Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-06-1997 - 10b A ORANGECOUNTY 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 6, 1997 Action Agenda Item# L0-6 SUBJECT: REPORT ON CITIZEN REQUEST TO MODIFY WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA BOUNDARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes_x—No BUDGET AMENDMENT NEEDED Yes—x No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis 6/19/97 Memo from Marvin Collins Extension 2583 6/6/97 Memo from Warren Faircloth TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 7/18/97 Letter from Sim Efland Hillsborough 732-8181 Map Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To report on a citizen's request to change land use restrictions on his property. BACKGROUND: On May 5, 1997, Sim Efland asked the Board of Commissioners to exclude his property from the critical area of the Upper Eno Watershed. He contends, among other things, that property located in the Seven-mile Creek watershed no longer drains into Seven-Mile Creek because of I-40/1-85 construction. A report by Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor, concerning this issue is attached. Any change to the critical area boundary and restrictions which have been adopted by Orange County would require amendment of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas and Zoning Ordinance through the public hearing process. A description of watershed protection regulations applicable in the Upper Eno critical area and Mr. Efland's complaint regarding the application of those regulations to his property are provided in the attached report entitled "Information Pertaining to 7118197 Complaint by Sim Efland". Mr. Efland has not submitted application materials to request modification of the critical area as it pertains to his property or other properties within the critical area. He may initiate further action through the public hearing process, 2 t as provided for in the County's land development ordinances, by submitting an application for a specific citizen-initiated ordinance amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. In response to Mr. Efland's concerns, the Board of Commissioners may: 1. Direct staff to review and study the Upper Eno water supply watershed regulations; or 2. Reaffirm agreement with existing regulations. INFORMATION PERTAINING TO 3 7/18/97 COMPLAINT BY SIM EFLAND Watershed Protection Regulations in Upper Eno Critical Area Prepared by Orange County Planning Department September 25, 1997 1. DEFINITION OF CRITICAL AREA a) State-Mandated Watershed Protection Regulations The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) limits land uses, impervious surface and lot sizes within water supply watersheds. The regulations are more stringent for the area within 1/2 mile of reservoirs than for the remainder of the watershed. The area within 1/2 mile of a reservoir must be designated as"critical area".. b) Orange County Watershed Protection Regulations Orange County includes land area within ten water supply watersheds. Only the University Lake, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Watersheds contain critical area. The critical areas for the University Lake and Cane Creek Watersheds include the area within one-half mile of the respective reservoirs. The critical area for the Upper Eno watershed includes area within one-half mile of 1) three existing reservoirs (Corporation Lake, Lake Orange and Lake Ben Johnston); 2) one proposed reservoir(West Fork of Upper Eno),which was identified as one of four potential reservoir sites in a 1987 study by Hazen and Sawyer; 3) four remaining potential reservoir sites identified in the above-mentioned study (Seven-mile Creek, Eno River above Hall's Mill Road, Eno River above McGowan Creek, and Corporation Lake expansion); and 4) the Eno River itself in the stretches between the critical areas associated with the existing and potential reservoirs listed above. Designation of the land within one-half mile of Corporation Lake, Lake Orange, and Lake Ben Johnston as critical area is mandated by the State. Designation of the land within one-half mile of proposed and potential reservoir sites, and along the connecting segments of the Eno River as critical area is a local option. 4 The 1987 Hazen and Sawyer Report recommended that the potential reservoir site for Seven-mile Creek be protected through acquisition and land use restrictions, even if and after a reservoir is built on the West Fork_of the Upper Eno. The study concluded that the West Fork reservoir may not contain sufficient capacity to meet water needs beyond the year 2020, and an additional reservoir may be needed. 2. DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS WITHIN CRITICAL AREAS Commercial and industrial land uses are not allowed. The minimum size of new lots is two acres. There are also limits on impervious surface, and requirements for stream buffers. 3. COMPLAINT OF MR. EFLAND Mr. Efland contends that critical area within one-half mile of Seven-Mile Creek is not needed for the protection of drinking water,and unnecessarily restricts the use of his property. When he appeared before the Board of Commissioners on May 5, Mr. Efland asked that the critical area designation be removed on the basis of changes in run-off patterns after the improvements were made to 1-85 and Mt. Willing Road. However, review of drainage patterns by Warren Faircloth, Erosion, Control Supervisor, revealed no evidence that run-off from Mr. Efland's property had been diverted away from Seven-mile Creek. In the attached letter to the Board of Commissioners dated July 15, 1997, Mr. Efland asked that the Board remove the critical area designation from the property since the Town of Hillsborough will be constructing a reservoir in on the West Fork of the Upper Eno. His letter stated that the Town of Hillsborough has no interest in the Seven-mile Creek site due to the potential impacts of I-85, Highway 70 and the Southern Railroad on the quality of any future water supply at that location. 5. APPROVAL PROCESS Changes to the critical area or its restrictions will require amending the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas, and Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Atlas and Zoning Ordinance text amendments are generally presented for public hearing after adoption of corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendments. However, concurrent consideration has been the practice where atlas or text amendments are needed in order to avoid inconsistency between the Plan and implementing ordinances. For example,previous Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas/Ordinance amendments for Watershed Protection Overlays and Economic Development Districts have been concurrent. Proposed amendments are presented at a quarterly public hearing(held in February, May, August or November). After the public hearing,the proposal would be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. The Board of Commissioners would make its decision after receiving the Planning Board recommendation. ♦ � ���'� �.-,„,�z ,�c�,�� �as^3 ter' 6Wj'SiYS2Fw , §5}d S �5� III ' _ - J _ w 'i e r 5 MEMORANDUM Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278 Telephone: (919)732-8181 FAX:(919)644-3002 To: John Link, County Manager From: Marvin Collins,Planning Director Date: June 19, 1997 Subject: Sim Efland's Complaint Re: Seven Mile Creek Watershed Copies: Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Mary Willis,Planner III/Current Planning Supervisor Warren Faircloth,Erosion Control Officer Gene Bell,Planner III/Comprehensive Planning Supervisor At the May 5, 1997 meeting of the Board of Commissioners, Sim Efland appeared to voice a complaint about the diversion of runoff by the widening of I-85, and, as a result, the affect of land use restrictions on his property in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed. Based on Mr. Efland's complaint, I asked Mary Willis to look into the problem. She, in turn, sought Warren Faircloth's assistance, and he met with Mr. Efland and his realtor. The attached memorandum contains Warren's findings which may be summarized as follows: • There appears to have been no diversion of the runoff from Mr. Efland's property away from Seven Mile Creek. • Mr. Efland has a concern as to whether a reservoir on Seven Mile Creek is needed, given the construction of the Hillsborough reservoir on the Eno River. • Defining the critical area based on the ridge line versus a "half-mile" standard seems to be a ' concern. With regard to the last concern,I have asked Mary Willis to contact the State to determine if a ridge line can be used to define the critical area instead of a half-mile radius. As soon as an answer is obtained, we will ascertain what impact, if any, the differing standards have on Mr. Efland's Property. With regard to the second concern, the decision to remove Seven Mile Creek Reservoir as a potential future reservoir from the Land Use Element must be made by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. If the Board wishes to pursue such an option, one consideration would be the long-term raw water needs of the county. Seven Mile Creek Reservoir has been included in the Land Use Element for that purpose and to provide a measure of protection 6 until the reservoir is constructed. If Mr. Efland wishes to petition the Board to amend the Land Use Element,the same kinds of considerations would be necessary. I trust this information as well as that provided by Warren will answer any questions the Board may have. 7 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 8181 306-F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V Il a•', EROSION CONTROL DIVISION Carrboro/Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Telephone Extension 2586 FAX 919-6443002 Memorandum TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Sim Efland' s Property at I-85 and Mt. Willing Road and His Complaint .About Diversion of Water from One Watershed to Another By NC DOT DATE: June 6, 1997. The Complaint Planning Department staff-was instructed to look into a complaint made before the Board of County Commissioners . The complaint was that water had been diverted from it natural course by the widening of I-85 and, as a result, the land use restrictions on the property may have been affected. The property is in the Seven Mile Creek watershed, which is a proposed reservoir site. The land use restriction is the critical area around the perimeter of the proposed reservoir where certain types of development are prohibited or restricted. Investigation Mr. Efland was contacted, and I met with him and his realtor, Mary McClure of Geocorp, on Tuesday May 27, 1997. This was done to get the complaint straight from him along with the details . I took an aerial photograph and topographic map of the area as references so that Mr. Efland could point out the locations of the complaints and I could record them for reference. Mr. Efland related anecdotes about the original construction of I-85 and how, according to him, runoff from his property that had flowed to the west along West Ten Road was diverted to flow to the north along Mt. Willing Road. He stated that the northwest corner of his property where US 70 and I-85 come together drained under I-85 to the south before the recent widening but now drains to the northeast away from Seven Mile Creek. Exactly how this was accomplished given the topography was not specified. He and Ms. McClure also talked at length about Hillsborough's new reservoir in northern Orange County and that the Seven Mile Creek site would not' be built now. They reasoned that the watershed restrictions on Mr. Efland's property should be removed. They said that a potential buyer had been interested in developing the property but lost interest when told of the watershed restrictions on use of the property. Mr. Efland, Ms. McClure, and I then rode around the property and the new roads to look at the drainage patterns on the ground and those on the topographic map. After the meeting I road around the area to observe the present drainage patterns. Slade McCalip also contacted NC DOT and got copies of the plans for the widening of I-85 . 8 Evaluation It is difficult to determine the validity of the complaint about changing the drainage patterns where runoff from Mr. Efland,s property goes under Mt . Willing Road. This area has been altered several times by the original I-85 construction and the recent widening. I have no topographic maps showing the original contours of the area prior to I-85 . However, it is difficult to imagine a diversion toward the north g-ven the slopes of the land and road ditches. It does appear that it is possible that the drainageway originally went diagonally across the interchange to pipes on the north side of West Ten Road and that the construction of I-85 moved the drainageway slightly north where it flowed under the interstate and then to the pipes under West Ten. If this were the case it would have been only a minor change since the water ended up in the same place. Again it is impossible to know if this is what actually occurred. From the field investigation and review of topographic maps and NC DOT' s plans for I-85 widening I see no evidence that runoff from the northwest corner of Mr. Efland' s property has been diverted away from Seven Mile Creek as was charged. DOT' s plans show storm drains catching the runoff from this area and draining it to a sediment pond south of the interstate. The main point of the complaint is not changes in the drainage patterns but the status of Seven Mile Creek as a reservoir site and whether the watershed restrictions should remain. I explained that this point should be discussed with other Planning staff, I was just investigating the original complaint about changes in the drainage patterns. There is one point about the water quality critical area boundary that I told Mr. Efland he should investigate if he thought use of his property was unfairly restricted. I am not familiar with exactly how the critical area boundary was determined, but it seemed illogical that the critical area for the creek below Mt. Willing Road does not stop at the ridge that runs southwest to northeast. Whether this ridge would eliminate the critical area on Mr. Efland's property I do not know, but I suggested they investigate this point. Let me know if you have questions or want more information. xc: Mary C. McClure, Geocorp 137 6-6-97 9 July 18, 1997 Board of Commissioners Orange County + PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 On May 5th of this year when we met,I requested that my property be removed from the Water Quality Critical Area Line at Mt.Willing Road and I-85/40. I took the following actions. Mr. Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer for the County,carne out and examined the flow patterns from/to my land and that of the surrounding land. It is difficult to pinpoint the changes in flow given the lack of prior topographic maps and all the work done by DOT over the years in this area. Mrs. McClure of GEOCORP, on my behalf"discussed the 7 Mile Creek Site with Mr.Tom Hartye, Hillsborough's Engineer on June 2. He told her that as the Town had already begun the process of building a reservoir in Cedar Grove, there was no interest in another site,especially 7 Mile Creek Site--given the fact that the Interstates,Hwy. 70, and the railroad run through the drainage into 7 Mile Creek. As I see it, the County does not intend to build 7 Mile Creek Reservoir. I ask that the Commissioners change the Water Quality Critical Area restriction from my property. Respectfully, L Simpso Efland f .