HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-17-1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BOARD WORK SESSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1982 , 7 : 30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
1. A work session for the discussion of the Water Resources
Task Force Report and the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance which would implement the Report ' s recommendations
4
IP I J// 4
RICHARD WHITTED, 7741w"'
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 77982
TOPIC
ACTION
PAGE
---
Work session on
Water Resources Task Force Board to set a date for
Report
Pub. Hearing on 4/5/82 2
1. C)c)
2.
0 .
3.
4.
5.
MARCH 17, 1982
6.
• The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on
8. Wednesday, March 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange
9. County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
10. The purpose of the meeting was a work session to discuss the Water
Resources Task Force Report, its recomendations_and proposed amendMents':._
12. to the Zoning Ordinance which would implement those recommendations.
13. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners
14. Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
15. Mr. Fred Luce of the Planning Department reviewed the Report's
16. recommendations while Mr. Jim Polatty reviewed the proposed arrendments to
17. the Zoning Ordinance which wouldlintzaement those recommendations.
18. During the discussion, one Board member said the Board could do one
19. of two things; 1) do nothing,or, 2) accept the recommendations which assumed
20. a back up water supply for the Town of Hillsborough.
?1. -Tttuassioner Gustaveson said he felt that this report provided a
22. balanced statement between water quality and industrial development. Mr.
23. Luce said he felt it was the best plan to protect water quality; Commissioner
24. Willhoit, who was on the Task Force, said the primary concern of the Task
25. Force was for water upply and quality while attempting to provide for orderly
26. growth along areas which had transportation.
27. Mr. Don Cox, speaking as a private citizen, said that almost every
28. identified reservoir site in the Upper Eno Watershed was needed and should
29. be preserved. He suggested an engineering study on the feasibility of
30. directing drainage North of 1-85 down into Seven Mile Creek below the
31. dam; he felt that it could be made part of the eventual widening of 1-85.
12. The Board asked that the recommendations be forwarded to the Town of
3. Hillsborough Board of Commissioners for its response and thoughts on the
34. long term water supply of Hillsborough; and, that Planning work with the
35. Department of Transportation to get an engineering study which would
36. accommodate development and at the same time protect the water supply along
37. the 1-85 corridor.
380
39.
40.
t)j-822
0 3
Chairman Whitted said the Board of Commissioners would take the
i proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance based on the Water Resources
Task Force Report recommendations for those areas covered under the Zoning
Ordinance, those designated PW-2. Those recommendations for areas designated
PW-1 are to be returned to the Planning Board and Task Force for further
work. -
The Board decided to consider a date for this public hearing on April 5th
and to draw up the charge for the Water Resources Task Force at this same
time.
The Board adjourned by consensus.
Bieber: E. Whit -.,
1 Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
ORANtE COUNTY
BOARD OF anlISSIONERS
Action Ag=.-nda
Item No. _/-
ACTION AGENDA ITal ABSTRACT
NEET= DATE 3-17-82
Subject: Work Session on the Water Task Force Report.
[ De 1ic tearing: yes
. „
Attachmant(e) : Planning Board Minutes of
Information Contact: Jim Polatty
Water Task Force Zoning Discussions, Plan-
ning Board minutes of Water Task Force Re- Mon.* 'tither: 732-8181 Ext. 342
port-Discuss• • - . • • • "
. ---
minutes of Water Task Force Report Discussions.
Pranning" Board action on Water Task Force
Recommendations; Proposed Zoning Amendments-
Water Task Force Implementation
PURPOSE: A work session to discuss the Report of the Orange County Water Resources
, -- Task Force and proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would
implement certain recommendations in the Report.
NEED: The Board of Commissioners officially received the Report of the Orange
County Water Resources Task Force in June 1981 at which time the Board
referred it to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation. The
Planning Board in turn referred the Report to its Township Advisory
Councils. The review by the Advisory Councils and Planning Board has
been completed. Staff has drafted along with language for the Zoning
Ordinance which would implement certain of the recommendations in the
Report.
. •
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RTT.T.SBOROTTGII
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
_.•ssIg 1 I,
kiIIIIIIIII.:%
6 17;t1F71 1.
1 )
: _,•141
.41 iri....7.
-
•
ti
42+1011
-- .
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 1, 1981
MEMERS PRESENT: PatiCVaWford, Steve Kizer, Alice 03i-don, Att Cleary,
an Bacqa. 'Claudine Harris John Wilson, Nandy'Lasilo„
Hazel Lunsford, Logan Irvin
STAFF PRESMMT: Fred Igoe, Susan Smith, Jim Polatty, Norma. Walker
Agenda Item #1 Additions to the agenda.
Cansideration of Section 2.2.11.i) of the:ZooningOzlinance —
Advisory Councils.
' dt,
, _....
Agenda Item #2 Final Plat of Gail and Gary Barker.
Polatty explained that the Beard of CountyCormisSioners had
initially denied this plat based on a recorrendation by the
Carrboro Planning Board and the Commissioners concern about
continued small lot development in University Lake watershed.
They have set a moritorium on all development in University
Lake watershed but decided to reconsider the Barker stbdiVisi
since it was in process. The Corrassioners have approved the
prelimipary plan.
Xizer moved approval. Seconded by Cleary.. approved
unanimously.
Agenda Item #3 Memo on subdivision which do not core under the roritorium.
Arena to the Board of Commissioners from Staff listing subdii
sins in process which amid be exelapt from the develowent
moritorium in University Lake watershed was handed out for the,
Boards information. Polatty explained that the Board of
„, ,...-4.....:__ ..._ " _. .
• -
,‘ • ' • t'
Planning Board Minutes
September 1, 1981
Page 2
to establish such CounCils.
Polatty said 2.2.11.j establishes the advisory councils.
Nilson said he recalled that the committees in j ware
specialized committAPq and not advisory councils.
Cleary motioned a clarification of section 2.2.114) that t
Board recommend to the and of County Commissioners the
establishment and/or continuation of Township:Advisory Coun
Cooperate with these Councils to the end that the Planning
Board investigations of plans may receive full conaideratia
Gordon seconded. Motion carried withRizer„ Gordon, Cleary
Harris, WilsOn, LaSzlor Lunsford, Irvin in favor and Bacon
abstained.
Agenda Item #4 Consideration of the Water Task Force Report.
Luce suggested that the Board consider each of the immure=
tuns in the Water Task Force Report.
Recommendation 01
Polley on minimizing outflows of water from one major basin
another. Luce described the three major basins in Orange Cc
and the transfers of water which now take place either on a
der-today basis or in water emergency situation. He said t
there was concern on the part of some Task Force members the
water transfers from northern Orange to southern Orange coul
become more conmon to the detriment of water users in the
Hillsborough area.
-
Don Cox, a member of the audience, said, that during recent
droughts, the Eno River was very low and Hillsborough did no
have excess water to give to southern Orange County. He
expressed. concern that the emergency line between Hillsborou
and Chapel Hill would be tapped into for day-to-day use.
Wilson expressed concern that Alamance County was receiving
northern Orange County water while the policy would deny soui
Orange County the same water.
Eizernetioned that the Board of Commissioners adopt)reccurm
tion number one of the Water Task Force. Wilson seconded.
,---4-A _ALA.
!„.6,.%1171111WIIIII40*
• t#1.V047,1k,,
'i••■
•
. •
•
•
P .Sege3 5 1, 1d91 utes
8;
Wig oornnen.ted that he saw a problem with this recaTtrendati
in that it proposed to give sate of the lake Oran water to
the Orange-A3.arnance Water Systems which was pumping it out of
,
the Muse Basin to Mbane, a conflict with recannandation'
=ter me.
Wils aeked why the water supply far Hillsborough deareawd
with tiMe. Luce replied that it was because of the withdrawa3
upstream at C.o.rporation lake.
Kizer motitried apprOVal* Of the sea id recOnifndtion Of the
Water Task Farce. Cleary teccrded Vicrtion. carried with 4 in
Reoonirrelidationfavcir, 3 againsto3and Baca% t
and .asilo abstaining.
Water motion in receiving and withdrawal basins.
Luce described OrAskis water oonservat.ion plan, He said there
was no sa • lan in place for northern Orange.
Kizer in:timed .approval of the recomnendatibn. Laszlo seconded
Approved unanimusly.
Recarrrendatio' n #4
Identification of prin reservoir sites,
Luce described the criteria which we.re used in selecting the th
prirre reservoir sites front among the tweny-nine Ixrtential siteE,
identified in the report.
Kizer questioned why only five sites 1,ere selected. Izvir' noted
that industrial developnent in and around HiLlsborqugh could
cause a great demand for water in the future:
Kizer motioned that reconnendation number four be accepted but
that in addition sites 17 and 18 in the report can the north and
south forks of the Little River be included as protected sites.
... Irvin second ,
Luce noted that the five sites identified in the Report ate
within protected watersheds. The protection of the new
sites would require that additional areas of` 44 r
----7.--.T77•-•-r•mitirrimirir,„
. , •■
,. , ....
,, ; . .', 7•,
•
Planning Board Minutes
September 1, 1981
Page 4
Recormandation #5
Regio' nal water sours investigated and water reserved from
the Jordan.
_ _. .
Irvin moved approval of this reconnendation., Kizer seconded.
Carried unanimusly.
Reconrenriatirm #6
Orange County should prcirrcite efforts to conserve water.
Kizer moved .approVal. of the recarrmandation. Laszlo seCons4ed.
Carried unanimously.
Recomzendation 07
Adoption of a land use plan which identifies s protected
watersheds.
Luce explained that these waters teds Iere sham an the lend.
Use Plan which was approved by the Plannln
• g-
.Board and adopted
by the CountY donate and no further action was needed
from this Board on this recarnendation.
Recontirendation 08
Orange County should adopt a Land Use Plan which premrves and
enhances water quality in protracted wa.tersheds.
Luce pointed out that the adopted land Use Plan approved by th
Board incorporates this xeccrrnendation with the exception of
McGowan Creek, watershed areas in the Plan are low density
residential areas with little or no commercial or industrial
.. .. .,
areas.
•
Kizer motic' ined that the recorrmendation be approved with the
addition of either the watershed for sites 17 or added as
a protected watershed. Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon,
Cleary, Bacon, Wilsbn, Irvin. Noes: None.
Reccrnrrendation #9
Inplerrentation of protection measures by cA7,-1-,...,... .....,--
•
Planning Board Minutes
Septenter 1, 1981
Page 5
Recommendation 010
Crleral policy by sewer and water provides not to extend
services into protected watersheds.
Cleary motion approval of the recommendation_with a Change
in the language from "should adopt" to "should be encouraged
to adopt". Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Cleary,
Harris, Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin. Noes: None. Abstention:
Lansford.
Rsoolumrdation 011
Extension of zoning to water supply watershed areas in Binghz
Hillsborough, Cheeks and Cedar Grove.
Cleary noted that the Board had voted against extension in
Just. Iuce said that the information in the Report might
the Board to change its position.
Kizer motioned that for the protection of County water resour
the County should consider future extension of the Zoning
Ordinance to include those protected water supply areas in
Cheeks, Hillsborough, Bingham and. Cedar Grove. No second.
Tailscmtmomed adoption of the recommendation as written in the
report. Laszlo seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Bacon, Harri!
Tralson, Laszlo, Irvin, Noes: Cleary. Abstention: Lunsford;
Recommendation #12
Minimum tmo acre residential lot size in protected watersheds.
There was discussion about how existing small lots uvula be
treated.. Stormwater management requirements tc‘ere discussed.
There was discussion of the impervious surface ratio for non-
. residentia1 development. Luce said he would bring further
information to the next meeting bearing an the reasonableness
of this particular recommendation.
Gordon motioned that consideration of this recommendation he
tabbed until, staff supplies further information about the non-
residential LUI ratio and until the Board can hear inrut fry-,m
the rrnwr1=1-,4,-,
...I'll■V''.t, ' '',. ' 1.
, •
=' . 'A.ot4.',•' '1,0,'''''. (2,...' i qk'`7,;.; \.”.1 t„`.'4,, 4,.;'I
'' ,'',,V;i 4'`,.'".1- •'','.41 ',"". ''
. i'—;`,3,4,44:"4".'c''."'I'''',■•,
Plann:* g Board Minutes
September 1, 1981
Page 6
remain" in natural vegetation. Polatty noted that this it.ould
be a zoning regulation ax xi forms would be exempt from it.
Gordon moved that the Board table further discussion of this
•
reocemendation until they could hear from the Township Advis
CouticilS. Seconded by Lunsford. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Baca
La.szlo, tnnsford, Irvin. Abstentio' n: Cleary Wilson,, II
Meeting adjourned at 10:30.PM.
/le
- .-
..-
- ,
A '
I . ,
ATTACHMENT A
ORANGE COUNTY PktkNINE\, T G DEPARTMENT
131'LLSBOROITGEt
NORTE( CAROLINA.
27278
tlePtV 0 f 045.
ti Erz.= -1 t
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 21, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: David-Shanklin, Hazel Lunsford, Dr. Alice Gordon, Dr.
Logan Irvin, Art Cleary, Dr. Steve Kizer, Dr. John
Wilson, Nancy Laszlo, Pat Crawford
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Polatty, Rick Cannity, Sue Wagoner, Fred Luce,
Susan Smith
Agenda Item #1: There were no agenda additions.
Agenda Item #2: The minutes of August 17, 1981 and September 1, 1981
were approved as written.
Agenda Item #3: Consideration of the preliminary plan for Meadow Woods
.
_ Subdivision.
Cannity presented this major subdivision stating staffs
recommendaiton for approval.
Board approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #4: Proposed Changes in Articles 7, 8 and 22.
Polatty and Cannity briefly described the recommended
changes in Article 7, that would add a Special Use Permit
to a Planned Development request. The Board requested
that the wording of Section 7.2.3, 7.2.5 and 7.2.7 be
changed. Staff indicated that the changes would be
made. The proposed changes in Articles 8 and 22 were
also presented.
Agenda Item 451 Discussion of County Attorneys recommendations to the
Commissioners concerning deletion of Sections 8.2 and
8.3.
PrIlAt.fly hricsfl.tr nr0-14,-.&A 4,h, r....,,,,,,L— ..._. _
4'; ; : -4'.2t 4)•'-`1,:,;7'':
Planning Board Minutes
September 21, 1981
Page 2
for American Stone, Extension of Zoning to Cheeks Township
and changes to the Zoning.
Ben Lloyd spoke in opposition to extension of zoning to
Cheeks Township at least until the report of the Water
Task Force had been accepted and implemented in the
zoning ordinance. Lloyd indicated the residents of
Cheeks were particularly concerned with the restrictions
_
- On development in the I-8S - US 70 corridor. '
•
Shanklin clarified that the Water Resources Task Force
Report should stand on its own merit, not as an official
odcument.
Shanklin moved that the public hearing on the extension
of zoning to Cheeks Township be delayed until at least
30 days after the Zoning Ordinance was published and
distributed throughout the Township so that public
comments would be meaningful. Gordon seconded.
Discussion: Polatty indicated that the purpose of
the public hearing is to get input on the proposed
extension of the Zoning Ordinance.
Kizer expressed opposition to the motion adding that IS
days- is enough if it is distributed tomorrow, particularly
- for those seriously interested in it.
Shanklin stated that he was concerned with the availability
of the ordinance to the public.
Motion failed with Shanklin, Lunsford, Gordon, Irvin for;
Cleary, Kizer, Wilson, Laszlo against - chair broke tie
vote with Crawford against.
Agenda Item #7: Report on the Status of the By-Laws by the By-Laws Subcommitte
Gordon gave a brief presentation on the status of the
Planning Board By-Laws.
Agenda Item #8: Special. Use: Permit Class by the County Attorney
Staff gave a brief presentation on the class by the
County Attorney to be held 9-28-81 .on holding a
Special Use Permit Hearing,
Agenda Item #9: County Commissioners Moritorium on Subdivisions in
Planning Board Minutes
sPotember 21, 1981
Page 3
Crawford tabled the discussion on the Report until the
minutes of the Township Adivosry Councils' review
of the Report were available. She tabled the discussion
until the Third Monday in October.
Luce idstributed the unapproved Township Adivsory
Council minutes and a handout on stormwater management
measures.
Sim Efland spoke to the Board. He indicated that Orange
County needed jobs and a better tax base which industry
could provide. He noted that he was involved in discussions
iwth an out-of-state industry which was considering
moving to Orange County. He inquired as to where there
was a suitable area for an industry to locate. Polatty
responded that the Land Use Plan idtntifies at least
five areas throughout the County for future industrial.
development: Mebane and the Hillsborough Industrial.
Park have both water and sewer, Eno- 2 and Eno-3 land use
transition nodes have water but no sewer and Efland
(Cheeks - 1) node has water and proposal for an industrial
park has been made northwest of Chapel Hill- Carrboro by
the Town of Carrboro and the Carrboro- Chapel Hill Chamber
of Commerce.
/sw
•
. .
. . . , .
. . .
. ,
. ... _ _
. : . . . .
,.
.. .
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING, SOARDMINUTES
November 16, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Crawford; chairperson, Art Cleary, Dr. Kizer,
Hazel Lunsford, Claudine Harris, Dr. Irvin, Dr. Gordon,
David Shanklin
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Polatty, Eddie Kirk, Rick Cennity, Susan Smith, Fred.
Luce, Norma Walker
Agenda Item 01: There were no additions to the agenda.
Agenda Item 421 The Board unanimously approved of the Septertibertl, 1981
minutes as written.
The minutes of October 19, 1981 meeting were approved -
with the following correction: agenda item 4, third line
remove the words "by Cheeks Residents".
Agenda Item 43: Final Plat approval of Aire). Hill SUbdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation and gave staffs recommendation for appr;val
Motion for approval made by Cleary, seconded by Shanklin, approved unanima
Agenda Item #4: 'Final Plat approval of the Francis T. Hill Subdivision
.,:.. __.
Kirk gave a brief presentation and gave staffs recommendation for approval.
Motion for approval by Irvin, seconded by Lunsford, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item 45: Final Plat approval of Riveredge Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation. He indicated that the developer had combin
'
lots "C & D" into one and that the Commissioners had approved this compromi
Staff recommended approval.
Motion for approval by Lunsford, seconded by Irvin, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item 46: Final Plat approval of Ann Joyner et. al. Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation and gave staffs recommendation for apn,-oval.
Motion for approval by Cleary, seconded by Irvin, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #7: Revised Preliminary Plat for Steep Bottom Run Subdivision
Kirk gave a brief presentation explaining that the Comm - --
thA e1,1-1.44..4-:-- • ,
' ''-- --7-"777-1•!mrimurr .---, T: 17. -'7:
. .
• .
•
.._, .
. .
' • . .
...„ . ..
. ,
. *.
Shanklin expressed the idea that shared driveways might not be safer and ;
increase the chances for an accident. Don"Collins, the developer, of the
project stated he would do whatever the Board requested. He indicated tl
would have been easier for him if all standards such as this could be spe.
out before hand.
After further discussion a motion to approve the revised preliminary plat
made by Irvin, seconded by Cleary, approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #8: Revised Preliminary Plat for Seven Mile Falls Subdivision
Section II
Kirk gave a brief presentation of this subdivision. The Commissioners had
referred this project back to the Board for the same reasons as Item *7,
Kirk stated that staff recommended approval of the revised preliminary pia
There was a brief discussion of the idea of shared entrances, and its use-
fulness.
Motion for approval of revised plan made by Cleary seconded by Irvin, apprc
unanimously Lunsford abstained,
Agenda Item 49: Renewal of preliminary plan approval of Oakdale Woods
Kirk gave a brief presentation, stating that this was the second request.
for a one year extention of preliminary approval. The request had been app
first in 1979, and renewed in 1980. Cannity apologized for not have a form
- -7-- staff recommendation, he stated staff recommended approval. He also stated
that some of the Board's previous conc.-..rns about water pressure in the Oakd
area may be addressed by the construction of Cornwallis Hills Subdivision,
and the proposed water tank. Since the project was originally approved
the Town of Hillsborough had zoned the area. The minimum lot size meets tht
towns zoning.requirements.
Motion to approve one (1) year extension of preliminary plan by Kizer,
seconded by Lunsford, approved unanimously. Shanklin abstained.
Agenda Item 410: Board discussion of the Northern Fairview Redevelopment
Plan and the 1979 Community Development Target Area Study..
Polatty introduced Albert Kittrell, Orange County Community Develommant Dire
He briefly described the process the Planning Department had gone through
in arriving at the Northern FairvieW Target Area request for funding. The
study included the levels of rehabilitation needed in an area, the number of
units requiring work, etc. Kittrell answered questions by the Board, cancer;
ing location, demolition and condemnation of property.
Agenda Item 411: Water Resources Task Force Remort
_
. 7if777N:"
1
+-:■'1.14i;:;";1:!j,1,1;
1,
. -.
Recommendation OA:
Luce noted a phrase deleted in the recommendation as printed.
S.J. Friedman criticized the necessity and redundancy of the recommendatio
as he felt that the Health Department approved drainage fields with suffic
area, even for repairs._ He clarified this tp mean additiOnal lines. _He
suggested that the Board and staff contact the Health Department to determ
the merits of the recommendation before discussion of it.
Luce responded that this recommendation referred to an easement which thel
Department did not require. Crawford recognized that the recommendation w4
beyond the Health Department's requirements. Friedman -repondedthat this
easement was UnneCessary as current policies assured fUttire repair capacit!
Luce noted that the easement prevents the location of any structure on thai
Gordon felt that any potential redundancy could be taken care of through
implementation and his custom was appropriate.
General discussion followed:
Shanklin questioned the need for the requirement. Cleary clarified that it
restricted development on an area where future lines might go.
General discussion of the intent of the recommendation followed.
Shanklin felt there were too Many interpretations. Luce clarified that the
Purpose of the easement was to allow for a second system. Luce read the
recommenation with the missing portion:
ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING ON-SITE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: ALL NEWLY
PLATTED LOTS BORDERING ON PERENNIAL STREAMS AND REQUIRING
AN ON-SITE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM SHOULD SHOW A SECOND
DISPOSAL AREA TO BE RECORDED AS AN EASEMENT ON THE FINAL
PLAT AND NO BUILDING OR OTHER ACTIVITY SHOULD OCCUR ON THIS
PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND WHICH WOULD PREVENT ITS FUTURE
USE FOR ON-SITE WASTE DISPOSAL. ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD
INVESTIGATE DEVELOPING AN ON-SITE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL
SYSTEM MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE THREE
WATER SYSTEM WATERSHEDS IN THE COUNTY.
Shanklin asked if power lines would be allowed. Luce responded that those
structures to be restricted would be stipulated for the easement.
Gordon asked if one can build on existing lines. Cannity responded that
the Health Department will ask whir itnii ......., .....—.. . . . .
. . , .
I '.iralilt .
.--
, _. _• .. ..... • _
•
Steve Yuhasz inquired as to how easements would be identified and emphasize
that the need for accuracy required on identifying a field would require
a survey and result in increased expense. Polatty responded that it wa!
a trade off between expense and pollut4on. Gordon felt that in the past
people have not considered the pollution costs of development.
Friedman inquired if there was an inspections process to determine the
need for repairs. Luce responded that the inspections activity was address
.__ . _ __ _
--- in the -second part of the recommendation.
Friedman expressed concern with the costs involved, especially if the
desired location was changed at some later point.
Crawford indicated that the Board was not involved at the moment in the
fine tuning of the recommendations, but that those concerns would be
considered at a later date. Friedman responded that functioning does not
tend to be a iitiblio process. Crawford responded that implementation would
require a public hearing.
Kizer felt that this recommendation would be a monster to administer. He
asked why 3 or 4 easements would not be identified to accomplish the same
purpose.
Gordon expressed concerns about the rate of septic tank failure in the
County. She noted that septic tank failure could threaten an entire subdiv.
She felt that this recommendation was an improvment over nothigg.
Crawford asked if there was any correlation between soils and system failux
along streams, along the attached report. Luce responed that the point
of the Report was the problems experienced in the tfland area.
Gordon Motioned approval of the recommendation as amended with the conclusic
of the missing statement. Irvin seconded the motion.
Kizer cited harsher requirements such as certification of homes,
He expressed dissatisfaction with the massive approach outlined in the
recommendation.
Gordon expressed concern that failing systems in subdivisions would lead to
demand for water and sewer lines to remedy the problem, resulting in an '
economic burden.
Brian Dodge noted the alternatives as; 1) condemn (and; 2) extend sewer
lines; or 3) assure a back up system. He noted the last item was the
least expensive.
•
Don Cox noted that the existence of a second site provides for an alternative
usage system and the option to alternate sites.
. .
.•;-kz' i;4 . .
. .
- --. , --
Shanklin suggested doubling the amount of lateral line at the onset and
asked for information on the age of the systems surveyed on the report.
Kizer felt that given certain failure, the recommendation would not preveri
stream pollution, merely delay it. Irvin noted that fields do recover
and that it might be possible to alternate between fields.
Motion passed withLunsford, Irvin, Gordon, Cleary, Harris, Crawford, for a
Kizer and Shanklin.
Recommendation #15:
Luce cited the handout on Stormwater Management Measures distributed at th
earlier meeting when the Report had been reviewed by the Board.
Cleary moved approval of the recommendation. Irvin seconded the motion, pi
unanimausly.
Recommendation #16;
Kizer suggested a consistent policy for all possible watersheds in the Cour
Kizer moved approval of the recommendation as revised:
ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD ADOPT THE TWO FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION: THE COUNTY SHOULD
CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER A STRONG LOCAL SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION
CONTROL PROGRAM. THE COUNTY SHOULD SPONSOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH
OWASA A RESOMECONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON CANE CREEK,
UNIVERSITY LAKE, UPPER ENO, NORTH FORK LITTLE RIVER AND SOUTH FORK
LITTLE RIVERIWATERSHEDS. '
S.J. Friedman inquired about the pollutants cited on page 5-14. Luce
responded that cars were the major source of heavy metal pollutants and
cited the thesis by Bob Forbes. Friedman requested that references be
noted so the source of data and its justification could be traced and evalu,
Shanklin cited road building as a major source of erosion that was not refe:
Don Cox cited erosion due to farm activity and the variation in erosion
levels relative to certain practices. He added that considering all waters!
as conservation areas required requesting federal funding for planning and
complementation of structural changes on farms to reduce run off.
The motion passed, with Shanklin opposed, all other for.
Recommendation #17:
Gordon moved approval of the recommendation. Irvin seconded the motinn
;.•
Recommendation 412:
Luce cited the Council minutes in the agenda packet and distributed
the Cedar Grove and. Eno Township Advisory council minutes.
Crawford inquired about the temporariness of Carrboro's five acre
minimum in the watershed. Luce explained the source and status of
that action. Shanklin expressed concern that the County with 98% of the
area in the watershed had followed in the footsteps of Carrboro with
2% of the area.
Cleary responded that Carrboro merely had acted faster. Polatty indic.ated
Carrboro's action came after County discussion on a 5 acre minimum.
Shanklin expressed concern that a moratorium was an inadequate method and
that it would be preferable to continue to allow growth as management
means are developed.
Crawford asked about whether a two acre lot could economically provides
for stormwater measures. Luce responded that it was possible though
better applicable to large sites where controls are worked into the over
all plan.
Gordon asked about one acre lots of record. Luce responded that if they
precede the water quality amendments to the zoning ordinance, they would
be exempt.
. . .
Friedman asked how the figures 2 and 5 acres were arrived At. Luce respont
that it was not a magical number, but reflected appropriate levels of
development or a continuim of protection. He noted the subdivision lot
size averages for each township. Friedman asked what assurance there was
that these were sufficient. He felt the numbers were arbitrary and capric
unless evidence could be provided to substantiate them, noting that such
evidence was not in the Report. Crawford asked if he had a recommendation.
Friedman responded that a monitoring alternative activity should be pursued
Don Cox cited the results of the Triangle J Pollution Source Study and
othergstudiesas the source of comparative data. He noted that these numbey.
represented the concensus of the Task Force; that these were politically
defendable, if not ideal lot sizes for water quality protection, adding
that they reflected a serious compromise.
Lunsford noted Brian Dodge's comments in the Hillsborough TAC minutes.
Dodge reindicated-his concern that a minimum lot size may be unnecessary
if appropriate storm water protection measures were developed.
Gordon moved approval of the recommendation, Harris seconded the motion;
41 others for the motion passed. Opposed Lunsford and Shanklin.
The Board moved to thg. r.rm,r,Aft
. , .
..,. ..,
: ... . , .
. ., • ' , . . .
The Board Agreed to extend the meeting for an additional fifteen minutes
to complete the review of the Water Resources Task Farce recommendations.
Recommendation 413:
S.Z. Friedman expressed concern that the Report gives the impression that
the formula iebeing pushed by the Forestry Service,, notions that the
formula in the recommendation was more stungent. Friedman cited portions
of the source of the formula: "How Far From A Stream Should A Logging
Road Be Located" in the Journal of Forestry, May 1957. Friedman felt
that the study area did not correspond to Orange County; that the 100 year
flood plain criteria addition was without justification; that the formula
derived in the paper was not intended to be applied to municipal watershed
and had been doubled Orbitiarily. That only a tenuous relationship had
been found between sediment movement and slope; and that the formula was
not booneAmt by the duty as the study was marginal in technical competemp
and hed. achieved an aura of respectability having been cited and utilized
so frequently. He emphasized that the formula was incorrect and did not
apply to Orange County, suggesting that the Board detete the recommendatiol
as technically incompetent and look for something else.
As Friedman had done a simple correlation test on the data, Gordon asked
What method he had used. Kizer asked if Friedman had data to prove the
inaccuracy of the formula. Friedman responded that the studies conclusiori!
were not supported by the data and were refuted by the simple correlation
test he had done. He emphasized that even if data were correct it would
not apply to Orange County as the study area was a vergon forest with a
- logging road and the tests were visual on nature and did not identify other
pollutants or carriers.
Cleary asked if Friedman felt the formula was merely over protective. '
Friedman felt it was unnecessarily so and suggested a monitoring program
to determine stream quality degradation levels emphasing the County's
responsiblity to spend money to do so rather than to act on guessing.
He asked if this was really a panic situation.
Luce responed that although the formula is not perfect, it will assure
protection. Friedman felt that there was a need to determine acceptable
levels of pollution. He noted the restriction on bottom land. Don
Cox noted that farmland is exempt. Crawford clarified that farmland was
exempt from the Zoning Ordinance. Shanklin asked if these requirements
would then only apply to the 1-85 - US 70 Corridor in Cheeks Township.
Luce responded that some land outside the corridor is rural residential
and that the regulations would apply to all residential uses. Shanklin
asked f it would apply in unzoned Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships.
Crawford responded that it would apply whereever the Zoning Ordinance
applies.
Kizer moved approval of the recommprIHAri,,, r.,-.....4.-- -- -- , - -
Agenda Item #I2: Presentation of the Planned Development request for the
Timbers (Mobile Home Park) and rezoning from R-1 to R7-8
Cannity gave a brief over view of the project proposal and the reauired
process. The project is a request to pat 79 mobile home units on 14
acres of land, for planned development approval of the density that would
equal R-8.
John McAdams, the project engineer spoke briefly to the Board and answered
several questions the members had. The request was to be heard at the
November 23, 1981 Joint Public Hearing.
Agenda Item #13: Presentation of zoning recommendations for several
properties along bid #10.
Cannity gave a presentation of the background in the zoning of thee 3
parcels. (ASCO Construction Warehouse; U-Store-it, and Security Window
and Door Co.) . He indicated that the Commissioners had recommended changes
from the Residential. Zoning and that they had requested the property be
readvertised for existing commercial S and existing industrical. These
properties will be on the Joint Public Hearing fdr November 23, 1981.
Agenda Item #14: Presentation of Technical changes to Article 4 and ArticlE
8.
Cannity briefly outlined the technical change to Article 4, that clarify
the intention of the ordinance.
He stated that the proposed change to Article 8 concerned the Special Use
Permit for general aviation airports. Cannity stated that the proposed
change make the standards more stringent by requiring airport developers
to own or have easements on land where noise levels exceed certain levels.
The noise levels were discussed by the Board.
Agenda Item #15 : Will, the Board set special meetings in December and
January?
The Board agreed to set a special meeting on December 1, 1981 to discuss:
- The Water Task Force Report
- Water Task Force Report Zoning Amendments
- Airport Study and Subcommittee Report
- Recommendation on Redevelopment Plan
- Planning Board By Laws
•
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Approved/Disapproved
;.• JO$*dit % I:
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 1, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Crawford; (Chair) , Art Cleary, David Shanklin,
Steve Kizer, Hazel Lunsford, Logan Irvin, John Wilson,
Nancy Laszlo. •
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Polatty, Susan Smith, Rick Cannity, Norma Sue Walker,
Fred Luce. _
*
GUEST PRESENT: Albert Kittrell.
AGENDA ITEM #1: Agenda Additions.
There were no additions to the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #2: ApproVal of November 16, 1981 Minutes.
Cleary expressed concern that some elements of the
discussions regarding the subdivisions were missing
from the motions. Crawford directed that the minutes
should reflect the meeting and indicate that the
requirements specific to a subdivision were met.
The minutes of November 16, 1981 were approved with
the following correction. :
It'7eff
Recommendation 13 of the Water Resources Task Force
Report was discussed after Agenda Item 15.
Page 3, paragraph 5 - Insert "discussion" and delete
the words "his custom" in Gordon's statement.
Page 5 - Vote on the motion for approval of recommendation
14 should show: Kizer and Shanklin opposed. Note:
Crawford did not vote on this motion.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Discussion of the Water Resources Task Force Report.
Crawford inquired about the status of the Report. She
noted that she voted on the recommendations as presented,
but had not considered the implementation of the recommend-
ations at that time. She added that discussion of the
implementation of the recommendations would require con-
-
sideration of other factors.
Luce responded that staff's presentation was essentially
complete.
••
Wilson asked why New Hope Creek watershed was not a
protected watershed and expressed concerns regarding the
Jordan Lake Reservoir. Irvin stated the Board should
recommend including New Hope Creek watershed in the final
reCommendation. Luce indicated protection of that water-
shed is a regional problem. Wilson indicated what needed
to be done was to include that watershed in the recommend-
' ations. Luce noted that Triangle J was developing a
watershed management plan. Wilson expressed concern
that instead of waiting we could extend our existing - -- -
recommendationsto address protection of the Jordan
Lake Reservoir, Crawford asked how Orange County would
be affected by this watershed, Luce noted the entire
Cape Pear Basin in'Orange County, including New Hope
Creek, drains into the Jordan Reservoir. Polatty
noted there had never been a policy to use the Jordan
Reservoir for water supply due to its poor water quality.
Ultimate success of attempts to clean up the effluent
from sewer plants and industrial uses in the Haw River
would be most difficult.
•
MOTION: Irvin moved that the Planning Board approve in principle
the Report of the Orange County Water Task Force,
and call attention to the fact that the Report does
not address the utilization and protection of water in
the Jordan Lake Reservoir which should be given con-
sideration in the future as representing a potentially
large and important source of water. , Measures should
be taken to eliminate pollution from treatment plants
and other sources of pollutants. Wilson seconded the ,
motion.
Crawford noted the motion was partially covered in
Recommendation 5. Wilson responded that this motion
was directed at the protection of an additional water-
shed.
AMENDED MOTION: Cleary amended the motion adding: This issue shouid-be given
consideration to emphasize concern with what is happen-
ing in Orange County. Otherwise, the Commissioners
would consider the matter as outside their jurisdiction.
The County could indicate that it is capable of doing
something with this action.
VOTE: The motion passed with Cleary, Kizer, Lunsford, Irvin,
Wilson and Laszlo in favor and Shanklin abstaining.
Polatty noted that different issues were involved with
existing and future water supplies. Wilson asked
-- Ammml.WWWWMP
Shanklin stated the Water Task Forc. Report shculd
go to piblf.c hearing. Crawford indicated that would
not occur until the Report was incorporated into an
ordinance. Shanklin wanted a public hearing prior to
incorporation, noting certain statements in the Report
• as'being opinions, not fact, upon which other con-
clusions were drawn. Crawford stated the Report can
lon
and will be discussed in terms of implementat
- _
■••."1•17.•-■.....■•■• •■ .
ORA NG-E Co u Arry / n iv Ii& &ARO tvl IN vrac.,
10.EcvAise..11
I, 19g-/
Shanklin stated the Water Task Fore'? Report shculd
go to F.1,1 .c hearing. Crawford indicated that would
not occur until the Report was incorporated into an
ordinance. Shanklin wanted a public hearing prior to
incorporation, noting certain statements in the Report
aSloeing opinions, not fact, upon which other con-
clusions were drawn. Crawford stated the Report can
and will be discussed in terms of implementation.
AGENDA ITEM #4: Revised Watershed Zoning Amendment Proposals
Luce distributed the revised Proposed Zoning AmendMents.
Polatty noted the following changes in the Proposed
Zoning Amendments: PW-I, applied to urban watersheds
such as McGowan Creek; PW-IX, applies to al/ other
protected watersheds; PW-II b) application criteria:
"This district should be applied to all protected water
supply watersheds designated in the Land Use Plan,
except McGowan Creekr 4.2.27 b) 1, should read as
"This district will be applied in all protected water
supply watersheds designated in the Land Use Plan."
DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENTS FOLLOWED.
Discussion on 6.23 Extra Requirements for Protected
Watershed Districts (PW-I arid PU-II) ensued. 6.23.1
c) should read as follows: "Streets and bridges
crossing a buffer area shall enter and exit the area
as nearly perpendicular to it as possible."
Shanklin asked how the buffer is to be calculated,
especially noting the problem of slope. Staff res-
ponded that the recommendation had been changed
earlier, and was not yet clear in this document and
would be similar to the wording in the Task Force
report.
Discussion took place on 6.23.1.5. The Board discussed
the trade-offs between centralized sewer systems and
individual septic systems. Crawford noted the language
in the amendment is prohibitive.
Kizer cited 6.23.2 a) and inquired as to what method
would be used for measuring runoff. Cannity responded
that runoff figures are available for different
vegetative types. He noted it was primarily an
engineering problem,
Shanklin questioned 6.23.1. Cannity responded indicat-
ing that storage would be required to assure a dis-
'
• •.. '
:• ' ':-' ,: `.4',k 014)! -- c
.. .
Crawford asked about the last sentence in 6.23.3.
•Polatty.Stated that in all cases lots of record would
be exempt. He added that both majors and minor sub-
.
divisions would be included in PW-II. Polatty noted
it was an effort at a compromise between two recom-
mendations in the Task Force report. The recommendations
were that McGowan Creek become urban and there be some
watershed protection standards. Polatty stated 6.23.1
e) and f) may need to be rewritten.
Crawford asked Polatty why he picked buffers as pro
tective measures in the urban watersheds, while lot
sizes protect rural watersheds. Polatty noted buffers
would be required in both. urban and rural watersheds.
The Board discussed the compromise on McGowan Creek
'Sub-basin and a possible teexamination' of .the com-!
Ipromise.
Shanklin suggested widening the Cheeks Transition Area
so that it would extend from Old #10 to Lebanon church
Road.
Crawford asked if these concerns would be addressed
in the Land Use Plan. Polatty responded that amend-
ments to the Land Use Plan would have to be made,
noting the Commissioners would not consider extension
of zoning to Cheeks until the report was considered.
. ._
ir
Crawford noted the Planning Board had never seen the
Agricultural Task Force Report. Crawford asked if
policies in the Land Use Plan would be enough to
deny a rezoning without specific language in the
Zoning Ordinance. She noted that commercial and
industrial restrictions in PW-Il were eliminated and
asked if a rezoning could be denied. Cannity stated
that no reasons for denial were required because
zoning is a legislative action, Polatty noted the
activity node concept from the Land Use Plan.
Crawford asked that Staff make clarifications and
changes to the proposed Amendments and recognized
that the Staff had indicated they intended to
rewrite them.
Shanklin inquired about the 300' reference in 6.23.2
b) . Cannity responded it was measured from the building
setback line. Luce added that it was intended to provide
reasonable dimensions for lots fronting on water bodies_
v,
I .•
-'' 'r ■0,
, ..•••
(I IVAPe"Wei° PLAIN P4 l 01 & 80• A/ ■AI OTE ..,
At ri v K y i&', 092._
Polatty said there was agreement on all aspects
of the project except sewer service which was
still under discussion.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Luce indicated the additional 6. 23. 10.4 and
6.23. 4 to their zoning language.
Irvin felt there was still a problem with the buffer
calcluation on 6.23.1. He understood that the width
of the fuffer was the quantity to be determined, but
that variable "X" was unknown in the measurement of
vertical rise. He requested the formula be clari-
fied.
The buffer is to be calculated by taking the average
elevation of the vertical rise 250 feet from the
flood plan, and multiplying it by 4 and adding the
minimum 50 feet.
Irvin seconded the motion.
MOTION AMENDED: Irvin clarified that the 250 feet extended from the
center of the stream, not the flood plain.
Kizer noted taking the highest measurement or spot
measurements would not suit.
Shanklig suggested that a fixed buffer be set with
the S&E specialist responsible for altering the
_...,
minimum for a particular site. He inquired why we
should have a specialist if we do not use her.
Luce noted 6.23.1 addresses that issue.
Polatty indicated state law required an adequate
buffer to prevent sedimentation but that no one
known what adequate is.
Kizer felt, that even with a specialist a formula
was needed to avoid arbitrariness and allow public
to be informed.
Shanklin suggested it should be measured from the
flood plan. Wilson noted the problem with steep
vs. shallow banks.
Kizer questioned the measurement formula noting the
problem with contour change. He suggested taking
the average elevation for calculation purposes,
not 50 feet.
"....7r11-`747.4 • •; ..."1111"/"" -
... ,
, • .
?JvAN*40, -
MOTION: Kizer motioned that 6.23.1 be reworded to reflect
that the vertical rise is to be calculated far a dis-
tance of 250 feet beyond the floodplain and that the
average elevation of this area would be multiplied by
4 to determine the buffer.
Kizer noted this would do away with the 50 feet factor,
but that a problem remains with buffer minimums. He
inquired about the source of the multiplier of 4.
_ _. _ _ . .... .
Shanklin expressed concern that the original buffer
formula was not intended to apply to watersheds.
General discussion followed.
REVISED MOTION: Kizer revised his motion to read that the total width
of the buffer shall be determined by measuring a dis-
tance of 250 feet from the center of the stream deter-
mining the average rise in elevation, multiplying that
factor by four and adding that value to the minimum
buffer of 50 feet. Luce noted Bob Tennan, the SCS
officer, had given imput on the buffer calculation.
Crawford and Laszlo felt this was a reasonable formula
and should be included to avoid challenge to buffer req-
uirements calculated on an ad-hoc basis.
Shanklin again felt it was best to set a fixed buffer
__ of 50 feet. . 4
_ .
Kizer felt it was best to be cautious and err more
strictly at first and then later changed.
Shanklin felt citizens would object to the formula.
Kizer suggested determining average buffer that would
be required in the County.
Polatty noted Carrboro had calculated setbacks at three
sites in determining their watershed management plan.
Kizer asked if there were any other formula sources.
He again stated it was better to be conservative than
liberal if corrections needed to be made.
MOTION CARRIED; The buffer would extend from the edge of the flood-
,
plain.
Crawford requested that staff calculate buffer require-
ments examples prior to the Dublin hearina_
;t4ip..-,, ' ',',-11';•.- , ; 1 ^,7.4t:
maximum was arrived at. The added that the formula should
stand as is for the public hearing as it will likely be con-
sidered by the Board at a later date.
MOTION ADDITION: Add maximum buffer to 6.23 la.
VOTE: Unanimous
Wilson inquired about what was meant by natural state in 6.
23.1.
MOTION: Wilson notioned that the following be added to the reference
to natural state in 6.23.1
". . . state,unless the area is subject to
serious erosion, in which case an erosion
resistant vegetatvie cover shall be estab-
lished and maintained.
Po].atty indicated 6.23. and 6.23 f. addressed this.
Crawford felt there was a distinction.
Laszlo seconded the motion
VOTE: Unanimous )Harris out of room/did not vote)
Crawford questioned 4.2.26. She asked if there was a need
to formally adopt the document reference if the language was
adopted in an ordinance.
Polatty responded affirmatively and asked if the Board pref-
erred a separate public hearing recommendation. He noted
three work objectives of the public hearing: "Changes to the
zoning ordinance; 2) adoption of the Task Force Report, and
3) zoning of Cheeks.
Crawford recommended against lumping these in a single public
hearing.
Crawford inquired about the technical definition of storm-
water management in 6.23.3. She noted it defines runoff, but
not be technique to handle it. She requested that examples
be used until a stormwater management ordinance was developed.
Luce responded he would put it in the definition section.
Crawfrod asked what the stormwater manavement TrIPMCIIrne. .---.
•
Irvin asked why 4.2.27b was included
Polatty suggested adding. "except future urban portions of The
Cowans Creek" to PW 2 4.2. 27. 1.
MOTION: Kizer motioned the Board recommend approval of the amendments
Irvin in uired if removal of the moratorium was automatic.
q f c
as revised
tionT.' "
VOTE: Unanimous
Shanklin felt the Board should urge the Commissioners to act as
quickly as possible in this to remove the moratoroum, especially
in the Upper Eno Waterhsed.
AGENDA ITEM # 6:ARIPORT NEED STUDY:
Luce gave a brief presentation on the Airport Need Study.
Crawford addressed the question of saturation relative to dem-
and and facilities expansion.
Shanklin noted taxes remain where an airport is located and
planes based.
Wilson felt some return would be appropriate for the taxpayer.
Crawford inquired how many planes would relocate from RDU to
a new airport in the County.
The Board reviewed Table 7 and Table 10.
Crawford asked what impact the traffic controllers strike has
had.
Shanklin indicated it cut down on short range commercial, flights.
Crawford asked if there was an increase in general aviation at
RDU. Shanklin responded VFR flights increased and responded
affirmatively.
Kizer noted airports are not like summing pools, that everyone
must have one.
Luce cited the conclusion on p. 8 indicating on RDU deficiency
area.
• . -77-7777-7-------791.MPI
. .
„ .
, . . . ''-4.1-.i.,:;_,-,•;, ,. . .,,., .:. ..
. ...: •,,Ar.'-':-2:,,
.._, ,,,....,....
.:,,,.. .. ,I• ;,,.,...,.,-, „
■ • •
ORANGE 00-7 PLABNIING DEPARTMENT
„.\ 1:11Tx.SBOROUGEC
%
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
)
. ...—....m..-.4„
. bk..-
t, . _ gni 1. ' " •
I/ ;:-.•:49 _
44:::•5 . . '
* .". •
.. : .
- - - ' "^ ..! '• "'.. : ' It
-.,
ClitiPEL HELL =WHIP ADVISORX COUNCIL
.. , .
September 8, 1981
• MENU=
.•'"•.- . . ... , , , .. , .. - " „. , ,
. . .. . ,. . .
.. • .. " .
• '
1EIEER9 PRZ1lx ' : Dr. .pietiteEtir Mrs. Alice Bennett, Dr. Irvin, ors. Irian.'
. Mr. .Satith
.. . . . ....
,
The. ideating 1.:e.gan. at 7:30.
V.
Luce distributed the Task Force Report Sunrary and indicated that the purpose •O'.
the meeting was to gets feedback frau Townships affected by the Water RescurMs
Task Force Report recornrendations.
Luc noted that the first six recommendations dealt with water quality ciincerns.
:, ...„.. IzecoMmendation 01:
-',--
Dr. Bennett noted the existence of Durham pipelines in Orange County.. lie asked
NritiV it is bad in principle to transfer water Leh...leen. basins. Luce indicated th.
were concerns with. potential shortages in the source basin and that no recycLin' c
of water within the basin occurs if it is taken out of the -basin for use elsewhi
. „
Dr.. Irvin inquired if Cane Creek and University Lake tributaries were within the
sane basin. Luce responded that they are both in the Cape Fear Basin.
• RecOmizendation #2:
. . .
Dr. Bennett asked if the Task Form has considered the argument that since Lake
Orange was funded by bands paid by County-wide taxes, then why should r.a..1m °rang
not be for county-wide use. Luce resperyled that the Task Force ors from
southern Orange ,036iity had noted this argument. ... . .:' :: i -. . : - • -L,-,
Dr. Bennett asked how Lake orange compares with University Lake in size.. Ulm
r.espmderl that take Orange has a capacity of 2.5 mgd and University Lake has a
capacity of 3.0 ingd. ..
Rea:emendation #3:
Chapel Hill, tbsmship Advisory Council
•
September 8, 1983. -
age 2 -
P
Gover ments (a regional planning body) and the Soil Co nsercrat ri 'Service,
Dr. Bennett asked bow capacity is detemnined. Luce responded w that in some cas
capacity figures es prri/id d and for of ers In used a relatively v.ly ac ci tee
capacity rreasurement method Used by the U.S. Geological. Survey. He..lle..added. that
his figures were checked by the State Water Resou.rces Department. .
Irvin noted that often a conflict of objectives ocoirs. Tr► pa± cul r b Oited
the Agricultural. Task For Report's entbasis on prize agr icRa].tnlral land-pro-
tection. He noted that scirre of- the best agricultural land lay along the strew
valleys where the pacoposed Cane Creek l r-voir is to be located. Ha added the
the yield of m flk per acre for this area compares with Stein. fL expressei
• concern that in the last ten years.20% of the County's agricultu at land bad
been converted and an even greater..percentage•had been caonverted- in Chatham Co
due to the ,Tordari Reservoir. lie indicated that difficulty' in resolving this cc
Eliot concerned which need was greataer;agr3,c.:ultural land protection or water ..
quality.and supply Dian_
Dirs. Irvin noted that currant conservation rceasures here inadequate given the
amount of wager wastage. Luce responded that this concern was addressed in a I
recorrrendation.
:bird:. Irvin also'cited the California zetfly crisis as indicative of the crit'ica
-importance of protecting agricultural areas.
r cation 05 , .
No =rent. • =
Becarmendation #6:
Dr. Bennett inquired as to the largest sources of-wat er wastage. Duce.identifie
pure water wastage in activities such as lawn watering. Bennett asked if these
real Zy constitutes waste_, Luce responded that it would be waste in a water shim
situation-%%- He-added:,that:recent building code revisions require low flow rreasw
in new homes. Bennett cited'waste from leak? faucets. Luce. cited the mal4nitu
of waste from system-leaks, adding that CS claims they have minimized such
losses:
de et ion•program. Bennett also noted potenti al. pollution pmt vn ge w
Luce indicated that the remaining recomanendations concerned water quality.
_ . .... ,.._ ..„. ,.... ,.
.. . .
. . .,.
\ „ . . , .• • ' • F
• ), . .
.‘ , . • : i'.."::• ' .; r •
.• ,, • •
. .
) chapel Hill TownShip .AdmiSory Council
. September 8, 1981
Page 3
XIr. Smith asked if all the sites There clearly defire& Luce responded that th
are accurately determined through use of topographic maps.
- Mr. Smith asked if University Lake and Cane Creek ware in the same watershed.
Luce responded that they are ix the sane major basin, but different watersheds.
"
Rworraendation ig.-iv-.:
..,
.. .
• Ince noted problems with erosion in,Chatham and Alamance C.ountie' s and the pot=
. , impacts on University Lake arid' Came Ceek.wterseds xespctively. -
.„ .
Bennett clarified that chapel Hal was not rrenti.'onal because it does riot draisx
an important 1.4teriabekl. --
Luce noted CairtorO's teiliorary 5. acre minimum in the University lake waterishe, d
Recaranndation #10: , . _
4
...
Luca noted thet..impact of intraStructime lines on davalopt type and density a
the need to work with CHASA to protect the watershed.
Mr. Smith as about Hillsborough's extending water along US 70. Luce noted t
instances where septic tank failures required extension of parvi.ces: -Rangeuvorl
...
'3. .
Eland Estates. ' '
•.....- - .z..
Mr. -Smith asked about new experizental systems being used in the C.ounty. Luce
responded that some were in use, but were deered impractical for the two areas -
mentioned.. ' — .•:
Mr.. Smith cited_Durham's use of new s3rstem. - Luce clarified that water linei has
- '
been extended in, that case to address a water contamination problem.
Reccragendation-#11:- .
Luce indicated that zoning was the major tool for implerenting,these reconne.nda-
.
and policies'. He noted 'that` zoning had i..34u.i-recently.extended to Hii isbatoujh.i
Bingham Townships.;and.that the Corrmi.ssionsars,-had set a-public_hearing for-Oct
-:-- - for zoning-extenSidet5-,:".the' 61.-EiieV-7-C:iraieeks'..V6.-afgir§:- .H.E3 ncitha -th:*---t.ci,.tail
Force had p.roposedithe-extension 'of-zap- _irig of Mase-portion- s of Cheek S" 'and CediJ
. ..... .
' Grove ilbwriships toAainixt. g•designated watersheds, but the Cornnissice'-ers wz....re
proposing extenslon to all of Cheeks Tcremship.
Reccittrandation #12:
LucaAsk=1.1 4-1-.m. ,....i....-...... 4_- .....•_,, .._t__ _1,....___,_,....____, ..,...._... -.
0
Gyapel Hill Township Advisory-Council. •
September 8, 1981
Page 4
Dr., Bennett felt-these reclvi ents.were adegu�ate for their purposes. -
Mr. Smith expressed c. tern that small landaumers would be forced to sell. U,ic
"-' clarified that lot of records would remain and the lots would remain usable lot
Mr. Smith asked if there was a timetable regarding the Report. Luce responded
the Board of Como sicnes Tested ea Planning Board's reccrcmendation on the
Report by Cotaber .15 and that a public hearing on the Report would probably be
held in November. , -
Dr. Bennett indicated that it would be useful to state the qua i ficaticns of th
ticarrirendations in testis of how they would affect existing small lots. Luce =
indicated statements to that affect would be made at the public hearing_ - • •
Dr. Bennett rested problems of well pollution and radioactivity levels and small
lots. Be indicated that these radioactivity levels should be noted for public
relations purposes even though no real health ha?ard is )used:-, „ .
Recctrnendatiort #13: . _ ..
Luce indicated this was viewed by the Task Force as a last der to adve: se
d-velop tent impacts in'.ths waterrsh°ds. .
•r'r.Smith asked if the flood plains had been defined. Luce responded that this
plain areas bad,been designated by the CDrpsof Engineers for the County's ecp
tance into the Flood Insurance P.rxagraill..
Bennett noted that these measures may change as the character of the t►iate sue,
changes overture. He added that the ucirding regarding calculatixig the buffer
area was not clear. . Luce responded that this was also noted by the Planning Bo
Irvin indicated that, this version was more likely to be accepted than an earl
version's requirenents. ..
Recommendation: #14: . ' , ,. . „ .
14: .
Luce indicated that e major problem oonmrned septic system nein tenance. Ha'al
. indicated that the Task Foy did not elaborate-on the weans to inTEilenent this
reccxrr endation.. . „ ' .^
Dr. Bennett asked ere people durp Waste now when they puns) out their septic
systems. Luce responded;that CAS does not accept this waste for treaimv.ant an;
: :':-':: ., '-• :,'.: , :
a '
•
, •,•■■•••1*I Ir.
. .. ' •
*ii Chapel Hill Township AdvisOry Council . • .
Septernter 8, 1981
_ .
Page 5 - .. . .
'.:.?.` .
--i,
. . , .
. .
Dr. Bennett felt that 90% of salt, &nes from farms, not construction and that
the ordinance would not affect the main source of this pollutant. Luce-respOrt4
that the SCS does encourage and assist in formulating management plans for fact
on a voluntary basis. . ,
, .
Bennett indicated it would be go:d to recognize fatm sources even if tlie issue
was a touchy one, and encourage cooperation with the program. Luce responded t
the second part of the ration addresws the subject of cooperation. He
' cited the SCS program for portions of the Back Creek Reservoir. pes grogram
calls for special measures to reduce erosion before t1 reservoir is built. ne
' added that =eh of the silt in University Lake occurred trout earlier Lana prac-
tices and suggested that similar measures be imPlemented far Cane Creek prio' r t
the Wilding of the proposed reservoir. .
. . .
RecOmmendation #17: . . . ,
. .,
' . . . . .
Dr. Bennett cited that soil bacteria will facilitate the degradation of PCS's,
but did not know how much gets into the water prior to this actin.
. . -
, . ..
- taimaL cam= . . .
. • • •
. ..
. .
Dr. Bennett mile a number of points regarding the Task Force Report. Thaw Anc
—0 That the report needed to be inplemented for public benefit;
. . , .
o ghat adverse impacts On existing property croziers should be considered;
o.. That small lot property owners should be reassured of their possession .
use of the land; - :
. ,.
o That residen ts of the township should be informed about how the reconrce:
tions proposed address problems affecting local water supplies, not jus
urban area water supplies.
- ,
Mr Smith ez.rpres6ed 6einOein. 'regirding the ailVerte impacts'of the iitpleirentation
7 the loft size_iestrictions..on nyny:4,andowners.-:,Re...indicated .,the,t:earlandcto
er
,-----:: -- e-Witer-Sher3:.:i0:5uld.--be. for o --tucec:lari.fied.that prObleias-Wi5n1d-arise
• ' ' if they wanes ta subdivide their small land holdings. Smith cited'a situatic':n
a grandfatter -desiring- to equally divide his land among eight childEen.. Luce i
that the proposed lot size may make the land more valuable. Smith responded thi
this would lead to a higher tax valuation and force the owners to sellsben, ownel
of the land is what they want. Bennett clarified that Smith's concern was with
acreage restriction. Luce responded that in terms of the streani htiffmr, vit,,,,,;....,„
•
Chapel Hill Township.Advisory* Council.
Septer:ber 8, 1981
Page 6
Mc'. Smith inqu:"t red about dixrensional reguizeitents.. Luce responded that these R
proposed seed in the Zoning Ordinance.�a/ � " �MHe added that
�}x�♦x}ty��a��1 L practically these
proposed measures �, apply pi 31 er�i iy to large sLVML v-i,s1cns,
' t
igY ICW _ ..
•^ ♦'..... • • YAM ..'
F ..
Irviin, cored that the Chapel Bill Township Advisory Council approve the report c
the Water Resources Task ice, but would � to cal. attention to marry i;azdss
that may arise, particularly for small landowners who 'Would have problems
ing under the five acre minim' requitercenti and vomu1,d, therefore, lake ccaside
to be given to the estab:Cishowit of a Board of ialixat .can or Adj'xstrrent to t
with these hardship.cases«
Mrs. Irvin asked if the existing Board of Adjustrtent could address tiese cm's.
Dr. Irvin responded that the Board would need specific e eznpossvaltent to do so.
, .notion passed unarrizgaus,:ty-
I'eeting adjourned at 9:00.
•
ORANGE COUNTY PL_ .N1 ]1\TG D PARTME]N •
4 RELLS.BOROtTG$ "
NORTS C+�I�Or,I A •
2?278 ,,
4
,. � Rif T. , ,. •
;ti
-Ti
, i.ri 0tata • '
,
,
CHEEKS Z t ADVISORY a crR.
- -
,.,t ,,ey 15, ].gg7. -
MISERS PRESENT: .- Lindsay Efland, David Sham-.lire, M.S. Allison, Sat i .ists,.
. • . Ralph Edwards '
GUESTS PRESENT: ., Roy McAdoo, Robert.Mccrrora, John E. Fuller, Fred Turk, Walter
McDade, Mrs. Annie FuI]e.c, Ivory Vincent, Alice IvicAdoch, T.13 a
• `-=Turk, lessia Morrow, Mrs. Louise Loftin, George Tate, Walter .
' McMillan/... Constance N .bbane, Ada Torain, Joseph rairl, David
. Cobb, James McAdoo,- Ann F mey, Lattie Morris . • - ,
' STAFF PRESENT_ : Fred Luce, Susan Smith •
4. - the background informaticri an the Water Resources Task Eb;ca •aria'
highlighted the Task Force's recourcendations which specifically concerned the
Upper Eno watershed in Cheeks Township. .
N..B. Allison asked where the five acre minilawn•app]..i.ed„ Luce responded that it
applies to the three watersheds and was a two acre miriinum where stornwater
management measures were put in place.
Lindsay Efl and asked•if S ientific evidence supported the concept•of a two acre
- ,• minim=m mt as a protective-measure,adding he understood it to be true given-comet.'
sense, Luce responded that =non sense would indeed dictate•it•.as such - •-:
7•::t—ti• +.•;L�i�l^�,-+•. � - •-�•�.; - ��..,.. +r. . —. _.--.r•o—.—+.+�Ma�.. =r±r,r•�.i�:•
, ;Lindsay Efland asked`.what'the"$can`t of the two acre BUTUzmmi was:- • 13.ce re soctnde
_ - ; ,,.7_that given the pcaon 3�r•:ir .tha49-9L'743 -41. ce= septic system•.areas-a e;best.;;He.
..—• -also Sci ted-ttie•�sabc]ivi:siof size eds ar, • a.1,.• 'Efr�and ci V7.aed i takire
, .. 'a two acre mire isivi ti��when•:the'average •alieady:reflected a two acre minims He-:-:-g
. did not feel that those-who- could not afford the larger lots should be p*Ialized.
Luce responded that,them might be a decline in the average lot size given the _
market situation.. .
George Tate inquired about reducing the lot size requirescent if sewer lines were
Cheeks Township Advisory Council,Minutes
September 15, 1981.
Page 2
Lindsay Efland suggested that the area of concern lay between. US 70 and 1-85_
He felt industrial. and higher density residential uses should be allowed in
that area. He:asked if a good argument could be made for keeping those uses
out of the area. Line respcsidad that the basin line was a factor. Viand
added that people's feelings and political matters were also factors.
Lucie clarified a that the Task Force was, with, water,quality a..' a_it
was'assumed that'so�ne`nr>d eatiori of`tie .m iidations for greater accepter
• bility would be mach during the public,i c,hearing- • •
'David Shankl i n' agreed that th° Interstate should be the dividing line;rather
than the ra trade r.-
•
Luce clarified the comproraise made by the Task Farm allowing deVelnputt in
McGowan Creek sub-basin, but not in Seven Mile Creek sub-basin.
Shankli'n pointed out:. that the recoirmendation reed a five acre mininium'with
a reduction to a two acre minium only if stornwater management reasures were
in place.. He added this could d be very expensive..
*alter McDade emphasized that one known major water quality 1rohlem source was
the malfunctions L septic-systems in,the watershed. Luce responded that the
John Ivicklams Ccapany was•doing a study'to determine-passible solutions to the
problem -in the Efland Estates area.. McDade reenphasize'.d that the County knaaa
• about-the problem and the solutia L ie_sauces linesr but is not addressing it an
terms of water quality protection. 14.$. Allison added that water quality
protection cannot be accomplished without addressing this problem. McDade
recomarended. that the County extend sewer lines before they rtsider mi,runnlrn
lot sizes in the watershed to reduce the possibility of sewage getting into the
waexshed. . He noted this concern is .based on the amity residents being
both.tax payers-and:-landowners who ae conaarned-about the present situation.-
and tke futures situatiirrfor their- •
rats cittd t piw�hlem:wi y -and potentially malfuncticning
.
McDade empbasizeci addilas in4 the preSent. problem along with contidertrig lxrig
-rand plans for quality protection.Deviti Cobb indicated that the Efland.
Estates cxxrmcnity was.asking for help how: .7'
Luce noted that sewage•'is only one source of pollution. John Puller distingu►si
between accidental. chemical spills as opposed t o controllable sewage:problems.
Lindsay Efland agreed that the sewage problem was a day to day concern.
. . . ,
Cheeks Township Advisory Council Minutes
. September 15, 1981 •
Page 3
. • • .
could be altered to uminizeln impact. Efland responded that the intention is
still a.pparent and acts as a strategy maneuver.• Luce clarified, that adoptizoa
of the report is a political decision. Enema indicated that primary respen-
• sibility must be accepted by somacme.
.•
Lindsay Efland indicated he was flatly..cipposed to the docurrentaS pare. of the
Land Use Plan.. .Although be agreed it:was a good xer4r6,• he felt it was too
rigorous at' itlupacted an Ctecx....ks TomshiP,. particularly the US 70 1-85 corrid
He felt that the =promise regarding litGcwart Creek did not go far enough. , •
: • , „
„ Alice Dr..71doo noted that tim•paople affected use not land-rich and ware cancerne
for their children's land prospects.
• -"..
Walter McDade -felt that no one was listening to the Stroaship Adv.ipary aciralittae,
particularly given the degree to which the Peportis recarcendaticns would inbibil
the Cheeks' residents. He added that no alternative to the Report existed.
Luce noted that a public bearing on the prOposed extension of zoning to Cheeks
TcWnshi'p would be held on October 6, but added that the Task Force .
recammendatians would not be included as zoning regulations until later when
a, second public hearir. tg would be held regarding their inclusion specifically. -
Lindsay Efland clarified that the Report was not yet an official part of the •
Land Use Plan. Luce indicated that that was correct until the Cbrardssiormrs •
• , hear the Report and make'their decisiort. . He added that the Planning Board had be
consideration of the èport at their September 1 meeting and would mast Mak'
Consider it at two furtker nee. tangs. - •
•
Luce reclarified that the' RepOrt was wri'ttert with a bias toward water 'quality '
Which needed to balanced with other concerns and imPacts.
Luce note&Peacirmindat.iOn 014,aiethe4thange-iit.--besting-procedures fOr-permits _
for septio..:sYsterats;:after ;.- 7 .:
. - Luce addressed theL.i.ssuaof aoriconforming. .•
••• • •
• • "
-'• George Tate e4hali'zed::. a residen • need ,orm .their-needs
" • .......
- ar " •
was Ftehafdr7dikils'sioTh.
the task Force iecamrendations and of the relationship between this ordinance and
documents and,the Land Use Plan.. the group suggested inviting the. Commissioners
speak with the community and the Township Advisory Council before the October.6
public hearing. Shank3.1n.fan it would be better to organize a presentation for •
• Octob6i. 6, CeJc.6.0, ,
•
Cheeks Township Advisory Council Minutes
September 15, 1981
Page 4
. . •
. • .
George Tate indi6atedTie would ca.U.-thJOI-Li. McAdams: 61-many on the study they
were .commissioned to do. He suggested that the calamity address the sewage
issue to the Commissioners and ask that they petition for federal monies for a
sewer- sysbam. "
•
Motion' #1: Lindsay Efland motioned
•
. .
that the Ch...-15.5 Wpin.ship Advisory'Council go on record in
opgosition to the Water R.-sours Task Zokce Report being
• : ip.cprrorabid as part of the Land Use Plan.
that PecomenclatiOn 08 he revised to al3b1,4 ca: nrerCial,
.industrial and high density residential t: veloPaent in the
section of the Upper Erb:) watershed located bets.aen 1-85
and US 70. •
George Tate asked if Efland would be opposed to the Report if that =via= wa
included or if he wiluld also lilte*to see the 40,000 square foot minima ioti
retained if a lot peexs. - Eflarud responded that he would approve it,given that
high density (one acre) housing 'would be allowed in the corridor.
Tate, clarified that Efland had origini.Uy said he was broadly opposed to it anc
did-not Ciciasider 6pproval if certain conditions were net. :Efland responded ih4
that would not go'far enough to suit him as he was concerned about economic fax
' Tate indicated _that he was'conce_rned*with,sewage problars. . ,
•
Samuel English seconcL..d..the roticHn.- .
Luce emphasized that the TAC had not considered many of the other recourendat.ii
which were hard...to',be- ii oppositRatto..-. •. . .
Liru3say Eland his rantirzi saying-the Report should stand on its'orent ;
, be incorporatect.#c_the T.Rnei. Use Plan-1.- Ree indicated.he.was.in favor of 99%
.
of a.ts ccritentrrb*.opposed the langnage, ittRecormr.endation-08 as it affected -
..Cheeks ilscuriship. -He-,requested that the. corridor be the defining elz-ent and
change-wouz furidax tUy-a1tr the.docwrStnt;
„ -
Tate eMphisizedillate sorra good was in .t.h .RePort._
Shanklin cla_rified„tha.t the notion requestnd that the Report not be part of till
Land Use Plan. He added that the Land Use Plan applies to Cheeks whettplx it it
Cheeks Township Advisory Council. Minutes
Septet er 15, 1981
Page 5
_ Tom✓
Shanklin noted the rarity of me rc et:.ings,, but added that the Planning Bcerd w 1J
hear and•consider-the recacn rnendati n.
-
r 3m
� ous. " flot.0 n passed-
't
•
2&ation #2: George Tate noticrted
4( QtltL: r L et- t'•n'c Iran-i -the-w t"'. " L 1" --
retained•why' the lot perks
11.B. Al.
VCS: UnanixtrnaS. Motion passed.
Shaul. .in ndica.ked that other Township Advisory Councils may view the Report
differently.
/le
I
. ,
____,....
, ... _
% .
.,> ORANGE COUNTY PLANDEUIG DEPARTMENT
... EILLSBOROUGEC . ..
„
NORM CAROLINA.
27278
, •_.,:, .
..)
. .
.,. .
... - ,„..
1
,
.....7
- OA
,. .
=GSM TaNEE'",ADVISCRe taXMIZ
MIMES ,.
.. .. 7 Sept:pater 17, 1981
, . ...
.. ,
NIEFISERSPREB'ENT: Jacres Ebust, Dan paeitten.s. QUAitt*t PattetSCO. . . ..
. .
STAFF PRESENT: ' rite laicer Susan Smith
Luce presented background infornetion on the Water Resources Task Force ittparts
He noted that the Report contained seventeen reccanrendations: the first six
.reconnendation.s cc4cerned water supply and the remaining reoomiandations cant=
water gdality.
P=0.\SI2ID2kTElq #1: . - -
•
. •
•? •
,._-'-',' , Foust inquired how far the.service lines extend into Alamanth County.. , /axe t :
..- -
G
responded that the existing municipal systems are lirerged already.
Patterson asked valet iwpact Back Creek Reservoir will have on existing water
supplies. Luce xespcxyled that. it will significantly add to eadsting capacity;.-
Foust felt that this reoonnendation was lcigiml: except as a last resort innergi
situations
IECOPMUNDATZON #2:
.. . :.
2c.7';-'7.„ -,... r.......14,..4.4..42'44_,...::::---::%)..:424....4_,-,..._.:, ._ ..;z .Aa....,,, ,...-,.. x ...-..i.„.:.;...,.,-...:.-..-...-.:..._...:::iz....:ILk;4.....k ...4-.•-• ,..,..7.,.._,..--
Edelman ricit "d'iiiiirftiiiiiailEaiiailaitir'-gup-pAy is to industrial growth*. . rods
- ..,.. ,.c*y*sT,ecivex_t.ising-.-the-aLrqei:labi-3,ity:gf-water;to„,.-eitizzindust
--';
to the area- --,....7.r:::: 1::::::::-.7. ::7.-,t• 2t;r:77.--,-- ::;.:-' -,741.:7-1.:,::!,..---------77-- -,-._„,.-.. ..:,,,,,,-,.. -,-;2, :-, _. ,- ... 2.47,
-
BECCMIENIWICN irt3:
. .
No canrent. , . .. ,
.. ,
. .
RECCMIMMTICN #4:
., ... ... .. . ..
•
1
Bingham wicvnship Advisory Council t�.nutes
September 17, 1981 - .
.
Page 2 . = _ T
.
_
Foust inquired if a federal grant for upgrading the Chapel Hill sewer system ha
been provided for the next twenty years. Luce responded that expansion of the
treatment plant had been undertaken. Foust felt this would help water quality
in the Jordan Reservoir; • . „ .. -
'Foust asked if a regional network for water-supply was most logical fobs the fut
Luce responded that it is obvious that adjacent counties have better reservoirs
and that a regional situation to water supply pre`-teems would at sc z e point be
• necessary. He added that MASA should have rbaaps broadened its system plan*,;,
activity beyond Orange County borders.
REdOKINDATXc I #6: . - -
No Wit. • _ ' "
GENERAL .
C 'tE3+T.5. .
Patterson felt the recolations were very ciarprehensive. .
'Ma following reccrittendations addressed water quality. - -`
REC OVENDATCONS #7 and 08: • . - •
Luce-noted that these reconnendations were already incorporated in the Land Use.
Plan that was adopted"by the Commissioners an September 2, 1981.
Luce noted that the Ozatni ssioners had placed a r_oratorium on all develvprent in
the University Lake watershed. _
Foust suggested that the sedinent in University Lake be removed given that tie :"
exfst3ng capacity,of the lake•has•beer. reduced to 40%, Patterson indicated that
earlier SCS study_".fat the silting e,.to be 11/1,1A a year which held constant
aver some perf of ti le °::He added that fhe benefits of conservation efforts h.
berm-offset by develo xa tt a .vibes_ lace cited the prohibitive efforts
dice'
the Lake and the:inevitability. of:.:the=natarat siltation process- Patterson era&
that the problem is that fair-measure muld. .r uire• a place to atraza the silt ilea
-: enough_to- use a• pimping uha r.. Foust--asks what will happen'"uo University X
Payson responded tha it wil.l..ever tua7ly fillup as all reservoirs eventually
and noted that we, are currently using up all our best reservoirs. Luce suggests
- that the siltation rate may be deal i n;ng given a reduction in farming activities
REC IE Dh ICN 09: . "
Bingham Township Advisory Council Minutes
September 17, 1983
Page 3
•
•
REandriaNTER.TIGN 011:
•
A Public hearing on the extension Of zoning to Cheeks Township will be held on
October 6. The Ccamissicness extended zoning to Hill Hillsborqugh and Bid Towns
cm. September 2. '
REeC 3 ENalar 1t.#12:
Foust requested ,uce to
explain what is meant.by per Menthgamentlreasures.
.Luce indicated that' these include rea sucres allowring soil.I filtratixjn for pen ,:Ei
cation of' wig Water. ;
Foust asked for clarification of these me sires as they apply to tsao adre lots.
Luce noted thatthese measures would be most applicable to larger subdivisions.
Wellman asked if; in these cases, the measures would be applied to paved areas
in total as opposed to individual lots. Foust indicated that he did not view
catch'basins as a,panacea given .their potential for siltation and pt:•agnat ion..
Foust asked if this requirene.nt would be applied to all residenH 1 sites. Luce
noted it would not affect existing Jots of record,. but would affect subdivided
lots except. in the area 'of McGowan Creek subdivision in Cheeks Township which
the Task Force chose to-treat differently. Foust felt this requitement might not
_be necessary in single Jot zuial subdivisions. He
added that he could see'its
validity in larger rural subdivisions. .
RECOMEND TTi #13; .. .,•
Foust asked what impact this requirement would have on farms. Luce noted, that
farms are exempt fzrrt regulation.
-
BEC QM TTCINS #14 and #15:
No t ' •
:,. Etdhaet l n ln an•id. n 1 Z x.er a �_.•�-.�p:4-4:'11 W r Tadd or1al,-farr a ;s p -c lue,-d'' e l n for`th =rese,rvoir•9by.�=tlae-RCPD d.S. €�E
,-=
_;
-Pere _added:be".di d,aat,li ke:-te! Se C SA h much control:.. l voce•xes ,ned that these RCPD programs were volunteer
programs. Patterson added that the
programs resulted from a local apps i cation for measures deemed dess reable by tke
local unity. -
♦:r- , Yf. i• t �.£r wq,cr7t1.1•n atYw x ., t`F4;ri... ,'77,,F'[.y yt.14r•wy,M.rw4••,*";,'';''',""1"ti.-
Bingham To3 nship Advisory Council Minutes
September 17, 1981 n
Page 4 _
•Luc e nom- .p a ms.wc �encs u r ri iw '1 gg i l ro R jao uiae.:= ' Was ne
1
no cai rmnce
g nvnorby pons G of i x rs
cor rn oon lh ot vasizue e and of bhuffer regwxerrens reams ts andti°inpansctsr
on farm acti.Tlit, sl =
. , . ..::
.
"sting.ad:am d at 9:30.
+:. ;. t
• , r
•
" T
•
f "
p
•
.,
•
N.
•
•
. ,
ORANGE COUNTY FLANDTrrio- DEPARTMENT
BILLSEOROUGFI
NORM CAROLINA. •
27278
4.6001.0 or 6..1,
t k".ik- cm It
-
411
L,F
HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP ADVISORY poUNCIL
MINUTES
NOVEMBER Se:WEll
MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Perry, Tarleton Davis, Brian Dodge, Wendy Olen
GUIESTS PRESENT: Nancy Strange
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Smith, Fred Luce
-2_Smith gave a short presentation on the background and status of the Water -
ir'qg' 'Resources Task Force Report, the purpose of meeting with the Township Adv1sox
Councils and the relationship between the T.and Use Plan and therecommendatice
of the Water Resources Task Force Report.
The Council reviewed each of the recommendations and their comments were dire
at the following concerns:
o the policies regarding the killsborough-Chapel Hill water line.
o the use of water from Jordan Lake to meet water supply needs in
Orange'CoUnty.
o the viability and utility of dredging University Lake.
'o the tradeoffs between centralized sewer and the develOpment pressure:
associated with the provision of centralized sewer and septic system:
and *pacts of septic system failure on water quality.
o the tradeoffs between increased development activity and water suppl3
limits due to the hydrology and geography in Orange County.
. .
" Tr-IP114,Y"",', ON.J.d
•
. ... . .
Hillsborough TAC
November 5, 1981
Page 2
Olsen asked what was meant by stormwater management measures. She indicated
that sometimes these measures cause more problems than they solve and hoped
those measures adopted and implealented would not have the same negative xesu
as similar activites in Raleigh which she was aware of.• She further inquite
as to who would be reviewing these measures and their Implementation.
Smith responded that staff hopes to complete a stormwater management section
for the Land Use Code which would outline appropriate meaSures.in the near
future.as a guiding ordinance. She added that staff would review the props
and implemented measures for a development in-house,. This includes reviewing
•plats for inclusion of these measures, suggesting others at that stage
and monitoring the implementation of these measures in the field.
Dodge indicated that he considered the cluster development approach to be tb
most preferable measure. Be added that a minimum lot size becomes unnecessa
and arbitrary if appropriate stormwater management measures are implemented
would like to see that concept dropped from the recommendation. . . .
-. . . .
Smith noted that there are three levels of approarh to watershed protection:
1)public purchase and protection of a watershed and prohibition against dew
=ant; 2) minimum lot, size zoning requirements; and 3) site design features t
,..
protect water quality from adverse development impacts. Smith indicated'ta
essentially the Task Force was emphasizing the second and third aproaches,.TA
particular requirements in regard to lot size. She added that Triangle 3' CC
was in the process of developing a watershed protection study and was emphal
the third approach as opposed to a minimum lot size.
,
The Council discussed the role of University Lake in water supply for OrangE
County. .
Olsen suggested that the Lake be dredged and the silt used for agricultural
:purposes. Luce responded that the silt is .primarily clay and would not be
very good soil. Olsen. felt that it mixed. with mulch it would provide good
nutrient matter. 'Luce added that the process of dredging and the transpo±ti
of the material would be extremely expensive. Some Council members expresse
concerns that a ee wa
f
f
Lake ast offer to dredge the Lae or free rejected. .
P
Council members indicated that their mailings did not contain summaries of t
Task Force Report and that they did not feel prepared to make a recommendati
They did, however, describe the report as very worthwhl_le and felt the Board
should pursue the concepts of water quality and supply protection and look.. ...11.. -4. 4.1.- ...................... ....:,,...— 4... 1,1.. 4-
t....4-,
-
TN'
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
KILIZEOROUGEC
NORTEI CAROLINA.
27278
suui or
db4
r_
6 inrc cbt it
ENO TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 10, 1981
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Harris, Mrs. Barbour, Mike Woods, Joe Rees
STAFF PRESENT: Fred LUce, Susan Smith
Luce presented the background and update on the status of the Water
Resources Task Force Report, explaining both the purpose for the recom-
• mendations and the moratorium on development activity in the University
-- -- Lake watershed.
Barbour emphaSized the need for the public hearing on the Task Force
Report.
The Advisory Council reviewed the recommendations addressing water quality.
RECOMMENDATION e7
Harris asked what atea .Cane Creek Reservoir would supply. He inquired
if the recommendations addressed both quality and quantitj!. Luce responded
that the particular recoranendations which were being reviewed addressed
primarily quality. Harris noted that there -appeared to be no restriction4
on town growth relative to water supply. Luce noted that the intent was
to accomodate, not restrict growth. Luce noted that one third of the
County contained the identified watersheds, but that anticipated growth
areas for the Towns did not include the identified watersheds. Barbour
indicated that she felt that these recommendations were to restrictive.
Harris asked if efforts were made to compare supply to mouths. Luce
responded that no attempt was made to On f11. 1- —
•
•I
ENO TAC
NOVEMaER 10, 1981
Page 2
•
RECOMMENDATXON # 8
Luce noted the activity nodes in the area, explained the character of
the corridor and highlighted the compromise of the recommendation.
Barbour inquired about Carrboro's proposed industrial area and expressed
concern that the designated activity nodes not be poured in concrete.
Smith explained that these nodes can be altered or added to through
an amendment process: Woods indicated that landowners in the Propdsed
Industrial Suitablity Area were not willing to sell their land.
Woods asked if the Rural Buffer was Chapel Will's greenbelt, and expressed
concern that that area would experience the same problems as British
greenbelts.-
- •
RECOmMENDATION # 9
Barbour inquired as to why.we were being so restrictive in our recOmmenda-
tions. Luce noted problems with the Haw P/ver. Barbour asked why efforts
are not being at ;lennCounty.gph
°se tr :rr:71i7;i- 1!: tta t noted talpe 17
sewage into the Jordan. Luce indicated that efforts were directed at - -
minimizing that activity throOgh the new water treatment plant.
• ,
Woods and Barbour expressed concern that there was a potential to place
a 100% restriction on development in Orange County for water -iquality and
quantity purposes. ' Luce indicated that many identified sites were not
really explored, just noted. Woods expressed concern that ten years ago
people had said the same thing about the Jordan Lake Reservoir.
Barbour noted the duckweed problem in Orange Lake.
•
Barbour expressed concern that the extent of land covered by the proposed
recommendations, Luce noted that physiography of the County determined
the area, not politics or the Planning Staff.
Barbour felt that projections for water supply needs was based On growth
in the southern portion of the County. Luce noted the recommendation not
to allow interbasin transfers of water except in emergency situations.
He indicated that past transfers had always;;occurred during drought periods.
, •_,
ENO TAC
November 10, 1981
Page 3
Rees noted that development reduces the natural vegetation's ability
to absorb pollutants.
Barbour expressed a need for industry to allow a tax base for the County.
Luce indicated that the land has some natural ability, to absorb septic
waste. He again indicated that Chapel Hill was putting an addition onto
its treatment plant.
Luce explained the concept of upland water supply watersheds. Barbour
expressed concern with the need to prOvide living space for people'.
Woods indicated that the identified watersheds significantl* reduced
the amount of acreage available for development. He asked where would
people go to live. Barbour noted that the County did not wish to be
involved in the utilities business. Luce indicated that in the area
of concern the Town of Hillsborough would be the appropriate utilities
provider:
Weeds explained that he was required to put in a 16" line for the
Weatherstone project as required to serve 52 units. He noted that there
was not enough divelOpment on this line and the result was pollution
in the line that required a chlorination treatment every 24 hours.
Barbour expressed concern with conflicting statements regarding,growth
in the County. She noted that at an earlier date she .
had suggested a five acre minimum and was laughed .at, even though the
suggestion was tied to an optional implementation measure.
Harris inquired about the impact of these recommendations on farming.
Luce responded that bona fide farming activity was exempt from regulation.
Barbour expressed concern about the need for tax relief. Luce noted
existing tax breaks. Barbour responded about the problem, of information
about these tax breaks.
Woods expressed concern that the Report was deceptive since the
stiormwater management measures were not -yet drafted. He inquired about
the effect on housing costs as the financial costs of regulation were
passed on to the consumer.
Barbour added that the Water Resources 'Task Force Report was also
included in the Land Use Plan prior to being reviewed.
ENO TAC
November 10.,- 1-9.81
Page 4
Barbour noted that Barnes had asked the County Manager to put out
information on the watershed restrictions to clear up confusions.
Luce responded that implementation of these measures would be reviewed
by the technical people on the staff like S&E regulations.
Barbour, Woods and Harris expressed concerns that regulations increase
the price of housing, land and taxes.
Barbour felt there was a discrepancy between the County's desire for
large open spaces and taxation rates which tared these areas out of exister
Luce noted that the Task Force had drafted the recommendations with
quality in mind as specified in their mandate from the *Commissioners.
The Commissioners decisions on the eport would balance these quality
recommendations with other 'concerns..
Harris inquired if ther was a technology available to purify water. Luce
cited the activated carbon treatment but noted that there is a tendency
to become dependent on the treatment process as a protective barrier and
ignore the potential for human error in the process.
Harris felt that there was a need to balance protection of water sources
with purification and waste disposal measures. Luce responded that there
was a preventive philosophy iMplict in the recommendations. Harris inqUire,
if' there were equally problems with quantity. Luce responded that there
were questions about the results of litigation on the Cane Creek Reservoir
and pollution levels in the Jordan Lake Reservoir due to the Hawiltiver
pollution;. Woods noted that Jordan Lake antiquates everything else
if it is -certified, especially the protection of Cane Creek Reservoir
given its supply potential. Barbour'asked if Orange County had made
application for water from the Jordan. Luce indicated that only OWASA
had applied.
RECOMMENDATION # 2 ' '
Barbour expressed concern with the inclusion of the reference to the
Eno State Park in Recommendation 02 . Luce responded that it was '
included to highlight the uniqueness of the treatment of the Eno River:
, Rees agreed with the intent of the recommendation. and the reference. Barbot
felt there was no need to protect the area anymore that any, other area and
that the continued flow of the river was not dependant on the Report. The
existence of the Park was not the reason for the recommendation but rather'
the, need, to protect the river was the reason she added. Rees felt that
the river was the Park in this case.
ENO TAC
November 10, 1981
Page 5
Council members discussed the absence of certain pieces of information
noted in the Report and expressed concern that this information be
considered prior to any action on the Report.
MOTION: _
Harris motioned that
consideration be given to delay action
on the Report until other parts of the
equation were available ( such as, the
status of Cane Creek; information on the
supply in Jordan Reservoir; the State
report; and stormwater management measures).
Barbour amended the original motion to include the reference to storm—
water management measures.
Barbour inquired if the County had a conservation plan. : Luce responded
that the resolution was passed by the Board.
Rees noted that he had reservations on the motion. but that even so,the ' .-
motion would pass without his vote.
VOTE: Motion passed, Rees abstaining.
Barbour expressed concern with the lack of conservation efforts in Chapel
Hill. Harris agreed noting that thet, owns included the majority of users.
Luce responded that CM2 SA has a Conservation Plan for University Lake
based on the level below the dam during a drought.
Barbour asked if the Eno State Park Reservoir site was referenced in the
Report. Luce responded that it had but noted that it was out of the
County.
Barbour asked if there had been any consideration of landowner compensation
due to these restrictions. Luce responded that that had not been formally
considered by the Task Force, but that that would be addressed if
the regulations implied limitations to usage of the land to a reasonable
degree.
RECOMMENDATION #
ENQ TAC
November 10, 1981
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION 0 6
Rees felt that this was an excellent recommendation but noted a
problem with enforcement without there being an economic incentive. -
Luce responded that OWASA's plan had been adopted by the Towns and
could be enforced as an ordinance. -
RECOMMENDATION 0 11
No comment.
RECOMMENDATION 0 12
No comment,
RECOMMENDATION 0 13
Barbour questioned the formula used.
RECOMMENDATION 0 14
Barbour asked if this requirement would be built into the subdivision
regulations.
--
Woods noted that any perked lot had an extension factor built into the
septic site for safety purposes. Harris felt that the second site
requirement seemed like overkill and that larger sites seemed adequate.
Barbour asked who would monitor this reccomendation. Luce indicated that
State law allowS the designation of sanitary districts where in return
for a tax the septic systems would be regularly puMped out.
RECOMMENDATIONS 0 15 and 16, •
No comment
RECOMMENDATION 0 17
Barbour felt that this was the best recommendation
GENERAL DISCUSSION
-----------mir""mill,
ENO TAC
November 10, 1981
Page 7
Woods expressed concern with the overall intent noting that the
recommendations emphasize restricting development, yet the major
erosion and sedimentation source I's farming. Barbour cited that
this had been addressed in the Back Woods area.
Rees expressed general agreement with the recommendations of the
Report, but added that a.consideration of Jordan Reservoir should be
part of the overall plan for protection.
Barbour inquired if there was a law addressing pollution. Luce cited
the Federal Clean Water Act.
•
Woods felt that too much value had been placed on the statement about
Eno State Park and indicated that its deletion was preferable as it
was a very Political statement. Luce responded that the statement was
meant to emphasize the Park.
The council decided not to make a recommendation of the Report noting.
its motion requesting the inclusion of other information and consideration
of concerns not addressed in the Report.
•
•
....._
•
. .
•
•
j- owl...
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jr.ltoo No. 12
106 FAsr MARGARET LANE
Hil-LsBoROUGH, N. C.
27278
RICHARD R.WILITTED,CAsinfte
NORMAN GUSTAVESON
SHIRLEY E.ISARSHAU.
NORMAN WALKER
DON WILIMOIT
March 18, 1982
The Honorable Lucius theshire,
Mayor, iltssil of Hillsborough
East Orange Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mayor Cheshire:
Last June the 'Awn of Hillsborough Board of Ommissioners received
the Orange County Water Resources Task Force Report.. Last evening the
Orange County Board of (301Tmissioners considered this Report and the ream-
mndations contained within it as well as the Orange Cbunty Planning
Board's proposed caindrients to the Zoning Ordinance which would implement
those recommendations. The Orange County Board of Ommissioners would
Like the Hillsborough Board of Caantissioners to study the recontrendations
with regard to the Board's long term plans for the 'In's water supply.
May we have your response at the earliest time convenient?
Sincerely,
___
Richard E. matted, Chairman
Orange County Board of Oxanissioners
cc: Orange County Corrmissioners
Enclosure
� .-. . .
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING ACTION ON WATER TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Board reviewed the Water Task Force report.
Its action concerning each Task Force recommendation follows.
The Task Force recommendations are underlined.
---"'"'11.1111.m11111.111.,111111111- 111.
PLANNING ACTION ON WATER TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATION
• •
1. Orange Count should adopt a 'olic which calls fo in m z n: . _
outflows of water from one major basin to another.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer motioned that the Board of Commissioners adopt recommendation
number one of the Water Task Force. Wilson seconded. Motion carried
with one abstention by Ms. Gordon.
2. Orange County should allocate the water it has rights over in Lake
Orange to the Town of .HiTlsborough, the Thm6vi---iterwsforange- iatems
ncorporated, and t e in-stream f-ow needs of the no River.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer motioned approval of the second recommendation of the Water
Task Force. Cleary seconded. Motion carried with four in favor,
three against. Bacon and Laszlo abstained.
3. Orange Count should develo. 'alleles rePuirin: water conservation in
both the receiving and withdrawal basins where interbasin transfers of
water are re.uired to meet emer:enc situations.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer motioned approval of the recommendation. Laszlo seconded. Approved
unanimously.
4. The Task Force Re.ort has identified five prime reservoir sites in the
County. Local water suppliers should identif which of these sites
they would Ike 'reserved for future use. The Count and water su. .liers
should work together to imaement means of .rotectin and Preservig n
t ese sites ox future use.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer motion that recommendation number four be accepted but that in
addition sites seventeen and eighteen shown on the watershed map and
discussed in the report on pages 26-30 be included as protected sites.
These sites are on the north and south forks of the Little River. Irvin
seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Cordon, Cleary, Harris, Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin.
Noes: None. Abstentions: Lunsford.
5. Orange County should investigate the feasibilit of a re:ional solution
to Its uture water needs. As part of that effort Orange COuty should
reserve a portion of the water a location from Jordan Lake as a lon:
term option or water supp y.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Irvin moved approval of this recommendation. Kizer seconded. Carried
unanimously.
6. Orange County should promote efforts to conserve water.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer moved approval of the recommendation. Laszlo seconded. Carried
unanimously.
8. Orange County should adopt a Land Use Plan and associated regulations
which preserve and enhance water 9uality in protected watersheds.
Certain .oint sources of •ollution including sewage treatment plants,
land fills, hazardous waste :enerators storage facilities or dispose;
sites, and major new highways should be prohibited from these watersheds.
Urban develo•ment includin_ medium-and hi:h-densit residential, commercial
and industrial uses should be prohibited from University Lake and Cane
Creek watersheds. Medium- and hi:h-densit residential housin: and
commercial and industrial develo.ment in the U. •er Eno waterhsed should
be directed to the McGowan Creek sub-basin. Strict water-quality related
standards should be imposed on development in the McGowan Creek water-
shed. Develo.ment should not be •romoted in the Seven Mile Creek sub
basin and any industr which does .ro.ose to locate in that watershed
should be able to show that it will not have an im.act on water •uaiit .
I development intensifi.es. in the McGowan Creek sub-basin the water
'quaiity in Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake should be monitored.
Any decrease in water quality which does occur may necessitate either
moving the intake pies of the Orange-Alamance water s`stems and the
Town of Hi lsborough upstream of the confluence of McGowan Creek and
the Eno River or an earlier develo.ment of Seven Mile Creek reservoir
•
than might be necessary based on water demand alone.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer motioned that the recommendation be approved with the addition of
the watershed areas fro reservoir sites 17 and 18 which were added in
an earlier motion. Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Cleary, Bacon,
Wilson, Irvin. Noes: None.
9. The Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough and Chatham and Alamance Counties,
show d incorporate the findings and recommendations of this report into
their Land Use Plans and Develo,ment Regulations.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Gordon motioned to accept the recommendation with a change in the
wording from "should incorporate" to "should be encouraged to
- incorperate". Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Harris, Wilson,
Laszlo. Noes: Cleary, Lunsford. Abstention: Bacon.
. ,
., .
. .
_ .
10.:.The Orange Water and Sewer Authority should adopt a policy which
states that it will not extend sewer and water lines into the
Universit Lake and Cane Creek watersheds except in emergency
situations. The Town of Hillsborough, the Town of Mebane and
Oran:e-Alamance water systems should adopt •o idles that state
that they will, only extend sewer and water lines into the Mc-
Gowan Creek sub-basin, of the Up.er Eno watershed in accordance with
the Land Use Plan of Orange County except in emergency situations:
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Cleary motioned approval of the recommendation with a change in the
language from "should adopt" to "should be encouraged to adopt".
Irvin seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Cleary, Harris, Wilson,
Laszlo, Irvin. Noes: None. Abstentions: Lunsford.
11. Orange Count should extend coverage of its Zoning Ordinance to
include the proposed protected water supply watershed areas in
Bingham, Hillsborough, Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Wilson moved adoption of the recommendation as written in the
Report. Laszlo seconded. Ayes: Kizer, Gordon, Bacon, Harris,
Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin. Noes: Cleary. Abstention: Lunsford.
12. Orange County should implement the following zoning districts and
associated 'erformance standards in protected watersheds: a minimum
- -- 2 acre residential lot size coupled with stormwater sZinz •etre- . -
quirements which will insure that the .ualit and quantity of run-
off from a site approximates the ,redevelo.ment conditions. A minimum
5 acre resdiential lot size without re.uiring stormwater management
measures. For non-residential developments the ratio of iervious
surface to gross land area should not exceed 0.25.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Gordon moved approval of the recommendation, Harris seconded.
Motion passed with Lunsford and Shnaklin opposed.
13. Orange County should require stream buffers along perennial streams
in water su.pl watersheds and stipulate land uses for these buffer
areas ap.ro.riate to their intended function. The Task Force recommends
that the width of stream buffer alon an length of stream be 50 feet
//us 4 times the percent slo.e. The stream buffer should be measured
from the edge of the flood plain. The technical review committee es-
tablished in the County Zoning Ordinance should review the buffer re-
quirements or all pro.osed non-residential developments and require
additional buffer areas where necessary. The Task Force recommends that
sul---7fferatrealreas remain 4
_ .n nof-ok...-.1 .......-......._.-:__
14. Orange Count should adopt the following recommendations regarding
on-site waste water disposal systems: All newly platted lots bordering
on perennial streams and requiring an on-site waste water disposal.
s stem should show a second dis•osalarea to be recorded as an ease-
ment on the final plat and no building or other activity should occur
on this portion of the parcel of land which would prevent its future
use for on-site waste disposal. Orau •e County should investigate
developing an on-site waste water disposal system monitoring and
maintenance program for the three water supply watersheds in the
county. V
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Gordon motioned approval of the recommendation. Irvin seconded.
Motion passed with Lunsford, Irvin, Gordon, Cleary, Harris,
Crawford, in favor; Kizer and Shanklin opposed.
15. Oran:e County should adopt stormwater management measures that would
apply to protected watersheds.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Cleary moved approval of the recommendation. Irvin seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
16. Orange County should adopt the two followin: recommendations re:ard-
i.ng sedimentation and erosion: the Count . should continue to administer
a strong local sedimentation and erosion control program. The County
s ould sponsor in conjunction with OWASA a resource conservation and
deve o•ment project in Cane Creek and Universit Lake watersheds.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Kizer moved approval of the recommendation as revised:
Orange County should adopt the two following
recommendations regarding sedimentation and
erosion: .the County should continue to administer
a strong local sedimentation and erosion control
program. The County should sponsor in conjunction
and development projecton Cane Creek, University
Lake, Upper Eno, North Fork Little River and
South Fork Little..River watersheds. Motion
passed with Shanklin opposed.
17. Orange County should develo. a plan of action for dealin:, with
spit of hazardous materials in water su. .1 watersheds. '
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Gordon moved approval of rhP rnwn....n.+A_.__._. ,"__ • -
' -. - -
. . ATTACHMENT E
Original Nov. 24,
Revised December
- Revised January IA
PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS - WATER TASK 1:::45 ec-E ,Thiasi
4.2.26 Protected Watershed, I (PW-I) District
a) Intent
It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land
and structures in watersheds which drain to reservoirs supply-
ing drinking water to the people of Orange County. The quality
of water in these water supply watersheds can be affected by
the activities of man including farming, construction of
highways and rural subdivisions and the growth of towns and
industrial development. Types of water pollutants resulting
from these activities include sediment, bacterial contamination,
heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level radio-
activity. A task force appointed by the County Commissioners
has studied the problems of water pollution. They have documented
their findings in a report entitled Report of the Orange County
Water Resources Task Force and dated May, 1981. That statement
of problems and needs is included by reference.
The intent of the Protected Watershed I (PW-I) district is to
. .
apply a set of regulations for watershed protection to portions
of water in the watersheds • he COunty which are expected to
become urban in character in the future.
b) Application Criteria
The Protected Watershed I (PW-I) district is established as a
district which overlays other zoning districts established in
this ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure
within the Protected Watershed I (PW-I) district shall comply
with use regulations applicable to the underlying zoning district
as well as the requirements of the PW-I district.
1. This district will be applied in the future urban portion
of McGowan Creek subbasin of the Upper Eno Watershed and in
other areas of water supply watersheds which may be desigAated
to become urban in the next 20 years.
4.2.27 Protected Watershed II (PE-II) District
a) Intent
It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land
and structues in watersheds which drain to reservoirs supply-
ing drinking water to the people of Orange County. The quality
of water in these water supply watersheds can be affected by
the activities of man including- farming, construction of highways
and rural subdivisions and the growth of towns and industrial
development. Types of water pollutants resulting from these
activities include sediment, bacterial contamination, heavy
metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level radioactivity.
A task force appointed by the County Commissioners has studied
the problems of water pollution. They have documented their
findings in a report entitled Re..rt of the Oran e Count Water
Resources Task Force and dated May, 1981. That statement of
problems and'needs is included by reference. The intent of
the Protected Watershed II (PA-II) district is to apply a set
of regulations for watershed protection to portions of water-
supply watersheds in the County which are presently mostly
undeveloped and where it is desireable to maintain the rural
undeveloped character of the watershed in the future.
b) Application Criteria
The Protected Watershed II (PW-II) district is established as a
district which overlays other zoning districts established
in this ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure -
within the Protected Watershed II (PW-II) district shall comply
with use regulations applicable to the underlying zoning district
as well, as the requirements of the PW-II district.
1. This district will be applied to all protected water supply
watersheds 1n the Land Use Plan, except in future urban portions
of McGowan's Creek.
------rnret-t."-1""minPoroWINIPPIPP
•
6.23 EXTRA RE,UIREMENTS FOR PROTECTED WATERSHED DISTRICTS (PW-I ND PW-II)
6.23.1 Stream Buffers Required In Protected Watersheds
Within Protected Watershed Districts, an area of land along perennial
streams shall be required to remain in its natural state, unless the
area is subject to serious erosion in which case an erosion resistant
vegetative cover shall be established and maintained. Perennial streams
Are those streams in solid blue and dashed blue on the USGS Quadrangle
map series for Orange County.
6.23.1 a) Width of Buffer Calculated
The stream buffer area shall start at the outer edge of the flood plain
and be measured a distance of fifty (50) feet away from the flood plain
plus an additional distance depending on the slope near the stream. The
slope shall be calculated by measuring a distance 250 feet from the cen-
ter of the stream, determining the average rise in elevation and multi-
plying that value by four. This value shall be added to the minimum
buffer of 50 feet to determine total width of buffer area required.
The maximum buffer in any case shall not exceed IS-0 .4Whim-val-de
. The flood plain is defined in the
Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by
registered engineers or surveyors, by the alluvial soil as designated
in the OrangeCounty soil survey, or through a site analysis by the
Orange County Planning Staff. Slope shall be determined from the USGS
Quadrangle map, by on-site measurements, or, by special survey by re-
gistered engineers or surveyors.
6.23.1 b) Development Advisory Committee's Review of Stream Buffers
The Development Advisory Committee established in Article 2.4.2.,
can review the buffer requirements for all developments and may re-
commend additional buffer area where necessary.
6.23.1 c) Permitted Uses Within Stream Buffer .Areas
The following uses are allowed as a matter of right in stream buffers.
All other uses are prohibited.
1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of
electricity, telephone, and cable television service, accessory
and appertent apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and
switching boxes.
2. Bona fide farms except any use of farm property for non-farm purposes.
3. Neighborhood utility facilities located within a public right of way
with the permission of the owner of the right of way (State, City or 7bn
,...... J
rl'-.41...... .•
6.23.1 d) Stream Buffers Included As Part Of Minimum Lot Size Requirements
Stream buffers may be used as part of the required lot area or
lot size for residential and non-residential developments.
6.23.1 e) Existin. Vegetation In Buffer Areas
Existing forested areas or any healthy natural vegetation can
not be removed from a stream buffer except when replaced with
vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater runoff velocity
and quantity one year after planting.
6.23.1 f) New Ve.etation In Buffer Areas Re.uired
New vegetation shall be planted to capture non-source pollutants
before they reach the perennial stream, as per applicable Orange
County standards.
6.23.2 Modified Size Re.uirements In the Protected Watershed II 1/31i-11), District
.. . .,.
a) Irrespective of densities allowed by this ordinance, the
development of any land or structure within the Protected
Watershed IX district shall require one of the following:
a) a minimum 5 acre lot size without stonmwater
management' teChiliques.
b) a minimum 2 acre lot sizeWhen provision
is made to manage stormwater runoff. Runoff
- - from the 10-year storm on the developed site
shall not be greater than the rate of runoff
on the same site prior to the proposed develop-
ment.
6.23.3 Stormwater Runoff From Proposed Developments To Be Minimized In
Protected Watershed I (PW-I) District
Stormwater runoff from the 10-year storm on the developed site
shall not be greater than the rate of runoff on the same site
prior to the proposed development. This provision shall apply
to all major subdivisions.
6.23.4 Impervious Surface Regulated in Protected Watersheds
An impervious surface is any surface through which water
cannot penetrate or can only penetrate slowly. This would
include_ paved streets and parking lots, concrete sidewalks,
and structures which cover land, As a watershed t becomes
developed, the amount of impervious surface increases causing
a decrease in soil ainceirra-4,,,, ...g ...---- _
_ •
'.".. ..W....MMOMM=MMIMMTRILM41.14111.1414411
•-' 5
ORANGE COTTNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTI/ CAROLINA
27278
4,01 •1
6■11■3/:
43 11.,8.Ff
74 ri--
- - - - -- • ..1.. -
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Special Meeting - Work Session 7:30 P.M. Wednesday, March 17, 1982
Commissioners Meeting Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough,
North Carolina
1. Discussion of the Report of the Orange County Water Resources Task Force.
' .
2. Discussion of proposed Zoning Text amendments related to implementation
of recommendations by Water Resources Task Force.
/dg
• - H
%r.
i:. .
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SUPrACE RATIOS - % 0F GROSS LAND AREA
ZONING DisTRICT LU/ RESIDENTIAL MON-RSSIDENTIAL nmaxammir
AR 22 6.0% 6.0%
22 6.0s 6.0%
R1 22 6.0% 6.0%
22 6.0% 6.0%
24 6.5% 6.5%
R2
26 7.0% 7.0%
R3 28 8.9% 8.9%
30 1040% 10.0%
R4 33 12.8t 12.8%
35 14.2% 14.2%
R5 38 17.0% 17.0%
40 18.8% 18.8%
se 43 22.0% 22.0%
45 24.5% 24.5%
R13 - - -
50 31% 31.0%
LC1 -' 30 10.0% 10.0%
32 11.8% 11.8%
--_. NO2 40 18.8% 18.8%
42 21.0% 21.0%
CC3 50 31.0% 31.0%
52 34.4% 34.4%
GC4 . 53 36.0% 36.0%
55 39.4% 39.4%
EC5 53 36.0% 36.0%
55 39.4% 39.4%
01 40 18.8% 18.8%
42 21.0% 21.0%
Et 23 6.3% 6.3%
25 6.8% 6.8% .
/1 23 6.3% 6.3%
25 6.8% 6.8%
12 45 24.5% 24.5%
47 27.0% 27.0%
13 50 31.0% 31.0%
52 34.4% 34.4%
AS - A Az