HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-20-1998 - 10a1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 20.1998
Action Agenda
Item # /0-a
SUBJECT: CANE CREEK WATERSHED STAFF REPORT
DEPARTMENT: PLAlY1~tING BUDGET `AMENDMENT REQUIRED: '" Yes ` X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Bell, Extension 2592
• Staff report (previously provided under separate cover) David Stancil, Extension 2590
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 467-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on recommendations for protecting Cane Creek watershed.
BACKGROUND: In October 1997, the OWASA Board of Directors adopted their "Final
Recommendations for Protecting Cane Creek Watershed." These
recommendations were the culmination of three years of study of Cane Creek,
including a technical study conducted by a consultant, and deliberations by an
appointed Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee. The OWASA report
recommends changes to County ordinances to implement special land use
measures to protect the quality of drinking water from the reservoir. In
conjunction with this effort, a number of comments have addressed the OWASA
recommendations. Specifically, the Bingham TAC has prepared an issue paper
that lays out an alternative approach for protecting water quality, along with other
recommendations for community concerns.
Staff has prepared a report that summarizes the work and findings of OWASA on
Cane Creek, reviews the other comments and suggestions received, and evaluates
the recommendations against the County's goals, policies and plans, with special
emphasis on the implications for County plans and ordinances.
2
To summarize, the staff report concludes that there are three basic approaches that
appear most feasible for managing protection of water quality in Cane Creek, all
of which will protect water quality to a similar level -but which offer differences
in levels of certainty and/or differing implications for County plans and policies.
This report is being presented at this time to outline the different ideas and
approaches, and request feedback in the development of a final staff report. The
Commissioners goal calls for a community meeting to be conducted in late-
October in the watershed, with specific ordinance amendments and a
recommendation to be heard at the November 23 public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. Staff will use feedback from the Board to refine the staff
report, before conducting the community meeting and preparing a
recommendation for the Board at the November public hearing.
Cane Creek W
Staff Report
o..~en cwmy mains onP.un<~. I°2°ve
Current Wate d Protection
• County focus onnon- • 6%im 'ous surface
structural protection
• Stream bu
• Class WS-II watershed
• 1 % maximum o
• Changes adopted 1994 watershed can be on-
• Two-acre lots residential
throughout watershed
or°'sn Cmmy PWvung Dev~Ons+s 102696
OWASA Re mendations
• Rezone watershed to 5-acre inimum
• Allow up to 5 2-acre lots for exis ' act:
• Allow open space development, with 0°0
open space and one house per 2-Ac de it}
• Tributary detention ponds may be neede
• Pursue zoning in Alamance portion
• Discuss TDR possibilities
°"^sn cwmr P6nms u.v.mw 16269a
Cane C?e~k Facts
• Reservoir may meet
demand to 2030 ~
• 20,227 acres
• 90%ofwatershed in
Orange County
• 78% of watershed is
forest or agricultural
Ornse Cwnry PWnip °ev~d 102098
Cane Creek 17~a~rshed Study
• Current water quality is good, of
pristine
• Long-term conversion of forest land
agriculture and residential will threate
water quality
• Eight management options modeled and
evaluated
OmM CwmY Phmiiy Prv~ 1°20198
Staff Evalua~P~l of Options
• Watershed lots bigger than ex d...
• ...but area growing faster than exp to
• Analysis focused on scoping options
County watershed protection policy
• Site-specific design application
• Other possible options evaluated
• Identification of three primary options
a.nn cWnry Phmi08 °nn~mrn 1a269s
1
1. Man ory Flexible
Develop nt
Stren hs Weakne
• Uses existing, known • Must ensu
program riparian aze e '
• Lower open space Protected open ace
may offer more design • Requires tributary
flexibility impoundments
(watershed study)
• OWASAIand
acquisition program • Unknowns of cluster
for water quality
a,os. roomy erd:a oov.aMa ioao9a
3. OWASA-Recommended
Stren hs Weakne
• Highest certainty of • Could redu
protection?
• Two development • Open space not
options guazanteed
• Fewer lots could = • If cluster option
reduced public service utilized,couldr~
needs
impoundments
o..o~ cwmy n.ooms n.p.m~os ~onoroe
Plan of A1st~on (conc>
• November 23 public hearing
• January 1999 (tent.) -Planning
• Feb.1999 (tent.) - Boazd of
a.es~ croon rVm:oa oeo.m.m in~xwga
2. Creative Op
(Cluster, Open
Stren hs
• Guarantees higher
open space protection
• Combines resource
protection and water
quality protection
• OWASA land
acquisition program
o.en coon w~~os wv.uom
Plan
Space Design
• Must ensu
riparian aze a in
protected open ace
• Requires tributary
impoundments
(watershed study)
• Unknowns of cluster
for water quality
~oaoroe
• Receive feedback from
• Hold community meeting to explain
discuss recommended approach
• Property owners notified by mail of
o..~s• cmmn ermune wr.eo~m ~orsase
2