Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19900228 APPROVED 3/21/90 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 28, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on February 28, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Carrboro Elementary School Auditorium, Carrboro, North Carolina. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell (arrived at 8:30) , Shirley E. Marshall (arrived at 9:00) and Don Willhoit. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor Jonathan Howes and Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, and Arthur Werner. CARRBORO BOARD OF tiLDERMEN: Mayor Eleanor G. Kinnaird and Addermen Hilliard Caldwell, Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn M. Gist, Tom Gurganus and Randy Marshall. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: Planning Board Chair Betty Eidenier and members William J. Waddell, Dan Eddleman, Virginia W. Boland and Amanda Carol Cantrell. WELCOME BY CHAIRMAN MOSES 'CAREY. JJR Chairman Carey welcomed the citizens in the audience. He announced that Commissioners Marshall and Hartwell were representing the County at another meeting and would attend this meeting later. Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird welcomed the citizens in the audience and asked that the discussion be one of give and take. Mayor Jonathan Howes welcomed the citizens and stated this meeting culminates a process that has been ongoing for a long time. The Chapel Hill Town Council supports t process by which the intergovernmental work group arrived at its conclusion and look forward to the dialogue -tonight. PUBLIC CHARGE AND GROUND RULES Chairman Carey announced the following rules of conduct for the meeting: (1) that presentations be limited to three minutes, (2) yielding of time to another person will not be allowed, (3) people will be called from both sign-up lists, alternating from list 1 to list 2 and (4) only one person may speak at any one time. Chairman Carey read the Public Charge. D. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING 1. JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT a. Section II - Natural Resources b. Section V - Joint Planning Operating Principles . c. Section VI - Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area d. Section VII - Overview of Implementation Strategies 2 JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT a. Section 1.2 - Definitions ' E ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING 1 ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN a. Land Use Element Map - Deletion of Water Quality Critical Area from University Lake Watershed 2 ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS a. Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District 3 ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE a. Article 4.2.27 - Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District b. Article 4.2.28 - Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District c. Article 4.2.30 - Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) d. Article 4.2.30 - University Lake Watershed (ULW) District (New) e. Article 6.15.2 - Interim Development Standards f. Article 6.25 - Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) g. Article 6.25 - Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) i District h. Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures 4. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS a. Section IV-B-10 - Cluster Developments b. Section IV-C - Interim Development Standards c. Section V-C - Preliminary Plat d. Section V-D - Final Plat THE PRESENTATION WAS MADE BY MARVIN COLLINS. ALL INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE IN THE AGENDA WHICH IS IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND IS MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES BY REFERENCE. A document was distributed entitled "Strategies for Protecting University Lake Watershed". Marvin Collins explained this document with the use of slides. He indicated that the topic is "Choices" . In summary Mr. Collins talked about the different options that are available in terms of protecting University Lake Watershed and then he showed how all this fits together in terms of the Land Use Plan that the three jurisdictions have jointly adopted, Orange County's Land Use Plan, its Zoning Map and its Development Standards. He emphasized the importance of University Lake and protection of its watershed. He stated it is important to the people who own property and live in that watershed, important to the students who attend the University, important to the people who visit this area and who live, work and do business in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The basic goal is minimal water quality deterioration in University Lake. The two basic sources of 1 strategies put forth include (1) the final report of the University Lake Watershed Study completed by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) in March, 1989 and (2) the 13-point Agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group in October, 1989. Six different elements are- being considered at this time: - 1. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan & Text 2. Joint Planning Agreement 3. Orange County Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Element • 4. Orange County Zoning Atlas 5. Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Collins continued with describing the two basic options. Option #1 involves the land use control strategy which involves the 5-acre residential zoning, impervious surface limits and the establishment of stream buffers. Option #2 uses the structural controls strategy which is a combination of 2-acre residential zoning density which the watershed is currently under by way of the rural buffer designation, coupled with wetwater detention ponds. There would also be impervious surface limits and stream buffer requirements. Both of these strategies have been identified by CDM as being able to achieve the water quality goal of minimum degradation in University Lake. Option #1 is described below: Basic Strategy: Minimum lot size of 5 acres Maximum density of 1 dwelling unit/5 acres Existing Lots of Record: (October, 1989) May create up to 5 2-acre lots Remainder divided in accord with "Basic Strategy" Cluster Development: Minimum lot size of 1 acre Density cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit/5 acres Land saved by lot size reduction preserved as permanent open space • Collins illustrated the above option showing how it would be applied to a conventional subdivision, an existing lot of record and a cluster subdivision. Option #2 is described below: Basic Strategy: Minimum lot size of 2 acres On-site wetwater detention ponds designed to CDM standards must be provided to trap pollutants Existing lots of record: lots less than 2 acres in size can be developed at current size Cluster Development: Minimum lot size of 1 acre Density cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit/2 acres 'Land saved by lot size reduction preserved in permanent open space Collins illustrated Option #2 showing how it would be applied to a conventional subdivision. Collins described "Impervious Surface" as any surface which does not absorb rain, including buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and parking areas. Both paved (asphalt, concrete) and unpaved (gravel, crushed stone, soil) surfaces are considered to be impervious. This is a change in the County's definition to coincide with the CDM report. There are two proposals in terms of impervious surface: Proposal #1 is described below: (put forth by the Watershed Work Group and coincides with the CDM Report) WHERE L2I 51ZE Tal IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAY NOT EXCEED_ 5.0 acres or above 4% 2.0 to 4.9 acres 6% Less than 2.0 acres 12% Proposal #2 is described below: (put forth by the County Planning Staff) 5.0 acres 6% 4.5 acres 7% 4.0 acres 8% 3.5 acres 9% 3.0 acres 10% 2.5 acres 11% 2.0 acres - 12% Collins stated that looking at different lot configurations, dwelling types, setbacks of the house from the road, and different road classifications indicated a need for higher impervious limits. Another major element is Stream Buffers. The County already has stream buffer requirements but CDM recommended a different basis for calculating stream buffers than is currently in the Orange County ordinance. Stream buffers accomplish several things: (1) prevent development from encroaching on streams, (2) minimize stream channel erosion and (3) spread rainfall runoff in a "sheetflow" pattern and encourages infiltration into the soil. CDM' s recommended buffer standards are based on several factors: (1) slope of the land, and (2) type of ground cover, wooded or grass, within the land adjacent to the tributary present. He illustrated this by showing the University Lake Watershed, the Watershed overlay and the proposed district. In summary, Collins showed on a map all the watersheds in Orange County. He showed on the map the protected watershed area, and the water quality critical area. With reference to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, it is proposed that the categories of protected watershed and water quality critical area be deleted and that a designation called "University Lake Watershed District" he established. Everyone would be placed into a rural buffer zoning district. The overlay district would sit on top of the basic zoning. There are two separate overlay zoning districts in the University Lake Watershed. They would be removed and a new zoning district "University Lake Watershed District" would be put in its place which is also an overlay district. Coupled with that would be the development standards adopted by the Board of Commissioners which relate to the specific options discussed earlier. In terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, there are two options: (1) 5-acre scenarios, and (2) 2-acre zoning with the wetwater detention ponds. The Planning Directors of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro recommend incorporating in the Joint Pla'ining Area Land Use Plan the recommended 5-acre zoning scenario. Both options are identified in the specific provisions. In terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, they are recommending a small change in that the term "water quality critical area" would be replaced by "University Lake Watershed District". Collins recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners is (1) the application of the University Lake Watershed overlay district, (2) the 5-acre zoning provision, (3) the higher impervious surface limits -- 6% for the 5-acre lots with a sliding scale down to 12% for a 2-acre lot. One other provision addresses utility services and the use of alternative systems. The ordinance provisions as worded now would permit onsite septic disposal systems and that would include low pressure systems for an individual lot. Community alternative systems, whether they are spray irrigation, package plants or low pressure systems would not be permitted until April, 1991. During that interim period, the Orange County Health Department would be looking at its own program to monitor and inspect such systems. If they found that that program was operating successfully, they would come back to the Boa--"ti for their consideration on whether or not to allow alternative systems within the watershed. A similar provision is also applicable to public water service. Until April 1991 no public water extensions would be permitted except to serve an emergency situation. During that interim period there would be a study to determine the advisability of allowing public water extensions within the watershed. With reference to public sewer there are two options. One option is an outright prohibition on sewer extensions except for emergency situations. The other option would not allow any extensions until April, 1991 at which time a study would be done to determine the advisability of allowing public sewer. He suggests wording in these provisions dealing with water and sewer to indicate a continuance of the prohibition indefinitely until the Board of Commissioners make a final decision on whether to allow any or all of the provisions. PUBLIC COMMENTS ' ALICE CORDON offered three rinci les that would P P 1 guide any agreement on watershed protection that may be implemented. The first one is to implement strong measures to protect the University Lake Watershed. For public safety reasons, it is of prime importance to protect the water quality of University Lake and the CDM report is a solid basis for protection measures. The second principle is to address the legitimate g concerns of the property owners in the watershed. She feels it important to recognize that these concerns are real and must be taken into account. The third principle is to find a way to purchase critical lands in the watershed. As part of the overall solution to watershed protection, the various jurisdictions and OWASA should cooperate to buy the most critical land such as a quarter mile along the perennial streams and P d more land around the lake itself. Purchasing the critical lands would permanentl y protect the lands which are the ' most important in preserving water quality and would allow more flexible development in lands which are less critical Assuming the 13-point agreement is an impervious surface of 7.1%, with 19,000 acres in the watershed, 1,349 acres would be covered. Assuming the County staff's proposal gives 7.4% coverage, that would leave about 1,406 acres paved. The difference equals 67 acres. To remove 67 acres of paving, 800-900 acres would need to be purchased. This compares with the 550 acres needed to protect the perennial corridors at 200 feet. She encouraged everyone to work toward finding a solution that will protect the watershed while also protecting the interest of all the landowners. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL ARRIVED. RICHARD HAMMER stated that the biggest decision ion has already been made. It is not necessary to protect the watershed but approaches have been presented that will protect the watershed. All across America municipalities draw their drinking water from places that are not perfectly clean. Smithfield takes its drinking water out of the Neuse River just downstream from where Raleigh dumps their wastewater. Chicago gets its drinking water out of Lake Michigan. Pittsboro gets its drinking water from the runoff of Chapel Hill. He feels OWASA can use techniques to clean the water without stopping development. He feels there are alternatives that have not been disclosed. He is concerned that the decision has been made to protect the watershed offering the public a variety of that decision. He feels it important to protect the environment but feels that everything does not need to be perfectly pure. He stated that Chapel Hill should not be entitled to pure water at someone else's expense. All other cities take their drinking water and clean it up enough to drink. THOMAS JORDAN spoke against the watershed protection measures. He feels that it is -.- OWASA's responsibility to clean the water. GEORGE BRUMLEY, developer in Orange County, stated his major grievance is the issue of changing the rules in the middle of the game. They develop property and they develop according to the rules as they were written at the time they began the development. They are now faced with an impervious surface restriction that would actually change the rules during the period in which they no longer have a choice of whether to make the decision to proceed or not. If this impervious restriction is approved, he will have to change the type of development originally approved. VERLA INSKO, Chair of the OWASA Board, read a prepared statement. This statement is attached to these minutes as EXHIBIT "A". RANDY FEW feels this is an issue of fairness and practicality. He feels the financial burden of clean drinking water should not be on those who receive no benefits from it. Those who say that a reduction of allowed impervious surface will not affect the value of land are wrong. The value of the land in Chapel Hill will rise due to the quality of life, benefits they will receive from the reduction of density surrounding the town and the increase in the quality of water. It is an unfair transfer of wealth. He stated that quality drinking water is a goal that must be achieved but he asked that the County not make those in the way of an expanding Chapel Hill and Carrboro pay the price. He asked that a way be found to spread the cost among those who will benefit from it. He feels that passing this ordinance will render many lots nonconforming. He supports Mr. Collins' proposal. PHILIP SZOSTAK spoke as a supporter of the work group that developed the watershed protection measures. What became evident during the discussion was that a stricter consistent amendment to the Land Use Plan and Development Ordinance must be put into practice. It also became clear that the CDM study was a good beginning but could not be used to scientifically justify planning restrictions. Accountability of data was the major issue of discussion. The development model was so simplified it did not take into account roadways, right-of-ways , parklands, or other undeveloped land. It did not take into account the greater reduction of possible density that would occur if septic tanks were the only method of wastewater distribution. It did not take into account the standard or required development practices such as the State's Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinances which require that each development allow stormwater runoff to a velocity and volume that exist prior to construction. Detention basins (BMP's) would have , to be installed. All development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro must further illustrate this compliance with a computerized model as part of the final approval process. He recommended that Section II Natural Environment, subsection B on water resources, reflect. two acre zoning with on-site detention ponds. Concerning Section V, Joint Land Use Operating Principles. He suggested that public water and sewer service be offered as the most reliable method of protecting our water resources. Concerning Section V, Land Use Joint Planning Areas, he recommended Option II as presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. Concerning Section VI - Overview of the Implementation Strategies, he recommended that a study be done on public water and sewer extensions. With the EPA change in water quality guidelines, he recommended that a permanent watershed task force be establish to continuously monitor and recommend strategies to protect this water. DAVID CARR, Partner of Oak Value Properties, stated they are developing Oak Crest Subdivision and are following the rules put in place by the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. They are environmentally sensitive developers trying to work per the rules laid out. He opposed the rules changing half-way in the game. He asked that the developers be considered in any decision made and to consider the people whose sole � l investment and livelihood is in the property they own. He asked that the people be treated fair and that the burden and the benefit be balanced with the benefit going to the, people who drink the water. The people in the watershed cannot drink the water nor. can .., they use the sewage system that OWASA provides. He feels the issue of compensation show: be addressed. The loss of value must be taken into consideration. It could be done through the transfer of development rights. He asked that the impervious surface ratios come close to where they were when they began their development. He commended the County Planning Staff for the job they do. B R HACKNEY, resident in the watershed, spoke against the proposed regulations. His family has lived on this land for six generations. He feels that rural residents have no political representation on OWASA, on the Orange/Chatham Work Group, Orange County Commissioners or the Planning Board. , He feels the rural residents will receive no benefit nor compensation for these restrictions. The costs are being transferred from the users of OWASA services to those who do not and cannot use those services. The main goal is protection of water quality and no one knows what water quality is. There is no provision for improvement of water quality. CDM clearly indicates that the only measure to improve the water quality would be the implementation of regional detention ponds maintained by an official body -- not the onsite units maintained by developers as recommended by Orange County. This contradicts CDM which recommended a regional approach and detention ponds. The land use controls would at best maintain the status of the present quality. This has not been given enough attention. University Lake has a safe yield of 3mgd during the rainy season and is not the main water supply. Cane Creek provides lOmgd. He made reference to the Rural Character Study and the fact that the report has not yet been finalized. JOHNNY KENNEDY stated that there are a lot of poor people going to be pushed out of this.--., County, home, land and everything they have worked for. He feels that the County Commissioners and OWASA want to take the easy way out on about everything they do. He c. a study on the overview of the CDM report. To implement the structural controls to protect the drinking water, it would cost each customer .0003 cents per gallon which he feels is no cost. He suggested that the University of North Carolina pay part of this cost instead of putting all the restrictions on all the citizens in Orange County who are depending on the land for their livelihood. DANIEL R OKUN, an engineer in the water supply field, stated that protection of the water supply is not unique to Orange County but is happening everywhere in the United States. He prefers the recommendation of the five acres without structural controls because the consulting engineers did not use as an objective a non-degradation approach. They recognized that there would be some continued degradation. The primary principle used by all water agencies in protecting the water supply is that the water supply should be taken from the best available source and every effort should be made to protect it. Treatment technology is not a substitute for protection of the source. He recognizes their are problems and complaints about changing the rules in the middle of the game. unfortunately, those who drink the water are having to change in the middle of the game. Those who are responsible for providing drinking water for communities are themselves facing changing requirements. The Smithfields are the very cities in trouble. He realizes that this is a divided issue. Those who have stated that there will be an economic impact have not been studying what is actually occurring. In every court case where the developer has sued because of a loss of value, the courts have concluded that not only do jurisdictions have the right to protect the public health but that there has been no loss in value. MARGARET HOB advocate for the protection of water, endorsed the statements made by 1 Okun. She read a prepared statement which is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT B" . NOTE: COMMISSIONER MARSHALL ARRIVED. VICTOR TRIPP stated that OWASA has millions of dollars they can raise to express their side, of the issue. All the watersheds are important. He asked that OWASA explain why the sludge from OWASA could not be dumped into University Lake Watershed if it is harmless and if it is not harmless they should stop dumping it in the other watersheds because people in those watersheds like clean water also. He feels that the property owners should not foot the bill for cleaner water that is not used by them but should be required to trap pollutants from the water on their lots which could possibly pollute their water. He asked that the decisions be fair for all watersheds and the restrictions on the use of the property be decided using the principles this country was established. He made reference to a family who has owned property in the watershed for over 200 years who feels they are being run out of the county. He feels it is the duty of the County to come up with a compromise. MOSES CAREY ENTERED INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM MR. GORDAN NAVLE, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE. NANCY MUELLER has lived in the watershed since 1969. They bought in the watershed because they did not want to live in an area where there would be development. She is in favor of option one as presented by the Orange County Planning Board. She does not understand the problem and opposition to fresh, clean water. LIZ MCGEACHY spoke as a representative of the Orange County Greens. She stated that both sides are right. Those that drink water from the reservoirs require a clean protected water supply and those who have lived their lives for perhaps generations in Orange County deserve a measure of security for themselves and their decedents. It is not the people of Orange County who put these needs in conflict but rather the economic system which does not value environmental or social well being. It is a challenge to come together to solve the problems creatively in a manner that respects the needs of all citizens. The extent of environmental degradation in the 90's is vast and requires the Greens to air on the side of over protection. The Greens support the original or modified Orange County work group option calling for impervious surface limits and limited two acre lot subdivision. The Greens call on the County Commissioners to bring citizens together countywide to determine how to address the economic needs of the less developed parts of the County in an ecological sustainable and socially responsible manner. MARTY MANDELL, resident of Carrboro, stated that CDM found that with the development that was already in the watershed the water supply could not be made any better. To keep the lake as it is would mean a halt to all development. Water quality is in direct proportion to the amount and density of development. At the end of the study the issue became levels of degradation, a compromise for not being able to improve the lake's water quality. Other suggestions'made since then have increased the level of degradation up to as much as 36% which is too much. She asks that there be a compromise. Orange County has 99,345 people of which 55,000 are OWASA's customers. University Lake happens to be the first watershed, the others will follow. She urged that minimum degradation be supported as proposed by the CDM study. ROY STROWD stated he supports quality water. The joint committee recommended individual septic tanks and is refusing to use private waste treatment systems. He feels it would be easier to monitor one treatment system than numerous individual septic systems and a discharge from a treatment system would present less hazard than an individual septic system. He feels that extending water and sewer to the watershed area would give greater protection to the watershed than individual septic tanks. He does not understand why smaller parcels of land can enjoy higher densities than larger tracts of land. He feels the runoff would be just as contaminated from small tracts as from larger tracts. In the five acre recommendation, there appears to be no consideration for variation in soil types, typography, or types of vegetation that would affect the absorption or runoff. ` H. expressed two concerns that need a decision: (1) this issue has been around for years an'.. people need to know how they can use their property, and (2) he is opposed to the governmental bodies sharing the cost of any legal costs -- the damages and cost of legal' fees should be paid by OWASA. RILL KALKHOF spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill. He read a statement which is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT C" . ROBERTA BLACK president of the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement. That statement is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT D" . TED LATTA stated that the landowners in University Lake are not opposed to protecting the watershed. The only thing they are asking is that the County be fair and equitable. Five acre restrictions with no compensation, in their eyes, is totally unfair. Because of the impervious surface ratio, a person with a large lot can only have a house, a-yard and a driveway. JUDITH WEGNER emphasized that the work done by the Orange/Chatham Joint Planning Work Group was designed to-try to air all the issues that had been raised by everyone. A great deal of effort was put into studying the CDM report and trying to figure out some solutions to the environmental issues and the equity issues that have been raised. The complexity of the issue requires careful balancing and judgment relating to the equity of P Y q the situation. The density of the impervious surface recommendations by the work group .-. were very closely linked and needs to be thought of in those terms. The proposal that there be a 4% impervious surface requirement for five acre lots and a six percent impervious requirement for two acre lots was based on careful review of staff recommendations and on some judgment of the feasibility of applying those impervious surface requirements taking into account existing patterns of development. It is especially important that the model Marvin Collins put forward be looked at to insure there are not judgements made about the infeasible application of those standards without thinking through it completely. The committee felt that taking into account the roads and the location of roads could be done and still the size and shape of the lots could be worked out to make these feasible limits. She asked that the governmental bodies go beyond the regulatory provisions that are recommended tonight and be sure and review the other recommendations for purchase of development rights and creation of a loan program to deal with the equitable concerns of those who may be affected by these regulations. EDWIN DUNCAN feels he has inadequate information to make a decision on the watershed issues being discussed. He asked that there be a focal point where people can express their individual problems. He feels the County is not listening to the people. He stated that without some kind of cost benefits he does not see how a decision can be reached. He stated that half of the land will not perk. Without sewer access that land is worthless. For the land that will be developed, it will cost an additional $2,000 to develop. ERICH HAAS spoke as a representative of Little River Township. He spoke about the hazards of wet detention ponds. By constructing these ponds, it creates another point of collection or concentration of pollutants that could slow down the deterioration of the University Lake Reservoir but in the process raise the risk of decreasing the quality o' water for the rural area residents who don't drink city water and who own their own wet To construct, operate and maintain 72 regional wet detention ponds would cost the taxpayers at the end of the 31 year buildout $31,000,000. He feels more emphasis should be placed on treatment of the water where the primary responsibility is at the plant. GREG GANGI, spoke as a member of the Sierra Club. They passed a resolution which supports that of Dr. Okun. He stated that the elected bodies are asked to choose between the rights of the property owners to use their property as they choose and the rights of people to clean water and good health. He hopes the elected bodies will choose to protect the rights of clean water and good health. University Lake and the watershed are very fragile because of their characteristics including shallow depth, extensive agricultural activities and high potential for increased development and traffic. He feels that instead of making the water as bad as Smithfield's, we should pity them and learn from their mistakes. Many developers have indicated this will decrease the value of their land. With pretty good assurance, development in Chapel Hill is running out of space. Land prices may drop initially but only for a short while. A concern that the Commissioners can meet without jeopardizing the quality of water is that when the price of property increases, poor residents may be displaced because of rising taxes. ALLEN SPALT, resident of Carrboro and actively involved in protecting the watershed, stated that the CDM report is a good basis to start with but government officials need to recognize that it does have a very serious flaw. It started with an assumption that there should be a goal of minimal degradation of the water. It does not propose what it would take to maintain or improve the water quality. All the recommendations would result in at least a 10% degradation of the water. He is concerned that some of the provisions talked about now on impervious surface would result in the degradation of the water of at least one third or 35 to 40%. The recommendations presented by Marvin Collins seem to be solid in all respects. He supports a sliding scale for impervious surface but not a scale that goes from six to twelve percent. That is much too high. Community systems should be prohibited; water and sewer extensions with very limited exceptions should be prohibited. If there are MP's under any of the plans, it is essential that they be publicly maintained. This zoning decision in the not so very long run will result in increased values for everyone concerned. In the short run, it may not. This is not a taking or a confiscation and the governmental bodies should not be afraid that it is considered such. TOM SHAHADY, resident of Carrboro, stated that any development that is put in the watershed will be reflected in the Lake. Any pollutants will directly reflect the water quality. He supports any protection that can be given to this watershed. HAROLD MCKEEL spoke in support of watershed protection. He owns land in the watershed and urged the acceptance of the Planning Director's recommendation. Other water supplies were destroyed before people began paying attention to water quality. Orange County has the unique opportunity to enjoy water that is clean and it makes sense to protect it. LIVY LUDINCTON d'xpressed her concern for the polarity and divisiveness in this County when discussing drinking water. Everyone deserves to drink safe clean water. What the county decides to do in the watershed will affect the health of children and their children. This should not be an issue that divides people. They should be working together for the community. If the rivers and streams that comprise the watersheds are not clean, then the drinking water is not safe. People in this county who oppose the proposed zoning in the watershed will someday be concerned about their drinking water. Then those who approve these restrictions will help them fight for clean water because everyone is in this together. What is unique to Orange County is that the headwaters of the streams that comprise the watersheds are here within the boundaries of this County. What happens to the drinking water is totally up to the County. The landowners in the University Watershed have concerns that need to be listened to carefully. Her concern is that in trying to make the landowners happy, the water quality is slowly but surely being eroded. If the recommendations are adopted from the CDM report, the quality of the water will be , � degraded by seventeen percent. Add the recommendations of the task force and it is, - degraded by 28% and the new impervious surface recommendations and it is degraded by 37%: If there are too many compromises and cuts, they will no longer be talking about clean -. .1 water. Once heavy metals and toxins enter the lake, they cannot be removed. She requested that the elected officials start their consideration with these percentages in mind. Select a percentage they think University Lake should be degraded. She-feels 17% is too high. Safe drinking water should be the first priority. After deciding the percent of degradation, then decide how to address the concerns of the landowners. Do not confuse the two issues but deal with them separately. Compromise will only result in unhealthy water. The equity issue will need to be addressed. Perhaps an appraisal of the land will help determine its value if it were to be zoned in five acre lots. As the Triangle grows, everyone' s property will increase in value. This is an attractive area where the quality of life is excellent. If safe drinking water is not available, property values will decrease. BILL BURCH, member of the Landowners Association, stated that clean water is the issue. What needs to be considered are other alternatives than those listed in the CDM report. He would like for the County to find other ways to protect the watershed and keep the restrictions away from the property owners. He talked about the handicapped and their inability to live in a three story house. He asked that the County look at the N.C. Environmental Health and Natural Resources guidelines. He had a conversation with Mr. Alan Klimek who stated that the County did not need five acres to protect the water system but that two acres would be sufficient in the WSI watershed. He did not say that detention ponds would be required on two acres as CDM indicates. He said the impervious ratio of six percent has created a lot of problems in Wake County. Mr. Klimek stated th:°-.. as long as it was a single family dwelling, there was no need for very strict impervious ratios. This takes the rights away from the people to construct swimming pools, tennis courts, a barn for a horse and a basketball goal. MARY BUSHNELL urged the elected officials to consider undertaking the land use control strategies as specified in the CDM Study. The essential question is how best to protect the water in the University Lake Watershed. In the CDM report, non-structural strategies allow for some degradation but it is minimal. The chart of other land use scenarios shows increasing degradation rather dramatically. The fragility, the small size of the watershed makes it very important that caution and great caring in how it is protected be used. The maintenance cost of the detention ponds need to be considered. The growth in this area that is expected in the next decade could be enormous and more water will be used. The decisions made now will have ramifications all the way down the line for the future. It would be very useful if the issue of establishing water protection standards could be separated from the issue of how to implement those standards and equitably share the cost and responsibility for implementing them as two separate items. The priority needs to be the protecting of the water. ERWIN DANZIGER stated that as a landowner he feels he needs some protection for the water. He supports Mr. Collins' recommendation. SARAH CARTER, rural resident of Orange County, expressed her concern for her family. She is heir to twenty acres that is to be divided between seven children. They are farmers and have always had clean water. She asked that they be allowed to divide this parcel using the two acre lot minimum instead of the five acre requirement. She asked that the rules not be changed in the middle of the game. r • Commissioner Willhoit stated that the Planning Director's recommendation would permit dividing a twenty acre parcel into seven lots. Chair Carey suggested Mrs. Carter go to the County Planning Office and ask how these changes affect her individual property: Town Council Member Hilliard Caldwell made comments about the complexity of the report. CATHY CARROLL spoke in support of Option 2 as presented by Marvin Collins. She agrees that everyone needs clean drinking water and that it should be achieved through the most responsible and fair means possible. It is possible to work with two acre lots and detention ponds with attention to details. MARK O'NEILL of Flat River Properties asked that as many options as possible be provided so that the individual landowner can apply those options in the most environmentally sound and in the most economically sound manner. He supports Option 2 with two exceptions. He feels that water and sewer extension with some properties makes sense and the option of community water systems need to be looked at. He feels that the process for so long that the basic economic model of supply and demand that createssvalue in llandn is out of kilter. There is so much risk that the people forced to sell their property are losing money. By finalizing the rules, it is hoped that the supply and demand model will come back into kilter. ROBERT GREENBERG is a resident of the University Lake Watershed. He spoke as a pediatrician and urged them to choose the most restrictive options for development in University Lake Watershed. Unfortunately any development will lead to deterioration. That can't be prevented. They are learning regularly of adverse health affects from low level pollutants -- pollutants that can't be measured. The latest one is low level lead that has long term affects on the development of young children. The children are most , -' vulnerable to pollutants and they are the ones that will drink the water for the longest period of time and will be the ones that will suffer the most. If public health is a priority, the best solution is no development. If that can't be done, then a decision needs to be made to determine how much risk can be taken and how much deterioration can be tolerated. Restrictions must be adopted to keep the water from deteriorating and then address as a separate issue the problem of costs for those people who want to develop the land. Public health is the most important thing. He urged them to adopt the most restrictive options. There is no going back. Technology does not provide a filter to remove everything. He would like to see it more restrictive than the five acres. He asked that the impervious options not be changed. ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, Vice-President of the Alliance of the Chapel Hill Neighborhood and Associate Professor of English at the University of North Carolina, expressed appreciation for the attention given to both sides of this issue. He made reference to a story and stated that he does not know the magic formula to do what is best for everyone and also create a happy balance between the legitimate claims of private property rights and the rights of public well being. There is no way of knowing what is best for all. The engineering reports and public health studies show that the water supply of the future will be damaged if property rights in this case takes absolute precedence over public well being. He urged them to protect the watershed by the maximum allowed by the options available while endangering property rights as little as p ossible. If the watershed is allowed to make the property of all citizens unsafe, then propeertygrightshin the future will have very little meaning. BETTY 1 stated that it seems there is a group of citizens of this community whose needs are not being addressed often enough here. These are the citizens who have already been priced out of affordable housing. There will be a loss of affordable housing because cause of the five acre limitation. She asked that as the governing bodies make these decisions that they remember that other issues such as affordable housing are directly affected.. BILL BURCH asked about the buffer widths and stated that the state guidelines for buffer. widths is fifty feet plus the slope times four which equals 110 feet. The County recommendation is double that figure. He asked for an explanation stating that if 110, . feet will protect the water system, the governing boards should consider that. . WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. BOARD ACTION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer all items under "D" to the governing boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for a decision and to refer all the items considered at this public hearing to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 2, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With no further comments, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Monday, March 5 at 7:30 in the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk •