the primary souxae a£ our supply: The proposed Cane Creek Reservoir will. also soon play an important role in the provision of water to the many O'range County residents served by OWASA. OtdASA's customers have been fortunate that the iniversity Lake water supply watershed has been remarkably undeveloped in L•he 50 years of the 7.ake's e~:isterce. However, increasins development activities in the watershed threaten to adversly impact the quality of waL'er. in the. Rake. Likewise, uncontrolled development activities in the Cane Creek watershed will, decrease drinking water quality in that source of supply. IL is commendable that praage County recognizes this fvrebodfng transition an3 is consider3.ng positive land tiise planning steps to provide a degree of control and direction to futut:e development that occurs in public water supply watersheds in Orange County. OWASA staff has completed its review of Orange County~s proposed "Protected Watershed District" standards which would be applicable to the University Lake and proposed Cane Creek Reservoir drainage basins. OIdASA has supported and will enr_t3.nue to support the implementation of technica]~ly sound, positive,. progressive and balanced approaches toward managing development activities in public water supply watersheds_ The implementation of coordinated and consistent development standards is also a goal which we support. The following comments regarding the proposed Protected '(datershed District. standards are submitted for consideration by the Board of Commissioners and staff of Orange County prior to the adoption of the f3.nal standards for these environmentally sensitive areas. In deciding upon the final set o£ sta~uards, it nest be kept in mind that what is at stake is no less than the health, safety and welfare of all present and future residents who receive water supplied by OWASA, the Toren o£ Hillsborough and Orange Alamance Water-Syste~a, and the City of Durham, if the Little River i2esarvoir watershed is ccas'ldered_ 4.2.2$ -- For ease of understanding, the boundaries of the proposed Water Quality Critical Area should be act at places readily identifiable on T.he o£fical 7.oning t4ap, such as streams, roads or property lines. -1- _..- -~--._..-..__r.....~._ . ~._.,,,_.. ~_~~.. - - - . _ ~ .,.. _ --~.,_ S~. ~~- What is meant b; "main channels of trunk streams"? Are trunk streams those - }__! • which a's identified as perennial streams on the U5GS Quadrangel maps? ~ ~''::..::. 4.2.2Et( ~) : :. Zt should bP clear_ly stated that hater Quality Critical Area standards will also be applicable to new uses of existing structures, as well as to new use of ••~ - any land or any new structures_ ~ " =r. ~ . ~: :.: . 4.2.29 ' ~ -. .. OWA5A recognizes the notentir.l usefulness of measures proposed by the County to :~. limit the type and sc:,.,e of industrial development in public water supply watersheds. However, we must recognize that despite the hest intentions and . the best laid plans, the presence of industrial.developmants irr, these areas is cause For serious concern. pW_ASA opposes industrial development activities of any type in protected, upland public water supply watersheds. - -. t,'e oppose industrial development in Orange County`s water supply watersheds for th*: following reasons: T~..<:t, industrial develop-c:~t could xesul-t in the use of toxic and/or hazardous materials which could be discharged into. waters directly as a result of industrial processes ox improper .handling and transport. Second, it would be very difficult to monitor and regulate changes in processes once an industry locates in a watershed. Even without a change in a physical process, technology may.ercourage the use of different chemicals. Ecosiomic consa.deratians in business often results in expansion of processes or changes .~.in ownership with the consequent degradation of uses. Third, industrial development brings with it increased traffic flows and, therefore, an increase in non-point source pollution such as lead, cadmium, chromium and oils. Tt also increases the potential for accidental spills and dischargers of toxic and/or hazardous subtsances. Fourth, OrtFe industrial facilities are in place, the pressure to allow variances as to the types of materials, processes allowed and size of the facility increases. plater quality protection objectives are sometimes co~apromised ~ahen compared to the potential for increased employment opportunities and tax revenues that would result from such variances. It is probably the foregoing concerns that resulted in the exclusion of industx•ia1 development areas in the Univers3.ty Lake and Cana Cxeel~ watersheds in the existing Orange County Land Use flan, Carrboro Land Use Plan, the Totm of Carrl~or_o's taatershed Protection Program, the recommendations of the Orange county 1Vater liesources Taslc Force and the recommendations of the Committee on Joint Planning. -2- ..... _- ' P1e1se do not misunderstand ine- O;dASA is not opposed to ind~scrial and economic • ~ development activities in Ozange County. We erg, however, opposed to these 'activities in public water supply watershed areas since suitable alternative - sites outside of these critical areas axe available. With intergovernmental cooperation, there axe alternatives for identifying and setting aside sites For future industrial development outside of these watersheds. Specifically, suitable industrial development sites are available in the upper Bolin Creek and Plew Hope Cxeelc drainage basins • Tf industrial development wexe.to be permitted in public water supply watersheds, there dust be limitations on the types and quantities of materials which can be used or stored on site, restrictive impervious surface limits, and. adequate provisions for spill containment, including those associated with underground storage tanks.. 4.2.29(b)4 The reference to "the most cuzzent >PA list of Hazardous Substances and Priority Pollutants" should be revised to include the appropriate legal. reference, i.e. 33 USC 1251 et seq. 4.2.29(b)5 The statement "Sewage disposal. proposed for the district shall be appropriate for the use." is very broad. Guidance should be provided on the typal of, disposal methods which will be permitted as wall. as the conditions under which they will be allowed. 6.23.5 It should be recognized that somF commercial activities bring faith them a greater potential for adverse water quality impacts than do certain industrial. activities. Commercial uses which axe high volume traffic generators should not be permitted in the watershed. Residential development densities should be determined by impervious surface limitations as well as "the wastewater treatment system applicable." In tlxe Water Quality Critical Area, the rsaximum development density should be one -. dwelling unit for every two acre lot. 6.23.6 The underground storage of petroleum products in industrial and conunercial districts should also be addressed. T.eaking underground staxage tanks axe posing a significant public health threat fn areas throughout Itiorth Carolina and the nation. Strict standards concerning th:: lpcation and design of these facilities, as well as provisions for ongoing monitoring, need to be established. 6.24.2 We suggest revising the third line to read as follows: "...in its ~etated natural state, unless the area is s arsel vegetated or subject to serious erosion..." Also, tl~e planting of vegetation ax establishment of erosion resistant impzovements to the vegetative cover should be required where the buffer area has alrEady been disturbed. ' -3- ti 6.2a.~: The Soil Conservation Service recently completed a IODY survey of that portinn~ of Orange County wieich 1zES in the Flaw River drainage basin, inc7-uding the, Cane Creek Reservoir and University Lake watersheds. Rased on this survey, paved and•uupaved roads present a serious potential for sedS.mentat9.on and erosion. _.... zt is estimated that i6 tons of sediment per acre per year erode z"roex the areas along paved roadways and that 8D tons. of sediment per acre per yeax erode from unpaved roadways- Orange County's caatershed management- strategy should include - measures for the control of sedimezitatinn from both paved and unpaved roadways. In this regard, it is recommended that no roads be constructed. within 150 fee4 of the high water marls of public water supply impoundments and that adequate sedimentation an3 erosion control measures be taken to minimize this problem. All roads in t$e Water Quality Critical Area should be paved with. grassed swa:Zes as drainage~aays. b.24.5 , OWASA supports the requirement that new septic tanks and their nitrificat~~on fields be located a minimum of 300 feet from the edge of the water supply impoundment or perennial or intermittent streams.. To reduce the potential for bacteriological contamination, this distance should be even greater than that proposed. ~ .. OWASA has serious concerns regarding the use of-septic tanks in public wai_er supply watersheds and recommends that additional requirements be placed on the use of these systems. Specifically, Y would like to address the need far backwup drainage fields- T.n its tray, 1987. ;.eport to the hoard of Commissioners, th.e Orange Co.~nty !dater Resources 'task ~?area recommended that them be a requirement for a back-up drainage field and that th.s field be identified on the plat and remain in an undisturbed states reserved for future [ -.. use as a drainage field, should the need arise. And, unfortunately, septic 1•• tank system failure in Orange County is not uncommon. O1dASlL supported this recom*_sendation; hnw2ver_, it has not yet been implemented by the County. Continued widespread dependence on xndiviclual septic tanks zn areas within public water supply watersheds where the soils are largely unsuitable, or at least only provisionally suitable, for use as septz.c tang: drainage fields, with no back-up provisi.ors in the evenC tha system malfunctions, is -undesirable and poses a potenl-ially serious public health problem. ide recognize the impracticality of eliminating the utilization of on-site wastewater disposal systems, but we do feel that much more can be done to assure the long-term suitability of the on--site disposal alternative. Specifically, we request that the County consider:- First, the adoption of the back--up drain field provisions as recommended by tha Taslc Force; and second, the establishment o£ a public information and education program eoncerninp, the use and maintenance of septic tank systems. 7 am provi.din,ra you with copies of two documents which describe the importance of septic tank maintenance and the positive impact that water conservation has vn long-term effa.ciency of septic tan!<s. 6.2~:.7 The proposed standards address undisturbed area requirements applicable to the construction process. The standards, however, do not address the need far -. maintaining this land in an undisturbed state on an ongoing basis. ~i -4- • . , - 6.24.8 ,The standards should apply to the first one-ha1F inch o£ stormwater runoff resulting from a storm occurring with3.n a 24-hour, period. 7.1.9.1 ~ . There are ~:~.eral standards which are not applicable to water quality, but which would seem to be applicable to ail. industrial development projects an Orange Gounty. Are these necessary to include in the Protected watershed standards? , 7.19.1(x) The Orange County Land Use Plan does not provide for industr3.al development sites in the University Lake or Cane Greek watershec}s- The last sentence in this paragraph and the proposed establishmenC of the watershed industrial district contradicts the Orange County Land Use Plan. 7.19.1(x)1. • T'rcas section should. not be included in development: standards, as at is a policy statement unrelated to the protection of drinking water quality. Also, g•Lven Orange County's low unemploymart rate, the goal of industxaal development should be to provide employment opportunities for undereu~played residents_ 7.19.1(x)3 xt is stated that "...PD-P;•7I districts shall: 3. Serve as an alternative to continued expansion of non-residential zoning into the agricultural areas of the County." 1c should be noted that the Cane Creek watershed and, to a lesser extent, the University Lake watershed, are rural and a;,3-iculturally~oriented areas. Industrial development activities in these areas would probably result '" in~~=increased development pressures and an associated incxease i_n the conversion ..., of agricultural lands to urban type land uses. Under 7.19.1 Permitted Princi al Uses and Structures, what is meant by "applications for amendment Lo PD-PWI zoning distract"? Adequate measures must be taken to ensure that variances do not result in adverse water quality impacts. The meaning of "complementary and compatible" facilities should be described. Under 7.19.1 Site Ylanning~ External Relationship, Section 6, concerning sewage disposal, stcites that public sanitary sewage £acilities are to be approved by the "State llepaxtarent of Environmental }4anageraent." This is a requireu~ent of North Carolina law. The correct title is the North Carolina Division of Environmental tianagement. The correct reference to the "State bivision of Environmental Health" is the North Carolina bivasion of Health Services. Under 7.19.1 Internal Relationship, Section ~i, would paving with turf blocks, porous paring or other pervious surfaces be permitted to encourage, infiltration? Under Section 7, tahat is meant by "minimaX amounts of water"? Under Section II, is an inventory to be kept up? If. so, to what agencies is at _ to be provided ta? .Are on--site inspections permitted for verification? xhe following substitute lan~ua~e is su€;gested: -5- 3~- _~ :.. "Every opera Car of a site at which toxic or hazardous materials are handled,~~4', stored, or generated s'iall register with Orange County the types (common ~'!nr1 scienCiEic names) and quantities of matezial handled, stored or generatcd,.and. the location and method of storage, generation and haZdling zaithin ni,r_ety (90) days following the enactment of this ordi*_iance and annually thereafter. An •~- inventory o.£ such materials shall be maintained on the gre~iises available for f,nspection and shall be reconciled with purcY~ase, use or sale and disposal _ records. At all petroleum and liquid chemical storage faeilizy sites, ti~ese records shall be kept on a daily basis in order to detect any product loss or leakage, and such maintenance and zeconciliation of inventories shall begin within the same ninety (90) day period. . "Containers of toxic or hazardous materials must be appropriately labeled, pc.sted, and stored on an impervious, chemical resistant surface and provis:ions must be made to contain the materials in case o$ leakage or acidental - spillas,e. `• Under Section 9, what are the "appropriate agencies"? The fallowing s4iould be added to this section: "Within ninety (9O) days following the adoption of this ordinance, the owner ar operator shall provide Orange County «ith a written description of the m~asu-res taken to pzotect storage cortaiuers from vandalism, corrosion and spillage, and the means of storage and disposal oz" all toxic oz hazardous materials handled, stoned or generated on the site. Samples of wastewater and wastes xaay be tai~~n by the agent of the Orange County Health.Department wTr.anever deemed necessar.~r," In ttae event that industrial development is permitted, 3s requested the[ for -..all future industrial developments in the University Lake and Cane Creek - drainage basins, OWASA be provided with copies of the inventories and that it be closely involved in the review and approval of emergency response plans for these facilities. OWASA has developed an emergency response program and has the trained staff and equipment necessary for limited response to accidental spills 3n the University LaY.e and Cane Creek watersheds. A.s far as we knos~T, • there is no other such response unit in this area. I hope that the above comments are of assistance to you in your efforts to develop a watershed protection program for the University Lake and Cane Creel: drainage basir_s. Again, on behalf of Orange Water and 5cwex Authority, you and the Orange County staff are commended for taking; action on a.matter of concern to all of us- protection of present and future drinking water suppLr~s. We loolc forward to roving ahead jointly with yon in balancing the variety of demands tltat must be considered for the common goad of our attractive area. (WP /OC . P1JISTAND ) -6-