Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20091013 Work Session APPROVED 11/17/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION October 13, 2009 7:00p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 1. Land Application of Wastewater Biosolids Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that he and Rosemary Summers will be tag-teaming. He said that the County has been dealing with biosolids and sludge application since the 1980's. He said that this is not a new issue. Recently, in March 2008, someone came to the Board about Burlington's biosolids permit renewal. This set in stage some actions and memoranda from the advisory boards, Board of County Commissioners, and the Division of Water Quality. These are all attached to the abstract. He said that in the end, there were a number of issues identified. In August 2009, there was a proposal by the Health Department to take work with the UNC School of Public Health and turn it into a forum concept. The forum process would have a neutral party to come and provide information about the topic and boil issues down to key questions that need to be answered or that need further research. The legality of the issues has been addressed by John Roberts in the attachments. Health Director Rosemary Summers said that the Health Department does have a program governed by local rules of monitoring of biosolid sites in Orange County. The monitoring is done by unscheduled visits when the Health Department is notified that the application will be taking place. This monitoring is only done to make sure permits are being followed and there is no regulatory authority. The Health Department could report to the Division of Water Quality, who is the regulator and enforcer. Dave Stancil said that Cooperative Extension has been involved in these discussions along with ERCD and the Health Department. He made reference to the four bullets on page 3, which are bigger picture questions: • Engaging the State and utility providers in an enhanced monitoring and maintenance program, • Memoranda of Agreement with the State or with utility providers tp provide for more communication and monitoring, • Exploration of activities by other counties around the nation in addressing biosolids issues, and - Other potential joint or partnership activities that furthers needed knowledge or information regarding biosolids application. Commissioner Pelissier asked about the resources available if a task force were to be formed. She suggested making this a collaborative effort between the boards and commissions. She also asked about the outcomes of this forum with the "unbiased expert." She said that having a variety of speakers would provide different views. Frank Clifton said that an unbiased person would be a person who would have experience and knowledge and a broader view on this subject of water quality and the environment. Commissioner Jacobs said that they want to have people present, so he would like to invite comments from the public, so there should be some sort of facilitator. He would also like to invite debate. He said that it has already been the position of the County Commissioners of wanting more regulatory control over this issue, and he would like to have this discussed at this forum. He asked the County Attorney for suggestions about this. John Roberts said that he did look into the regulatory options and none are good options. He said that a local bill would not be possible, because it would be unconstitutional since the issue is one of health. A statewide bill is an option, which would grant local governments increased authority to regulate. There is some movement in the state to seek this. There is a statute that allows regional solid waste management authorities to regulate and manage sludge. There are only two regional solid waste management authorities in the state on the coast that regulate sludge. They only attempt to regulate it within the confines of their landfills. The final option would be litigation, and that is not really regulation. In this option, the County would sue the state for failing to adequately monitor the application of biosolids in Orange County. The two options that are most likely to succeed are showing the violation of the constitution of provisions that the state is required to follow and showing that the state is not adequately enforcing its own rules and regulations. He said that the state is currently looking at the Sludge Application Study of 2009 and whether current regulation of the land application of sludge adequately protects health and the environment. This report is due in 2010. His recommendation as far as regulation is that, if Orange County wants to seek partners to look for increased authority on a statewide basis, this could be started immediately. Also, the County could wait for the results of the study and see if the state does anything about it. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the forum and said that one of the things it is looking for is prioritized research needs. He said that the County is not spending all of the money on the study with UNC and he suggested using some of this money to looking into the research needs. Rosemary Summers said that there was $10,000 from the Health Department's budget that was encumbered for the research study, and none of it has been used because it was not an adequate amount to fund the research. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would be concerned that the forum would be preaching to the choir. She feels that the task force would be more productive. She thinks that the big questions are: Is it safe? Should we be doing it? What can we do about it? Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners have tried to move forward twice legislatively and she sees the forum as educating more than just the County. She thinks that it would be hard to move forward with staffing a task force until there is an education piece. Frank Clifton said that a public forum could be well publicized. His big question is how much money the County Commissioners want to spend studying this. Commissioner Pelissier said that she wants to see a forum on this issue. Some people are interested in the control of applications and some are interested in the science of biosolids. She said that the fundamental question is whether this is safe, that this should be viewed as a "stage" process, and some of the questions on page 14 should be addressed. Commissioner Gordon said that she has some of the same questions as Commissioner Hemminger about what a forum could do. She wonders whether a task force would be a better method to address this issue. She said that OWASA may be willing to have its sludge tested, but it is Class A. There are others that have Class B, and this is most worrisome. She would like to know if there is any way to do the study that the Health Department proposed and if not, then why. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks the County's interest in regulating is to have biosolids not put in environmentally sensitive areas and water quality critical areas. He would like to explore some minimum standards. He would like to start off with a forum, which could yield a task force. He also suggested finding out what kind of research the state was doing, so that there is no duplication. Rosemary Summers said that she may have more information tomorrow after the Health Directors' meeting. Commissioner Yuhasz said that they need to know how dangerous biosolids are and holding a forum could answer this question. He suggested having the person doing the state study come to the forum. Craig Benedict said that the location of the application of biosolids is involved in the permit process. He said that the critical area maps that are designated watersheds by the Environmental Management Commission have different shapes around the reservoirs than what the County has. He said that maybe a regulatory avenue is that the County's watersheds are more critical because they are so limited with headwaters. This might be a way that the County can influence where biosolids are applied. Dave Stancil said that the Department of Agriculture study will be interesting. He said that the language in the legislation reads a lot like someone has been thinking about the same things that the County has been trying to address. He will be curious to see how quickly the study is released. Rosemary Summers made reference to the research study and said that there were farmers that did agree to have researchers look at their farms. She said that $10,000 was not enough for the sampling that would provide the scientific validity. Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners need to decide how much money to spend on research. She said that she is not convinced that a forum is worth $10,000. Dave Stancil said that the recommendation was to authorize staff to modify the forum concept and to find some ground that addresses the Board's desired outcomes. Frank Clifton spoke again in support of the forum. Chair Foushee said that there is general support to move forward with the forum as outlined in the Manager's recommendation, with the reservations articulated. The Board agreed. 2. NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail — Orange County Segment Dave Stancil said that this is a follow-up on the NC Mountains to Sea Trail — Orange County Segment. Rich Shaw made a PowerPoint presentation. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) is a planned 1,000 mile trail that will traverse the state from the Great Smoky Mountains in western North Carolina to the Outer Banks on the Atlantic coast. In 2000 the NC General Assembly authorized the MST as part of the North Carolina Parks System (Attachment 2). More than 500 miles of the MST has been constructed thus far, and with temporary connectors on back roads and bike trails, people can already hike across the entire state. Most of the existing MST is in western and eastern NC, constructed largely by volunteers on federally- owned lands in cooperation with state and local governments. Developing the trail through the more populated Piedmont section of the state, however, will require special consideration, more-complicated planning, and a boost of state funds. From 2005-2007 the Division of State Parks (NC DENR) held stakeholder meetings to identify a preferred route through Alamance, Orange and Durham counties. Orange County staff (ERCD, Parks & Recreation, and Planning) participated in those meetings along with land trusts and other groups from across the Piedmont. The preferred trail route through the "Eastern Piedmont" was identified by State Parks in 2007 as a result of those stakeholder meetings (Attachment 3). In Orange County the planned MST corridor starts at the Haw River in the far southeast corner, follows Cane Creek northeast through the OWASA Reservoir lands, and cuts overland through the Seven Mile Creek Preserve to Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area. From Occoneechee Mountain the trail follows the Eno River along Hillsborough's Riverwalk and through Eno River State Park into Durham County (Attachment 4). The adjoining counties (Alamance and Durham) have already endorsed the State's planned MST trail corridor and are working with the State Trails Program, Friends of the Mountains-to- Sea Trail, and other partners to acquire land (and trail easements) and construct the trail. Alamance County is constructing two miles of trail per year. Durham County is working with Wake County and others to complete 46 miles of trail around Falls Lake. The Town of Hillsborough has also endorsed the MST route through its jurisdiction. While Orange County has discussed the trail corridor on a number of occasions, the County has not yet endorsed the State's planned MST trail route. The Orange County segment of the trail is one of the more complex links in the system. It includes one of the few stretches of trail that must cross overland from one major river basin to another without the benefit of natural features and publicly-owned land. Staff has identified the following decision points for Board discussion and feedback: 1) Is the Board ready to endorse the general alignment of the planned MST corridor through Orange County? (If so, staff would suggest several steps to validate this action in existing plans and programs.) 2) How should the County coordinate with OWASA on the MST trail alignment? 3) Can Staff collaborate with the Town of Hillsborough to identify the MST trail linkages to both ends of the Town's Riverwalk? 4) How aggressively should ERCD prioritize MST land acquisition through the Lands Legacy program? 5) Does the Board agree with focusing initial efforts in the vicinity of the County's Seven Mile Creek Preserve? Background information for the Board to consider each of these decision points is provided as Attachment 1. This includes information on the MST support mechanisms, operation and maintenance of the trail, and follow-up items that would be brought back for subsequent Board action. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no impact associated with this item. Several follow-up actions, if pursued, would have financial implications. The approved FY 2009-2019 CIP includes $1.26 million from FY 2013-2016 for Lands Legacy/MST. If the planned NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail were constructed through Orange County, the costs of developing and maintaining a trail would likely be shared among various public and private landowners (including Orange County), along with volunteer assistance coordinated by Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail. Likely partners include the Town of Hillsborough, Eno River State Park, Preservation North Carolina, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and others. State grant funds for land acquisition and trail construction is designated a top priority for the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF), with additional funding from the State Recreational Trail Grant Program, and (only recently) the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund also possible. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive the staff report and provide feedback and direction to staff for bringing action steps back to the Board at a future meeting. No formal action is requested at this time. Environment & Resource Conservation Dept. October 13, 2009 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail October is Mountains-to-Sea Month What and Where is the MST? •Concept in 1973 (proposed trail thru 37 counties) •Authorized by Gen. Assembly 2000 (NC Park System) •1,000-mile footpath (Great Smoky Mtns to Outer Banks) •Nearly 500 miles open for use (15 miles built in 2008) •Eastern Piedmont section is challenging NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail thru Orange County (map) Discussion / Feedback: •Endorse the planned MST route? •Coordinate with OWASA? •Collaborate with Hillsborough? •Priority for Lands Legacy program? •Initial focus in Seven Mile Creek area / develop draft Master Plan for Preserve? •A long-term project providing opportunities and assistance to achieve other short-term County conservation objectives •Potential partnerships —Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail —State Trails Program (NCDENR and trust funds) —OWASA —Town of Hillsborough —Eno River State Park —Private landowners! Attachment 1 NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail Corridor through Orange County Key Questions and Decision Points Background The North Carolina Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) is a planned 1,000-mile trail that will traverse the state from the Great Smoky Mountains in western North Carolina to the Outer Banks on the Atlantic coast (Attachment 2). The MST trail corridor has been defined in the eastern and western parts of the state for some time now, but the route through the more-populous eastern Piedmont had not been identified until recent years. In 2007, the State Parks office approved a proposed corridor for the "Eastern Piedmont" section of the MST as shown on the map (Attachment 3). The primary trail route would connect Haw River State Park north of Greensboro to Falls Lake in Wake County. In Alamance County the trail would follow the Haw River to the Alamance/Orange county line. The trail would then turn northeast along Cane Creek through OWASA-owned land at Cane Creek Reservoir, and then continue northeast through the County's Seven Mile Creek Preserve to Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area. From Occoneechee Mountain the trail would follow the Eno River along Hillsborough's Riverwalk and through Eno River State Park into Durham County. The general route for the MST corridor through Orange County is shown on Attachment 4. The proposed MST from Hillsborough east is largely through public lands and private conservation lands along the Eno River. Eno River State Park has already identified a specific MST route through the park. West and south of Hillsborough, however, the specific trail route is uncertain and complicated by the fact that more land is in private ownership. It is important to point out that all MST trail segments are considered "planned" or"proposed" routes until the trail is already constructed and formally designated part of the State Trail system. A government agency must submit a formal application for designation. Alamance County had one section of trail designated MST in 2008 and another section that is pending. Although discussed in previous years, Orange County has not yet endorsed the State's planned MST trail route through the county. Toward that end, Staff has identified the following decision points for Board discussion and feedback: 1) Is the Board ready to endorse the general alignment of the planned MST corridor through Orange County? The State's preferred route was identified in 2007 following a two-year stakeholder process that included involving Orange County staff, OWASA staff, land trusts, Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail, and the staff from neighboring jurisdictions. The two points where the MST would enter Orange County from its western and eastern boundaries have been endorsed by the neighboring jurisdictions. Durham County approved the route as part of its City-County Greenways Plan adopted in 2001. Alamance County approved of the route in 2006 as part of its adoption of the Haw River Trail. Both counties are now working with the NC Division of Parks and Recreation, Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail and other partners to establish the trail in those jurisdictions. Alamance County received a 2008 grant from the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund to acquire MST trail segments, and has been acquiring land and trail easements on private land at the rate of two miles per year. Durham County signed a memorandum of agreement with other partners in 2006 to complete the Falls Lake portion of the trail (46 miles). The Town of Hillsborough adopted a resolution in 2005 recommending that the selected route of the MST incorporate the Hillsborough Riverwalk from downtown Hillsborough to Occoneechee Mountain. Phase I of the trail was completed with the recent opening of Gold Park and Phase II is now underway with land acquisition for the rest of the trail completed earlier this year. Other jurisdictions have adopted resolutions to endorse or adopt the MST corridor and an example is provided here, for the Board's consideration for action at a future meeting (Attachment 5). If the Board approves the general MST trail corridor, Staff will incorporate the planned trail in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, the existing Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and include it in an update to the County's parks master plan envisioned for 2010-2011. This action will enable the reservation or acquisition of trail corridor as future development occurs and as conservation opportunities arise along the planned MST route. 2) How should the County coordinate with OWASA on the MST trail alignment? The proposed MST trail would pass through lands owned and managed by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). OWASA staff participated in the stakeholder meetings held by State Parks in 2005-2007 to identify the best trail corridor. Since then ERCD has met twice with the OWASA staff to discuss the proposed route. OWASA staff prefers to wait until the BOCC has given its preliminary approval of the proposed trail route before taking it to the OWASA board for consideration and approval. If the Board indicates its endorsement and takes subsequent action to this effect, staff could convey this to OWASA via a letter from the Chair. 3) May Staff collaborate with the Town of Hillsborough on identifying the MST trail link to the Town's Riverwalk? Hillsborough staff also participated in the stakeholder meetings held by the NC Division of Parks and Recreation to identify the best trail corridor. The Town adopted a resolution in 2005 recommending that the MST incorporate the Eno Riverwalk from downtown Hillsborough to Occoneechee Mountain. Since then, ERCD has participated in two informal meetings with Town staff and the Eno River Association to discuss the potential extension of the Riverwalk, including a proposed "Phase III" of the Riverwalk into the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction. If the Board concurs, ERCD could work with the Town and others to identify potential trail routes to expand the Riverwalk west to connect Occoneechee Mountain with the Seven Mile Creek Preserve, and east to connect the County's River Park with Eno River State Park. 4) How aggressively should ERCD prioritize MST land acquisition through the Lands Legacy program? ERCD is prepared to include MST corridor planning and acquisition in the 2010-12 Lands Legacy Action Plan, as has been the case in previous two-year plans, but guidance from the Board would be useful in determining how to prioritize this project among the other Lands Legacy projects. State grant funds for land acquisition and trail construction is available from the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (the MST is now a top priority for PARTF grants), the State Recreational Trail Grant Program, and the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund. State Parks staff has indicated State funds for land acquisition will be earmarked for Orange County (once the state budget situation improves) as part of the State's interest in "jumpstarting" the MST in the Eastern Piedmont section. The adopted CIP allocates $1.26 million for land acquisition for Lands Legacy/ Mountains-to-Sea Trail, beginning in 2013-14 and continuing to 2016-17. There is also $2.8 million remaining from the voter-approved 2001 Parks and Open Space bond (Lands Legacy portion) that is or will be available for acquisition of public accessible parks and open space lands. At this point, Board direction on whether to consider this a high, medium or low priority will be useful, as staff is developing the draft 2010-2012 Lands Legacy Action Plan. A listing of other priorities that have been identified to date is available at the Board's places. This draft plan is slated to come to the Board in early 2010, after receiving comments and thoughts from advisory boards. 5) Does the Board agree with focusing initial efforts in the vicinity of the County's Seven Mile Creek Preserve? If the Board sees the MST as a priority, staff feels that the Seven Mile Creek Preserve may be a fitting place to start. Focusing initial attention on the MST segment in the Seven Mile Creek portion of the Upper Eno Watershed is suggested for several reasons: a) The County already owns nearly 300 acres for the Seven Mile Creek Preserve, and the planned MST corridor would travel through that property. b) ERCD is in contact with four landowners who are interested in selling or donating land for the Preserve. Three are key properties adjacent to County-owned land, and one of these priorities has been negotiated and is planned for the October 20 Board agenda. c) State funds for land acquisition are likely to be earmarked for Orange County once the state budget situation improves. State Parks staff has indicated a preference for the Seven Mile Creek area because the County has already acquired land in that area and is within reach of other public lands. d) As noted in the budget service reduction materials from last spring, while a lull in park master planning is anticipated during 2009-10, staff did anticipate the need to begin at least internal efforts toward developing a master plan for Seven Mile Creek Preserve, which would identify recommended future boundaries, access points, recreation sites, natural and historical points of interest, and the future MST corridor. Finally, as has been noted in previous Lands Legacy Action Plans, the Seven Mile Creek Preserve, when viewed in the larger context of preservation in the Neuse (Falls Lake) basin, offers an opportunity as a gateway for linking conservation areas to the north, potentially expanding the formal conservation of land northward along the Eno River to include several existing permanent conservation "nodes." ERCD staff will be available to answer questions and to provide additional information about these issues at the October 13 work session. Commissioner Pelissier asked how many miles the trail would be if it started at Seven Mile Creek. She said that the Commission for the Environment does set priorities for the Lands Legacy program and she is curious to know where the Mountains to Sea Trail is on the priority list. Dave Stancil said that the MST has been on the Commission for the Environment priority list for a while. Regarding the mileage at Seven Mile Creek, he would say about 2-4 miles. The Board agreed to move forward with this endorsement of the general alignment. Commissioner Gordon would like to get feedback from the Commission for the Environment with respect to the Lands Legacy Program. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about a sample resolution and Dave Stancil said that he would communicate with OWASA first and then communicate to the Board. 3. Amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement and to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Boundary Perdita Holtz made a PowerPoint presentation. The full agreement is Attachment 2. BACKGROUND: At the August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing (non-public hearing portion of the agenda), staff presented the proposed work plan to begin implementation of the adopted small area plans. Changes to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement and to the "Critical Area" of the Upper Eno watershed were two of the higher priority items to accomplish further implementation of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (Attachment 1 is the entire Recommendations section of the plan). Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) WASMPBA is an agreement signed in 2001 between Orange County, OWASA, and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough. The agreement (included as Attachment 2) provides a comprehensive county-wide system of utility service areas upon which signatory entities could rely when making decisions related to issues such as planning, land use, annexation, zoning, and growth management. One of the recommendations contained in the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan is to amend Orange County's "Primary Service Area" on the map that is part of the Agreement (see pages 69-71 and 82 of plan). Attachment 3 is a map that shows the proposed changes to Orange County's Primary Service Area (PSA) in Cheeks Township. The area to be added to the PSA in the southeast portion of the existing PSA (in the vicinity of Mt. Willing Road and Interstate 40/85) reflects the proposed new "Critical Area" boundary for Seven Mile Creek (further discussed in the next section). It should also be noted that the two areas currently in the PSA proposed for removal from the PSA are not part of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan recommendations; rather, staff is proposing them for deletion to be consistent with the Land Use Element Map and the County's development goals and policies. The areas proposed for removal from the PSA would be changed to "Orange County Long-Term interest Area." The Town of Hillsborough is also interested in amending its Primary Service Area to be in keeping with the outcomes of the Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan. Town officials are currently discussing whether the Town will bring its amendments forward at this time. Amendments to the WASMPBA require the approval of all agreement signatories. Planning staff proposes to meet with the staff of signatory entities to discuss the proposed changes and devise a process to bring agreement amendments forward to the various governing boards. Staff is requesting BOCC authorization to begin this amendment process. Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area One of the recommendations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan is to reevaluate the Critical Area boundary for Seven Mile Creek because the boundary is based upon a reservoir being created on Seven Mile Creek and the full pool elevation of the reservoir was used as the calculation point for the %-mile Critical Area boundary. A reservoir is no longer being proposed so the Critical Area boundary should be changed to reflect this. Attachment 4 is a map depicting the proposed revisions to the Seven Mile Creek Critical Area boundary. Since Seven Mile Creek is still a water supply source for the Town of Hillsborough's water supply, a %-mile buffer from the centerline of the "fifth order" segment of the creek will continue to apply. As an aside, stream orders are a stream hierarchy determined by the number of tributary confluence flowing into a particular stream. Staff is also suggesting that previous changes to the Upper Eno Critical Area be formalized. In 2005, staff redrew the original 1994 critical area boundary to be consistent with the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The revised boundary was placed on the Land Use Element map and the Zoning Atlas. Recent developments in other jurisdictions in the State have led staff to conclude that even though the boundary was drawn to reflect the pertinent text in the Zoning Ordinance, the map changes should go through the formal procedure to amend the Land Use Element Map and the Zoning Atlas. Attachment 5 depicts both the original 1994 Critical Area line and the revised 2005 Critical Area along with the various 1/4-mile buffers of the stream segments and impoundments. Staff is planning to place the Upper Eno Critical Area revisions on the February 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing agenda. The revisions will be to both the Land Use Element Map and the Zoning Atlas. Staff is currently evaluating whether revisions to the text of the Land Use Element and/or Zoning Ordinance will also be necessary. Property owners will be notified of the proposed map changes as required by Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, staff will hold a public information session on the proposal the week before the public hearing to inform property owners regarding the effect of the proposed changes for their individual property. The public information session notice would be mailed along with the required public hearing notice to minimize postage and other resource costs. Proposed Amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement and to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Boundary BOCC work session October 13, 2009 •August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing: staff outlined proposed processes for implementing Small Area Plans (SAPs) Shaded items on SAP Recommendation matrix to be pursued first •These two items would implement recommendations contained in the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (adopted June 2006) Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement 02001 agreement (local governments and OWASA) •Provides a comprehensive county-wide system of water and sewer service areas •Included map depicting Primary and Long Term Interest Areas •Efland-Mebane SAP recommends additions to the County's Primary Service Area •County service accomplished through local government/Utility interlocal agreements Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement Staff is also recommending areas for deletion from the County's Primary Service Area to be consistent with the Land Use Element Map and the County's development goals and policies •The Town of Hillsborough (TOH) is also considering amendments to its Primary Service Area •Discussed at Town Board meeting on October 12 •Town is ready to move forward with changing its outlying Primary Service Area to Long-Term Interest Area •New Primary Service Area would be in accordance with the TOH/OC Strategic Growth Plan and Interlocal Agreement •Primarily based on existing water resources •Amendments to the Agreement require the approval of all signatories •Staff is requesting authorization to begin the amendment process •If the BOCC authorizes us to begin, we plan to meet with staff of the signatory entities soon •Expect County changes and Hillsborough changes to move through the process together Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Part 1 — Seven Mile Creek area Part 2 — Upper Eno River area Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Part 1 Background •Efland-Mebane SAP recommended a re-evaluation of the Critical Area boundary for Seven Mile Creek Boundary is based on a reservoir being created on Seven Mile Creek to supply water to Hillsborough •Town of Hillsborough created the West Fork on the Eno reservoir in early 2000s •Town has no current plans to pursue a reservoir on Seven Mile Creek Since 2000, County has been pursuing establishment of a Nature Preserve for the Seven Mile Creek area •County has augmented property ownership in the vicinity of the creek to approximately 300 acres •In 2002, County adopted a resolution regarding a Water Summit that included: WHEREAS, the environmental impact and financial cost associated with the development and construction of new reservoirs renders the development of new reservoirs and water supplies within Orange County unlikely; Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Action •Amend Critical Area to reflect actual water resource instead of hypothetical reservoir Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Part 2 -Actions Formalize previous changes to the Upper Eno Critical Area Original 1994 critical area boundary was re-drawn in 2005 using best available technology to be consistent with the text of the Zoning Ordinance •Options: —Add text to Zoning Ordinance regarding hypothetical "Upper Eno above McGowan Creek" reservoir, or —Delete Critical Area associated with this reservoir from overlay on maps —Additionally, text should be added to the Zoning Ordinance to specifically protect a %2 mile buffer from the centerline of the Upper Eno River and Seven Mile Creek •Recent developments in other jurisdictions suggest the County should take the map changes through the formal procedure to amend the Land Use Element Map and the Zoning Atlas •Amend the Critical Area watershed overlay district boundaries on the Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas •Notification in accordance with Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance Suggesting placement on the February 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing agenda Commissioner Yuhasz asked that when staff looks at areas to be added to the primary service area, if it includes most if not all of the area that is going to be removed from the Water Quality Critical Area. He does not understand why the area that is east of the 85/70 connector is being suggested for removal from the primary service area. Perdita Holtz said that the existing County plans (the Land Use Element map and the small area plan) do not contemplate anything other than AR in that area east of the connector. Discussion ensued about utilities. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it does not make sense to him that they would allow utilities on one side of the road and not the other. Craig Benedict said that one of the reasons for that is that the land use plan did not show an urbanizing area on one side of the road. The actual boundary agreement was not in sync with the land use plan, so some of the corrections are to make it in sync with the land use plan. Regarding the 70/85 connector, he said that it would be difficult to service because it is flowing farther east towards the Eno and not towards the Efland area. He said that this area will be highlighted as a decision point. Commissioner Pelissier said that it looks like most of the acreage proposed to be taken out is not within the Efland-Mebane SAP except the portion in the critical watershed. She asked if this was not in the SAP because it was in the critical watershed and Craig Benedict said yes and that the County did not designate any areas of urban growth if it was in a critical area. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought that the 70 expressway was used as a dividing line and just east of the soccer center could not be a service area due to gravity. He said that it looks as if it was added back. Craig Benedict said that there is a super regional lift station that Mebane has installed and this will be able to handle a lot of sewage flow and development in this service area. Commissioner Jacobs asked about Attachments 4 and 5. He said that it looks like the Tree Creek and Rocky Run that flow directly into Seven Mile Creek and the Eno River are not going to be protected. Craig Benedict said that it is still the intent to protect these areas. Commissioner Jacobs said that if this is going to public hearing, it may confuse people and he would hope that what they just discussed would be reflected in the maps. Commissioner Gordon said that it is not clear what the specific changes are that are being proposed. She asked that the maps in the attachments be made clearer. Frank Clifton said that over time, there are some inconsistencies within the documentation of establishing some of the boundaries. Discussion ensued. Frank Clifton made reference to Attachment 3 and highlighted the importance of this while going forward as there is more awareness of the Efland sewer issues and the Buckhorn development district and the histories associated with past decisions. One of his concerns is the design and that there should be some additional capacity because of the investment. Commissioner Jacobs said that the original idea was that Orange County would not be in the water and sewer business. He made reference to the reservoir and pointed out to staff that the Planning Board did an investigation when he was on it and found that the drainage area was very limited for the cost of the amount of gallons that a reservoir would impound and that it was counter-indicated to have a reservoir right next to an eight-lane interstate. He said that there is probably a Planning Board agenda item where it was discussed and voted on. Frank Clifton said that the County is in the sewer business after all because the Town of Hillsborough does not want the sewer system. Commissioner Jacobs said that in the Efland-Mebane Small Area Work Group, people in Efland are adamantly opposed to being part of Mebane. If Mebane provides, then Mebane annexes. This is a very touchy subject. He said that if there is a public discussion, there needs to be caution in how it is phrased. The Board agreed to authorize staff to begin the process of amending the Water and Sewer management, Planning and Boundary Agreement, as outlined. With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board