Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-01-1993 - VIII-A 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 1. 1993 Action Agenda Item # VIa-A SUBJECT: WATERSHED PROTECTION STANDARDS AND ZONING OF LITTLE RIVER AND CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIPS Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Zoning Atlas (Map) Amendments Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes ___X_No INFORMATION CONTACT: ATTACHMENT(S): Mary Willis Comments and Issues (Staff Response) Extension 2583 Proposed Amendments 8/23/93 Public Hearing Minutes (Under separate cover) Written Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 10/18/93 Planning Board Agenda (Draft) Hillsborough -732-8181 (Refer also to 8/23/93 Public Hearing Durham -688-7331 Agenda) Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of extending zoning to Little River and Cedar Grove Townships and implementing State mandated watershed protection standards. BACKGROUND: On August 23, 1993 a public hearing was held to receive citizen comments on proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of extending zoning to Little River and Cedar Grove Townships and implementing State mandated watershed protection standards. 2 On October 18, 1993, the Planning Board considered the proposed amendments and recommended approval of the amendments presented at public hearing on August 23, 1993, with the following changes: (see attached Comments and Issues for discussion). 1. Adopt a new sliding scale for impervious surface ratios to apply to all existing and new lots in WS-II and WS-III watershed • (except for new lots in UNIV-PW and UNIV-CA). The proposed scale would require a 12% impervious surface limit for one-acre lots, and 10.5% for two-acre lots, and 6.0% for lots five acres or more. 2. Where the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet (excluding right-of-way), require also that the minimum lot area inclusive of right-of-way be a full acre (43,560). 3. Reduce the proposed minimum lot size in the Flat River Watershed to one acre. Maintain the 2-acre minimum lot size proposed in the Little River Watershed. 4. Increase the proposed minimum lot size in the portion of the Cane Creek Watershed outside of the critical Area from 40,000 square feet to 2 acres. 5. Eliminate the existing requirement that septic systems and structures be setback 300 feet and 150 feet, respectively, from streams in Critical Areas. Septic systems would be required to be located outside of any stream buffers, or 100' from the stream, whichever is farther. Structures must be located outside of the stream buffer. 6. Change the upper limit for non-residential impervious surface in WS-IV watersheds from 50% to 70% to correctly reflect the amount allowed by the State mandate. 7. Correct the definition of Critical Area in Article 22 to reflect a distance of 1/2 mile from the normal pool of the reservoir or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. 8. Other clarifications of and references to standards which are already in place. Differences between Planning Staff Recommendation and Planning Board Recommendation The only issue where the Planning Board action differed from the staff 3 recommendation involved the sliding scale for impervious surface. The Planning Board was concerned that the sliding scale proposed by the Planning Staff allows fewer square feet of impervious surface in some cases as lot size increases. For example, 13,231 square feet of impervious surface would be allowed on a 4.5-acre lot, but only 11,761 square feet would be allowed on 6.0 acre lot. The Planning Board proposed alternatives sliding scales to address the decrease in square • footage on lots from 4.5 to 6.0 acres (See "Comments and Issues" for full discussion). Additional changes are needed to address impervious surface limits and lot size limitations in Back Creek Watershed and to apply non- residential zoning designation to commercial properties not included in the August 23, 1993 Notice of Public Hearing. These items will be advertised for public hearing on November 22, 1993. (Separate item on this agenda.) RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Atlas, Subdivision Regulations and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as presented at the August 23, 1993 public hearing, with revisions as recommended by the Planning Board, with exception of the sliding scale for residential impervious surface limits. The Administration acknowledges that the sliding scales proposed by both the Planning Board and the Planning Staff for impervious surface are reasonable and will accomplish goals of watershed protection while allowing for reasonable development of property. The Revised Sliding Scale proposed by the Planning Staff is recommended however, based on greater flexibility with regard to future subdivision of larger tracts. The proposed effective date of new watershed and zoning provisions is January 1, 1994. 4 COMMENTS AND ISSUES WATERSHED REGULATIONS/ZONING August 23, 1993 Public Hearing 1. Recommended lot size and impervious surface limits for the Little River and Flat River Watersheds are significantly more restrictive than the State mandate. The proposal presented at the public hearing on August 23, 1993 included a two-acre minimum lot size and six percent impervious surface limit in the Little River and Flat River watersheds. The Flat River Watershed is classified as WS-III (one-half acre minimum lot size or 24% impervious surface). The Little River Watershed is classified as WS-II (one-acre minimum lot size or 12% impervious surface). The higher standards were proposed in response to the recommendations of a technical study prepared for the Lake Michie and Little River reservoirs. A technical study prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee for the City of Durham in 1989 entitled "Watershed Management Study: Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir Watersheds" recommended the more stringent lot size and impervious surface limits. Several years ago, when watershed protection initiatives were being considered, the City of Durham officially requested that Orange County adopt a two-acre standard as recommended by the Study. Durham County has enacted a two-acre minimum lot size and a six percent impervious surface ratio in the rural portions of those watersheds in Durham County. Also, in 1990, Orange County adopted standards for University Lake Watershed in response to recommendations of a technical study performed for that watershed. For these reasons, the Planning Staff originally recommended adoption of a higher standard than that required by the State Mandate. Issues and concerns have been raised regarding possible hardship to property owners due to the more restrictive standards, particularly since the two watersheds cover all of Little River and about 1/3 of Cedar Grove Townships. These issues are summarized and addressed below. a) The State mandate requires a lot size OR impervious surface limit, but not both. The general approach which was used in developing the proposals presented for public hearing on August 23, 1993 is as follows: where existing Orange County watershed protection standards are more stringent than the mandated standards, it was proposed that the existing standards continue to apply; 1 5 where existing standards are less restrictive than the mandated standards it was proposed that they be modified to reflect the minimum mandated standards; where technical studies have been prepared which recommend protection measures more stringent than the State mandate or existing standards, it was proposed that the Study recommendations apply. Orange County has historically applied both lot size and impervious surface restrictions within its protected watersheds. A six percent impervious surface ratio has been applied to areas where the minimum lot size is two acres and a 12% impervious surface limit has applied to areas where the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet. Compliance with these standards has generally not been a problem when new lots are created. However, significant difficulties can be encountered when applying the standards to non-conforming lots. Lots which are very deep may require a particularly long driveway, and lots that are very wide may have a high amount of impervious surface in the road frontage. In addition, gravel roads and driveways have not been included in impervious surface calculations (except in University Lake Watershed). The State mandate now requires that gravel surfaces be considered impervious. Existing Sliding Scale of Impervious Surface Ratios The burden to property owners of land use controls for watershed protection was addressed in the development of standards for the University Lake Watershed. Standards in the ULW are more restrictive than standards within other protected watersheds, particularly in terms of lot size, impervious surface (which includes gravel roads), stream buffers and wastewater disposal. To assure that reasonable development could still occur on existing lots, impervious surface on existing lots has been calculated in accordance with a sliding scale. The percentage of impervious surface increases as lot size decreases. The scale ranges from a 15% impervious surface limit for 1/2 acre lots to four percent impervious surface for lots containing six acres or more. According to this scale, 1.0-acre lots are allowed 14% impervious surface and 2.0-acre lots were allowed 12% impervious surface. The higher limits for smaller lots were offset by lower limits on larger lots, and created greater consistency in the square footage available for development. Proposed Sliding Scale The Planning Staff proposes that the existing sliding scale be revised to provide for a 12% impervious surface ratio for one-acre lots (consistent with the 1-acre lot size/12% impervious surface ratio option offered by the State Mandate), and a 6% impervious surface ratio for 5-acre lots (consistent with the current 2 6 requirement for existing lots in the University Lake Watershed). Impervious surface limits would increase by .15% for each .20-acre decrease in lot size below 6.0 acres (see table below). It is proposed that the revised scale apply to all existing lots, (including those in ULW) and to new lots in all watersheds except ULW. (New lots in ULW would continue to meet a project-wide limit of 6%, with that allotment distributed equitably among the individual lots.) The revised scale would allow less impervious surface than the existing sliding scale. The greatest change would occur in 1.0-acre lots, which would decrease from 14% to 12% impervious surface. As the lot size approaches five acres, the differences diminish. For lots sizes between five and six acres, the impervious surface ratios of the revised scale range from .15% to .50% less than the current scale. Currently, gravel roads and driveways are not treated as impervious surface (except in the University Lake Watershed). The State mandate requires that gravel be considered an impervious surface. The inclusion of gravel roads and driveways in impervious surface calculations can have a significant effect on lot development, particularly for two-acre lots which have previously been subject to a six percent limit. Reasonable development can occur on a one-acre lot with a 12% impervious surface limit. For example: a one-acre lot, with 150 feet of road frontage, could be served by a 20' wide public or private road, with the house site roughly in the center of the property and, have about 2400 square feet of impervious surface to allot to structures. The same configuration on a two- acre lot would allow only about 1100 square feet of impervious surface to allot to structures. In addition to the smaller amount of impervious surface available after accounting for roads and driveways, there could be added hardships in that larger house sizes and more outbuildings may be desired on the larger lot. To determine the impact of lowering the sliding scale, the Planning Staff reviewed all building permits issued for single-family homes during the last quarter (July - September). Below is a summary of these construction trends. Total Permits Issued 42 One-Story Dwellings 16 (38%) Average Floor Area (square 2,504 feet) Average Lot Size (Acres) 6.1 Two-Story Dwellings 26 (62%) Average Floor Area (square 3,002 feet) Average Lot Size (Acres) 3.9 3 7 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE Version 1/11/91 Planning & Inspections Department - Orange County NC PROJECT DATA: Applicant Name: One-Acre Lot (Including 1/2 of 50-foot right-of-way) Location: Tax Map Reference: LOT DATA: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DATA: Width (Ft) : 150 Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) : 12% Frontage (Ft) : 150 Maximum Impervious Surface Area (SqFt) : 5227 Depth (Ft) : 290 Area (SqFt) : 43560 BUILDING DATA: Number of Stories: 1 ROAD DATA: Front Setback (Ft) : 120 Class: Public Total Floor Area (SqFt) : 2200 Width (Ft) : 20 First Floor Area (SqFt) : 2200 DRIVEWAY DATA: UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES: Length Width Area Length (Ft) : 135 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) Width (Ft) : 8 Garage 0 0 0 Storage 12 . 10 120 Utility 0 0 0 Porch 15 6 90 Sidewalk 40 4 160 Patio/Deck 0 0 0 Pool/Tennis 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Total 370 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS: Structural Coverage Driveway Road Parcel 1/2 Size Building Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage Width Area (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) 43560 2200 370 2570 135 8 1080 150 10 1500 CALCULATION RESULTS: Impervious Area (SqFt) : 5150 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 0 )Yes=1 % Impervious Surface: 11.82% No =0 Variance From Required ISR: 0. 18% OR 77. 2 SqFt Minimum Lot Size Required To Comply: 0.99 Acres OR 42917 SqFt NOTES: (1) Utility structures/uses are not included as part of, but may be attached to or separate from, main building area. (2) Driveway length to include parking/back-up area plus property line-to-road distance. (3) Open, wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces. 8 These numbers are representative of construction occurring on one-acre lots since they include homes built on larger lots, e.g., a 1,950 square foot home on a ten- acre lot. When focusing on one-story homes constructed on one-acre lots, the average floor area calculated is 2,200 square feet. Using this floor area in association with a one-acre lot, impervious surface calculations were made to determine if a "typical "home such as this could comply with a 12% impervious surface ratio. The attached calculation sheet indicates that compliance is possible even when the driveway, 1/2 of the roadway and a storage building, porch and sidewalk are included. The State mandate requires a minimum lot size of two acres (Critical Areas) or one acre (outside of Critical Areas) if the respective impervious surface requirements of 6% or 12% are not met. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance currently requires a 40,000 square floor minimum lot size outside of Critical Areas. The minimum lot size as currently defined by Orange County excludes any road right-of-way. In order to also comply with the State mandate, it is proposed that the minimum lot size requirements be expanded to require that the gross lot area (which includes the road right-of-way) be at least 1.0 acre (43,560 square feet). RECOMMENDATION - The Planning Staff recommends that the revised sliding scale be used to determine the impervious surface ratio for all existing lots and new lots (except for new lots in the ULW). The overall effect of the revised sliding scale would be to meet the State mandate through lot size restrictions, while also maintaining a limit on impervious surface. PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS The only issue where the Planning Board action differed from the staff recommendation involved the sliding scale for impervious surface. The Planning Board was concerned that the sliding scale proposed by the Planning Staff allows fewer square feet of impervious surface in some cases as lot size increases. For example, 13,231 square feet of impervious surface would be allowed on a 4.5-acre lot, but only 11,761 square feet would be allowed on 6.0 acre lot. The PlanninG Board proposed alternatives sliding scales to address the decrease in square footage on lots from 4.5 to 6.0 acres. Differences Between Sliding Scales 0.5- to 4.5-acre Lots - The Planning Staff "Revised Scale" and the Planning Board "Adjusted Scales" are identical for lot sizes up to 4.5 acres. 4 9 4,5- to 6.0-acre Lots, Planning Staff Revised Scale: Between lot sizes of 0.5 and 4.5 acres, the square footage allowed in impervious surface increases incrementally from 2,777 square feet to 13,231 square feet. For lot sizes between 4.5 and 6.0 acres, the square footage decreases incrementally from 13,231 square feet to 11,761 square feet. Planning Board Adjusted Scales: In order to equalize disparities in square footage for lots between 4.5 and 6.0 acres, the Planning Board recommended that the sliding scale stop at 5.0 acres, or at minimum be revised to eliminate the decrease in impervious surface square footage as lot size increases from 4.5 acres to 6.0 acres. The Planning Board expressed concern that the scale would discourage the creation of larger lots due to the loss of allowed impervious surface. If the sliding scale stops at five acres, then all lots larger than five acres would be subject to a 6% impervious surface limit. The impervious surface limit would increase by 2,618 square feet for each acre over five acres. If the impervious surface limit "levels off" at 4.5 acres, then the impervious surface which would be allowed on lots between 4.5 and 6.0 acres is maintained at about 13,330 square feet (plus or minus about 10 feet). The impervious surface limit would increase by 2,204 square feet (5.06% ISR) for each acre over six acres. Lots Large than 6.0 Ares Planning Staff Revised Scale: According to the Planning Staff revised scale, 11,761 square feet of impervious surface would be allowed on a six-acre lot and would increase by 1,960 square feet for every acre thereafter. Planning Board Adjusted Scales: If the sliding scale stops at five acres, then 15,686 square feet of impervious surface would be allowed on a six-acre lot and would increase by 2,618 square feet for every acre thereafter. If the impervious surface limit "levels off" at 4.5 acres, then about 13,300 square feet of impervious surface would be allowed on a six acre lot, and would increase by 2,204 square feet for every acre thereafter. 5 10 The table which follows shows the Planning Staff Revised Scale (Shaded) and the two scales discussed by the Planning Board. The purpose in providing a sliding scale is to provide for watershed protection, while also assuring that reasonable development can continue to occur on the lot. The square footage figures in all of the proposed scales accomplish this goal. Even though the Planning Staff Revised Scale provides for less impervious surface for lots between 4.5 and 6.0 acres, it may also offer more flexibility in the event that property is subdivided int he future. For this reason, the Planning Staff continues to recommend approval of the Revised Scale. For example: Assume a six-acre lot on which impervious surface has been maximized according to the Planning Board's recommended scale. If that lot was later subdivided, the developed portion would need a lot size of 4.4 acres in order to continue to conform to impervious surface standards. The remaining lot could thus only contain 1.4 acres. If the property was also subject to a 2-acre minimum lot size, then it could not be subdivided. If the Planning Staff Revised Scale were applied in the same manner, then the six-acre lot could be subdivided into two three-acre lots. 6 11 Existing and Proposed Scales Planning Board Adjusted Scales Lot Size ULW Scale Revised Scale End Scale at 5 Acres Level Scale at 4.5 ac (Acres) ISR Square Feet .ISR., Sq Square Feet ISR Square Feet ISR Square Feet 6.0 5.0 13,068 4.50: 11,761 6.0 15,686 5.06 13,225 5.9 5.1 13,107 '4:65 11,951. - 6.0 15,424 5.15 13,236 5.8 5.2 13,138 4.80 12,127 6.0 15,162 5.24 13,239 5.7 5.3 13,159 4.95 12;290 6.0 14,900 5.33 13,233 5.6 5.4 13,172 5::10 12,441 6.0 14,638 5.42 13,221 5.5 5.5 13,177 1.:::.:5:.25-.'.- 12;578% 6.0 14,376 5.52 13,225 5.4 5.6 13,172 5.40 : 12,702 6.0 14,114 5.62 13,220 5.3 5,7 13,159 .5;55 r 12,813 6.0 13,852 5.73 13,229 5.2 5.8 13,138 5.70 12,911. 6.0 13,591 5.84 13,229 5.1 5.9 13,107 5.85 `: 12,996 6.0 13,329 5.95 13,218 5.0 6.0 13,068 6.00 13,068• 6.07 13,220 4.9 6.2 13,234 645 13.127 6.20 13,233 4.8 6.4 13,381 6 -. 13,173 6.33 13,235 4.7 6.6 13,512 8:45 ' 13;205 . `: 6.46 13,226 4.6 6.8 13,625 6.60 `. 13,225 6.60 13,225 4.5 7.0 13,721 6'75 13,231 4.4 7.2 13,880 6:90 13,225 4.3 7.4 13,861 7.05 13,205 4.2 7.6 13,904 7.20 13,173 4.1 7.8 13,930 ' 35.. . 13,127 4.0 8.0 13,939 ....7.5 .0 .... :' . 13,0 3.9 8.2 13,930 765 ;;;,„12,996 3.8 8.4 13,904 7.80 12,911 3.7 8.6 13,861 7.95 > 12,813 3.6 8.8 13,800 8;10 12,702 3.5 9.0 13,721 8..2 12,57$ 8.4 3.4 9.2 13,625 0 : 12,441 3.3 9.4 13,512 ,.. 8:55......_._:;:,._12,200 3.2 9.6 13,382 8.70_....._;, 12,1?..__: 3.1 9.8 13,234 8.85 11,451 3.0 10.0 13,068 9.00 11,761 .. 2.9 10.2 12,885 9.1 >. 11,559 2.8 10.4 12,685 9:30 11,343 `; 2.7 10.6 12,467 ....9,45 11,11:4 2.6 10.8 12,232 960 j 10,873 • Same as "Revised Scale" 2.5 11.0 11,979 9/5 10,618 (Shaded) 2.4 11.2 11,709 9.:90 10;353 2.3 11.4 11,421 10.05 10,059 2.2 11.6 11,116 10.20 4 T1S 2.1 11.8 10,794 . f0:35.. . 9;468 2.0 12.0 10,454 10.5.1 9,14$ 1.9 12.2 10,097 10;63 . 8,814 1.8 12.4 9,723 14110 > 8,468 1.7 12.6 9,331 1..1:95 8,109 1.6 12.8 8,921 .11.;10 7,736 1.5 13.0 8,494 .11:,2.1 7,35E 1.4 13.2 8,050 21':.40 '. . 6,952 1.3 13.4 7,588 11:.55 6,541 1.2 13.6 7,109 11.'70 6,11;1 1.1 13.8 6,612 :11.85 5,67.8 1.0 14.0 6,098 12'.00 ` 5.227 0.9 14.2 5,567 :12:15 4,763 0.8 14.4 5,018 12.30 4,28E 0.76 14.6 4,452 12;45 3;796 . 0.6 14.8 3,868 12:4(3 ' 3,293 .. 0.5 15.0 3,267 12.75 2,778 7 11a la • • O O I- r W o Q i N W U la I tV H CC e y 1 O L to co 1 a O , i i i ! i O C i i a ; a 5 I c L i a • W cc 4•0 i i - 0 as 2 L L . O ' CO. V i i C = I. i, i t i ! W N� i '� I— • J Id N Lo • I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O r 1- r [.Abs] aoe fang snoinaadwi pa4}iw.red 11b N _ _0 —O _-1- — _U, _1.- a —0 W CC —N CE _ V _—cV LI Cr — H v M —O � o _ c co a In - o, _ _ _ — a, o r -1.0. .N cc W y _ O J Q. w- _ £ ,0 _4 . t/) — u) — W -Kt N - I- _O• o -L J - _N• i -14 I I I I I I 0 O O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q N O o coo co d' N r r [albs] aospns snolnaadwi paniwaad lb N -o i — -o — • -r _•• -r- a W i -o• cc } _N U _ ' -"• —N i U. i H V) 9, L tq i 1 'v V1 } _ you 0o i I T as cc o W 'o O • Om g I - . _ • •s i 1 (I) a } W — N —1* —o a —o• } i = i -o i s s p o o o o o 0 0 o N O op0 m o N [1.jbS] aos j.ans snolnaadwn paniwaad 12 b) The downstream portions of the Flat and Little River Watersheds and both reservoirs are located outside of Orange County. The water quality achieved in the Lake Michie and Little River Reservoirs will be affected by land use patterns in Durham County and Person County as well as Orange County. Since Person and Durham Counties are downstream of Orange County, with shorter travel times to the reservoir, stormwater run-off generated by the development in those areas will reach the reservoir more quickly, with less time for pollutants to be absorbed into the ground. Flat River Watershed Water originating in the Orange County portion of the Flat River Watershed flows through Person County, where development standards are considerably less restrictive (one-acre minimum lot size, no impervious surface limit). Upstream protection provided by Orange County would be negated by the time the water reaches Durham County and Lake Michie. RECOMMENDATION - The Planning Staff recommends no change to the existing minimum (net) lot size of 40,000 square feet (with the additional provision of a gross lot area (including road right-of-way) of at least one acre) for the Flat River Watershed. Impervious surface limitations are proposed to be as in the revised sliding scale discussed above. Little River Watershed Orange County contains about 2/3 of the Little River Watershed, which covers a significant portion of Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. Downstream development includes the residential portion of the Treyburn Development, which is located immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Existing standards in Durham County and City require a two-acre minimum lot size and six percent impervious surface limit throughout the watershed. However, run-off from existing development bordering the reservoir would negate some of the upstream watershed protection measures. RECOMMENDATION - The Planning Staff maintains its recommendation of a two-acre minimum lot size, as proposed at the public hearing, but recommends that the impervious surface limit be as in the revised sliding scale discussed above. 8 13 2. The non-residential impervious surface limit proposed for WS-IV watersheds is less than the percentage allowed by the State mandate. The upper limit for impervious surface within WS-IV watersheds is proposed to be changed from 50% to 70% to correspond with the limits allowed by the State mandate. In preparing the draft Ordinance, it was the intention of staff to apply the limits as allowed by the State mandate. The 50% limitation, which is required only within WS-IV critical areas, was an oversight. 3. Proposed stream buffers may hinder development of existing lots. a) Requirements pertaining to septic tanks and nitrification fields The requirement for 300' septic setbacks and 150' building setbacks in Critical Areas is proposed to be deleted entirely, for the following reasons: DEM and Orange County Environmental Health require a 100' setback from streams for septic tanks and nitrification fields. Environmental Health has indicated that application of the 300' septic setback can result in the residence itself having to be setback almost an equal distance, even though the required setback is only 150'. This is the case when a grinder pump is used to pump effluent from the residence to the septic tank. If the residence has a basement, the grinder pump can be located there, and is considered a plumbing fixture. If the grinder pump is located outside of the structure, it is considered as part of the septic system, and setbacks apply. In order to function properly, the pump needs to be located relatively close to the residence. Because of these requirements, difficulty in building on lots adjacent to streams or in Critical areas is frequently encountered. These problems will be even greater for existing lots which were not subject to the setback standards at the time they were created, even when those lots conform to the minimum lot size requirements. The standards contained in the existing University Lake Watershed overlay district are based on the recommendations of a technical study by Camp, Dresser and McKee, and in most aspects are more restrictive than standards of the existing PW-II and WQCA overlay districts. The septic and building setback requirements were adopted in 1984 as part of the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) overlay district, and represents the only WQCA or PW-II standard which is significantly more restrictive than standards specific to University Lake. It had been the intent of staff to eliminate the PW-II and WQCA overlays in the University Lake watershed when the ULW standards were adopted. However when the ULW standards were adopted in 1989, the PW-II and WQCA overlays were not eliminated. 9 14 The mandated standard that septic tanks and nitrification fields be located at least 100' from perennial or intermittent streams is proposed to be moved from Article 6.23.4 Setbacks (deleted) to Article 6.23.10 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities. Environmental Health, as well as DEM require that septic tanks and nitrification fields be located at least 100' from perennial or intermittent streams. Orange County standards currently require that septic systems be located outside of stream buffers. The minimum width of stream buffers is 50'. Larger buffers may be required, depending on slope and vegetation. Outside of Critical Areas, the maximum buffer width is 150'. Within Critical Areas, there is no maximum width. RECOMMENDATION- The Planning Staff recommends that septic disposal systems be located outside of strewn buffers, or 100'from an intermittent or perennial streams, whichever is greater. b) Requirements pertaining to stream buffers There are currently no stream buffer requirements in the Haw, Jordan, Lower Eno and South Hyco Creek watersheds because they are not classified by Orange County as water supply watersheds at this time. In the portions of the Back Creek, Upper Eno, Little River and Flat River watersheds in Cedar Grove and Little River Townships, a 50' stream buffer is currently required by the Subdivision Regulations. The proposed regulations require a stream buffer of 50' to 150', depending on slope, except within a Critical Area, where there is no upper limit. Application of the proposed stream buffer requirements on existing lots which were not subject to stream buffer standards at the time of subdivision approval could result in difficulties in developing the lot. Such difficulties can be addressed through submittal of a variance request to the Board of Adjustment. Because the State does not mandate that buffers be applied to existing lots, there is no minimum buffer width which must be maintained if a variance is approved. RECOMMENDATION - The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed stream buffer standards continue to apply to existing and new lots in all watersheds, as is currently required. Property owners can request a variance from the Board of Adjustment if application of the full width creates a hardship. 10 15 4. Restrictions on the use of septic easements may have little or no effect on water quality. Currently, the use of off-site septic easements (except as needed for repair area) is prohibited in the University Lake Watershed (ULW). In the amendments presented for public hearing in August, it was proposed that the ULW restrictions pertaining to septic easements be extended to apply to all protected watersheds. There were no comments prior to or during the public hearing. Two letters (attached) expressing opposition to the provisions have been received since the public hearing. The Orange County Division of Environmental Health reviewed the provisions and indicate that the prohibition of individual off-site septic easements would not enhance water quality, and that allowing easements could be beneficial in some cases due to greater flexibility in locating and designing septic systems. In terms of maintenance, it was indicated that it was likely that system problems or failures would be reported and corrected more quickly where there was an off-site easement because the owner of the property would not own or be responsible for the septic system. RECOMMENDATION - In response to these concerns, it is recommended that there be no change to current regulations regarding the use of septic easements. The Subdivision Regulations require the lot on which the septic easement is located contain at least 20,000 square feet in addition to the minimum lot size required by the zoning district. It is recommended that this provision also be made explicit in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Construction of Non-residential BMPs in Residential Zoning Districts Parking lots, septic systems and water supplies are required to be located within a zoning district that allows the primary use which the facilities serve. For example, a septic system for a commercial land use must be located on property which is zoned for commercial use. The same provision would apply to non-residential detention The result of this provision is that the non-residential zoning lot may require a significant amount of land area for infrastructure needs. The acreage requirement does not pose a significant problem in Commercial or Industrial Activity Nodes (such as those in Efland or the vicinity of I-85 near the Durham County line). This limit could be a problem in Rural Activity nodes, however, where there is a limit of 10 acres of non-residential zoning which can be approved within the node. RECOMMENDATION- The Planning Staff recommends that detention ponds be located on the same zoning lot as the development it serves, as is currently required. It is further recommended that acreage limits which apply within Rural Activity Nodes be reviewed and modified as needed to account for acreage needs associated with project infrastructure. 11 16 6. Use of regional BMPS may be preferable to individual on-site BMPs. The issue of regional rather than individual on-site detention ponds was raised by a citizen at the public hearing. On-site detention ponds may pose significant problems in developing lots for non-residential use, particularly lots that are relatively small, such as individual businesses on one- or two-acre lots. A pond for a small development would probably cover 1/2 acre or more, with the specific location dictated by topography. At this time, the State mandate makes no provision for the development of regional facilities. Several jurisdictions, including Orange County have discussed the issue with DEM staff. Use of regional BMPs to satisfy the State mandate may be possible, but will require close work with DEM to develop acceptable design and other standards. In addition to design standards for the facilities themselves, there is the issue of funding. If a regional facility is to satisfy detention pond requirement for individual developments, then that facility must be constructed before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the development. There is little reliable information on cost estimates for regional detention ponds in North Carolina. According to DEM, the data that is available pertains to other areas in the country where cost factors differ from those likely to be encountered in this area. The only locale in North Carolina which has any experience with regional BMPs is High Point, and that experience is somewhat limited. Regional BMP facilities would most likely be constructed by the County. The costs could be recouped through establishing a special assessment district or collecting impact fees. Until such time as a regional facility was in place and functioning, new development would be required to provide an on-site BMP sufficient to serve the development until the regional BMP was completed. Regional BMPs may, in the long-term, be a desirable approach to stormwater management. However, it is an issue that will require significant study to estimate costs, and to develop funding alternatives. In addition, County staff would need to work with DEM to reach agreement on design standards and other issues to assure that a regional approach would meet the State mandate. These issues can be pursued in the coming year. In the interim, individual on-site facilities are necessary in order to comply with State requirements. RECOMMENDATION - No change to the proposed standards is recommended. 12 17 7. OWASA and the Town of Chapel Hill have requested significantly higher standards in Cane Creek watershed. Several property owners were opposed to higher standards. Proposed Standards The standards proposed for the Cane Creek Watershed at the August 23 public hearing included a 2-acre minimum lot size/6% impervious surface limit in the Critical Area, and 40,000 square-foot minimum lot size/12% impervious surface limit in the balance of the watershed. The Land Use Plan does not currently provide any areas for commercial or industrial development, however an amendment is being considered which, if approved, would allow the creation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Bradshaw Quarry Road and Orange Grove Road. Up to ten acres within the Node could be rezoned to the LC-1 Local Commercial or NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts. Industrial use would continue to be prohibited. The proposed Node lies outside of the Critical Area. Recommendations of OWASA and Chapel Hill The OWASA Board of Directors and the Chapel Hill Town Council have passed resolutions requesting that more stringent standards be applied to the Cane Creek Watershed, pending the results of a technical study to be commissioned by OWASA. OWASA Recommendations Continue to prohibit all commercial or industrial land uses throughout the Cane Creek Watershed. - Apply the same minimum lot and impervious surface limits to the entire Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed as proposed for University Lake watershed, basically 5-acre minimum lots plus other strong protective measures. Allow water and wastewater service only through individual on-site wells and disposal systems; no municipal or community level wastewater disposal. Chapel Hill Recommendations - Apply the same minimum lot size and impervious surface limits to the entire Cane Creek Reservoir watershed as proposed for University Lake watershed, basically 5-acre minimum lots plus other strong protective measures, and - Continue to prohibit all commercial or industrial land uses throughout the Cane Creek watershed; and particularly to remove the option of allowing 5% non- residential development with up to 70% impervious surface area. 13 18 Background - Development of ULW Standards The standards recommended by OWASA and the Town of Chapel Hill for Cane Creek Watershed are currently in place for the University Lake Watershed, and are considerably more restrictive than standards which apply to the remaining watersheds. The more restrictive standards pertaining to the ULW were based on the final recommendation of a technical study performed by Camp, Dresser and McKee in March of 1989. Interim standards which prohibited use of alternative septic systems were adopted in October of 1989 and the current standards, which also include lot size and impervious surface limits, were adopted in April of 1990. There is no precedent in Orange County for recommending or adopting more strict interim or permanent watershed standards pending the preparation of a technical study. The technical study for the University Lake Watershed did, however, include the following statement relating to land use controls in the Cane Creek watershed: "In the absence of a Cane Creek Reservoir watershed management study, preliminary evaluations suggest that adequate water quality protection can be achieved through less stringent controls than are required for University Lake. At this juncture, we would recommend that consideration be given to a preliminary non-structural management strategy consisting of 2-acre single-family lot zoning." RECOMMENDATION- The Planning Staff recommends application of a two-acre minimum lot size throughout the Cane Creek Watershed, as recommended in the study prepared for the University Lake Watershed. Also recommended are impervious surface limits as provided in the revised sliding scale previously discussed. Further consideration will be given to recommending more stringent standards upon completion of the technical study for Cane Creek, if so recommended by the Study. Due to the low level of residential development activity in Cane Creek Watershed, the Planning Staff finds that the application of the standards proposed will not have any measurable detrimental effect on water quality, even if higher standards are recommended upon completion of the technical study. Development activity in the Cane Creek and University Lake Watersheds between 1985 and 1993 is summarized in the table below. Although both watersheds contain about the same area, more than three times as many lots have been created in the University Lake Watershed than in Cane Creek. 14 19 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN CANE CREEK (CC) AND UNIVERSITY LAKE (UL) WATERSHEDS Year Major Subdivisions Minor Subdivisions No. Subd. No. Lots Avg. Lot No. Subd. No. Lots Avg. Lot Size Size (Acres) (Acres) • CC ..J UL ['CO UL I CC '1 UL I. CO UL f'CC" UL .'CC ':'I UL l 1985 0 <. 8 0 49 .- 2.6 7 10 9 18 3.1. 3.0 1986 0:. 12 0 127 - 1.8 . 7 10 .15 - 18 3.9.. : 3.1 1987 0 6 0 43 ' 1.6 .4 9 ;:;;.:1....9:.:.1..,... 14 ...7... 2.9 1988 2 5 31 21 2.7:` 2.7 4 7 >8: 15 4.6 ` 2.8 1989 2 1 16r ' 2 ;.1:8. 2.1 3 4 .7 i 5 4:8 2.2 1990 2 ` 3 24 22 >3.2` 5.0 4 ; 7 ` 10: 16 2..8 `. 4.9 1991 ' 0 1 0 . 19 - .< 6.5 :.::-;;..,4:::„:,.: 11 7. :? 28 3.2 4.6 1992 ': 0 2 0 27 ' 2 1 4 .' 10 ::8 : 25 5 5 4.0 1993 0 0 0 0 1 10 1. :; 20 4 3 . 5.3 ITOTAL I 38 7(. 310 1 2,7 I 2.5 Ir48 78 l 74 1 159 3.4 .1 3.9 I 8. The definition of Critical Area in Article 22 Definitions differs from the description of the Critical Area description in Article 4.2 (Intent and Application Criteria). The Critical Area is proposed to extend one-half mile from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. This definition is correctly reflected in Article 4.2.27b) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts - Application Criteria, which includes a description of the location of each overlay district. The Critical Area definition provided in Article 22 (Definitions) in the draft text presented for public hearing was incorrect, and has been revised to be consistent with Article 4.2.27b). RECOMMENDATION - The Planning Staff recommends that the Critical Area be defined as follows: The land area within one-half mile of the normal pool of an existing or proposed watersupply impoundment or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. 15 20 9. Other Additions and Corrections a) Add citation referencing General Statute (required by DEM). b) Add text from existing Article 6.23.4(b) (adopted 9/7/93), which allows impervious surface requirements to be satisfied on adjoining property through use of conservation agreements. c) State explicitly (see Article 6.23.10) that water and sewer lines may only be allowed in stream buffers when it is necessary to cross the stream and the crossing must be perpendicular to the stream to minimize disturbance. d) State in Article 6.23.11 that a lot which provides a septic easement for another lot must contain 20,000 square feet in addition to the minimum lot size required by the base zoning district (as required in the Subdivision Regulations). 16 d.TER S PL ' A. .Rs. ...., ) ;.�:: • Orange County, North Carolina p e $ 20a o 7 k ' $g ti m : 6,atilitaiii )"a� +rwiw Z Y w 4 {Y l . Q' i` kre, :,,di.:06.::,:'::::::::::::::1:::::::-0.:iii!,1:::::IPP ':::::,5::::,,,,,,,it:::::::i.N:::,,go:m.y7£ 4 g R :t.'P3t:. Bade �:i fir%:'�; r Nr4lio III. � j,,$}j;%:rri}:;:;c:::j 't#::':':ryi :>:::%;%';;:;: i•i.: ...... .::F.''2::j.:is .:i5: >of ��tri m trf%v <f''%:::%�:'S:%fi°>'2;%n:%?�:::M1:jY::::'':^ N 7 ..:. iv.wr+r i» . k::�=� :� :::::%:�:: :: n is r:r ........ :... . ir:f i., is%iiiii iC. ..r� a :n. v ;:Yr: ' .'v;;Vr}y:}}: :,r.::;:if•:i6;:i ii.r>:n ... .:i ..:..'>:r: ::nom;..:w:ii:yY;.v ::y . n.......v.�: ::.::.:.:::. : ..:..::.....nom:::'-.•+ :: :i::. : ...). :nvrwJ.. .,• :rl. • v: l.:n;.......4.., ::::.:L' .. ... . . •ffi, :^+Sii ;: ;< a<i�f'i}itt9;u ^:5'',:i,o'T,.:O" A':i::vi' S4 $:fit ::Hr` ii}: #}rz}: r•.,..g..3.i.rr.:, :::::0:;:::::::::t.,;:::0:*. t:::..: „yv,�. }.:S::r _ .Ef;rj:; :;r..,'fy. +rG,�'. .. :r ff t{;r$Y; ;5�:`:r6'Y v..4:•: k M:B • , � -d $` .LSBOROUGH Y a '• f ,t4i,„ illlw ijf::. ' 3 K � C a4�c err r: c1 � ♦i1IPr ri Y. prr...4.1ww,::wit....eax.N:::::,,. tafroti:,,,,x..1 ... not w�� At :�:>:�!'::� ants Ra. od Al giliiinr".'":''''.4'.0-:: . SIP/l''''.':""''''''. 'r -gefit, t15';r1,,A.'U.....,,,' - 86 Mahn ''''''''''''''. % 'S ir z Niq::561041.org i �ubonks ° LEGEND O r V w 0 g > rs �i� I-lom � Water Supply iiiii . k; %• Watershed °` n - :• . �% `\) Water Quality �1 a Critical Area ..,:i.,45.0NatiVni:,4.4. ',•:-::- ..-,:,“.,-.1,:;,,...-.: 4:',: 414. ' <y' ` Y i i:w rS'' :P { Y.: JO • v: i ::'..'i'.'inai.aNkANN:•0;''' '',...-:"";*<*:.,:lUg.f......„4,.....VGIONNIN.:..., �# e'.Y"4''. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY ZONING 21 ORDINANCE (Public Hearing - August 23, 1993) 4.2..27 WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS a) Intent The purpose of the Protected Watershed Overlay Districts is to prevent significant future water quality deterioration in existing or potential future drinking water reservoirs into which receive stormwater runoff from land within Orange County. Protection of all water supplies within the State in accordance with minimum standards was mandated by the Watersupply Watershed Protection Act passed by the General Assembly in 1989. The quality of water in drinking water reservoirs can be affected by activities of man including farming,construction of highways and roads, subdivision development, industrial development, and other land-disturbing activities. Types of water pollutants resulting from these activities include sediment, bacterial contamination, heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level radioactivity. The intent of the Protected Watershed Overlay Districts is to apply a set of regulations involving land use and in some cases, structural best management practices which protect the watersheds by reducing the pollution from future development which enters drinking water supplies. Land use management practices involve minimum lot size and impervious surface restrictions, since impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops and driveways are a major source of pollution. Structural best management practices allow for more intensive land use by providing for temporary detention of stormwater runoff so that pollutants may settle. b) Application Criteria The Protected Watershed Overlay Districts as established in Article 4.27.2.1 overlay other zoning districts established in this Ordinance. The new use of any land or new structure within any Protected Watershed Overlay District shall comply with the use regulations applicable to the underlying zoning district as well as the requirements of the applicable Watershed Protection Overlay District. A Watershed Protection Overlay District will be applied to the Orange County portion of watershed which have been classified as WS-II, WS-III or WS-IV watersheds by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission in its implementation of the Watersupply Watershed Protection Act of 1989. In accordance with the State Mandate, ten (10) Watershed Protection District Overlays, as listed in the following table, are hereby established. 22 DISTRICT ] GENERAL LOCATION J UNIV-CA University Lake Critical One-half mile from the normal pool of Area Overlay District University Lake, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. UNIV-PW University Lake Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Watershed Overlay District University Lake not covered by UNIV-CA. CANE-CA Cane Creek Critical Area One-half mile from the normal pool of Cane Overlay District Creek Reservoir, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. CANE-PW Cane Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Cane Watershed Overlay District Creek Reservoir not covered by CANE-CA. U-ENO-CA Upper Eno Critical Area One-half mile from the normal pool of Lake Overlay District Orange, Corporation Lake, and potential reservoir sites on the West Fork of the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. U-ENO-PW Upper Eno Protected The portion of the existing or potential Watershed Overlay drainage rainage basins of Lake Orange, Corporation Lake, West Fork of the Upper Eno and Seven-Mile Creek not covered by U-ENO- 9 CA. L-ENO-PW Lower Eno Protected The Orange County portion of the Eno River Watershed Overlay District Watershed within ten miles of the City of Durham Emergency Water Intake east of US 501 (Roxboro Road). LITTLE- Little River Protected The portion of drainage basin of the Little PW Watershed Overlay District River Reservoir which is located in Orange County. BACK-PW Back Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Back ' Watershed Overlay District Creek which is located in Orange County. HYCO-PW South Hyco Creek The portion of the drainage basin of South Protected Watershed Hyco Creek which is located in Orange Overlay District County. FLAT-PW Flat River Protected The portion of the drainage basin of the Flat Watershed Overlay District River which is located in Orange County. HAW-PW Haw River Protected The portion of the drainage basin for the Watershed Overlay District Haw River which is located in Orange County. 23 DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION JORDAN- Jordan Lake Protected The Orange County portion of the Jordan PW Watershed Overlay District Lake Watershed which extends five miles from the normal pool elevation of the impoundment. 24 6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS Pursuant to requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-214.5 (Chapter 143. Article 21), thirteen (13) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, as described in Article 4.2.27.2 of this Ordinance, have been established for lands within the watersheds of existing or potential drinking water rivers and reservoirs. These districts overlay other zoning districts established in this Ordinance and delineated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Wherever standards of the underlying zoning district differ from the watershed overlay standards, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. 6.23.1 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the following exceptions: DISTRICT LAND USE RESTRICTIONS UNIV-CA No new landfills are permitted. UNIV-PW No sludge application is permitted. CANE-CA No commercial or industrial uses are permitted. U-ENO-CA CANE-PW U-ENO-PW No discharging landfills are permitted. HYCO-PW Industrial use is limited to non-hazardous light industrial uses characterized by LITTLE-PW low water use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic water (25 gpd per BACK-PW employee) and water used for heating and air conditioning). FLAT-PW HAW-PW L-ENO-PW No additional use restrictions. JORDAN-PW 25 (Deleted) DISTRICT UNIV CA CANE CA U ENO CA (Applica .. - - - er-reeerded-afteF December 31, 1993. et __ - . - . . - - . . -- - - letap -in•-14- . ENO 1 W after The requirement that septic tanks and their nitrification fields be located at least 100'from perennial or intermittent streams is required by the State mandate, and has been moved to Article 6.23.10 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities. The requirement for 300' septic setbacks and 150' building setbacks in Critical Areas is proposed to be deleted. 6.23.5 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table below, or as required by the underlying zoning district, whichever is less. DISTRICT • MAXIMUM DENSITY UNIV-CA Up to five lots at least two acres in size can be created from a lot of record as UNIV-PW of October 2, 1989. Thereafter, each lot shall contain at least five acres, and the density shall not exceed one dwelling unit (du) per five acres. CANE-CA CANE-PW U-ENO-CA 1 du/ 2 acres LITTLE-PW FLAT PW 2 26 IDISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY J CANE PW BACK-PW 1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre) HYCO-PW FLAT-PW U-ENO-PW Maximum density is as permitted in the underlying zoning district. L-ENO-PW HAW-PW BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1 dwelling unit per JORDAN-PW acre. Refer to Article 6.23.6c1. 6.23.6 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION As a watershed becomes more developed, the amount of impervious surface increases, causing a decrease in the rate at which stormwater runoff which can be absorbed into the soil. This results in more stormwater flowing directly into streams and other water bodies. Because this direct runoff has not been filtered through the soil, pollutants from the air and land surface enter streams and increase the potential for pollution of drinking water supplies. The effects of stormwater pollution on drinking water supplies can be minimized by one of two general approaches. First, the amount of stormwater runoff which reaches drinking water supplies can be controlled by assuring that there is adequate ground area into which water can be absorbed. This type of non-structural control is achieved through limitations on impervious surface. A second approach is to collect stormwater run-off in engineered ponds so that pollutants may settle. The water is then slowly released and contains fewer impurities when it reaches the water supply reservoir. The watershed protection standards adopted by Orange County utilize a combination of these two approaches. a) Non-Structural Stormwater Control The first inch of stormwater run-off shall be controlled to the extent possible through on- site infiltration and through the use of methods which rely on natural soil properties for absorption and treatment. In order to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil and minimize direct and immediate runoff into streams and water supply impoundments, the maximum percentage of the total lot area which may be covered with an impervious surface shall be specified. This limit is referred to as the "impervious surface ratio". Impervious surface calculations for an individual development shall be cumulative for original construction and any subsequent additions. One-half of the width of any of any existing or proposed road adjacent to an individual lot shall be included as impervious surface for that lot, except in the case where an existing road was contained within a dedicated public right-of-way on January 1, 1994. Infiltration techniques not only remove both suspended and dissolved pollutants, but they require less maintenance, 3 27 reduce flooding,promote groundwater recharge and help maintain stream flow during dry periods. Where on-site infiltration methods are utilized, areas for such purposes shall be designated on the plat and shall remain undisturbed both during and after construction. Undisturbed areas for infiltration of run-off shall also be located downslope from impervious surfaces and shall not include areas characterized by floodplains, highly erodible or impervious soils,steep slopes or previously disturbed areas. Areas designated as suitable for septic tank nitrification fields may not be used for stormwater infiltration purposes. Run-off from roads, parking lots, and/or sidewalks shall be directed to undisturbed areas through use of berms, grassed diversion ditches or swales, or other acceptable means to reduce run-off velocity and filter out pollutants. b) Structural Measures Non-structural methods may not adequately control the first inch of stormwater runoff due to the amount of impervious surface proposed to be developed, and other factors such as soil type, slope, presence of floodplains and erodible soils, and/or lack of vegetative cover. In such cases, structural detention ponds, which capture stormwater for slow release through an outlet, are required. Where required, detention ponds shall be constructed in accordance with Appendix c) Impervious Surface and Detention Pond Requirements For all protected watersheds, there is a absolute limit on the percentage of lot area which can be covered with impervious surfaces. In some cases, detention ponds are required when the proposed impervious surface ratio exceeds a specified percentage, which is below the absolute limit. 1. Residential Development Impervious Surface/detention pond standards as shown in the following tables have been revised as follows: Development on existing and new residential lots in all protected watersheds classified as by DEM as WS-II(except UNIV-PW and UNIV-CA) or WS-HI are proposed to be subject a sliding-scale impervious surface limit. The upper limit for impervious surface within WS-IV watersheds is proposed to be changed from 50% to 70% to correspond with the limits allowed by the State mandate. In preparing the draft Ordinance, it was the intention of staff to apply the limits as allowed by the State mandate. The 50%limitation, which is required only within WS-IV critical areas, was an oversight. 4 28 DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (RESIDENTIAL) • UNIV-CA 6% impervious surface limit for subdivision, no UNIV-PW detention ponds required. (Lots created after April 2, 1990) UNIV-PW Impervious surface limits as provided in the table UNIV-CA below entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious (Lots created before April 2, 1990) Surface Ratios. CANE-CA Detention ponds are not required. CANE-PW U-ENO-CA LITTLE-PW FLAT-PW HYCO-PW BACK-PW U-ENO-PW Impervious surface limits as provided in the table below entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious Surface Ratios for development of existing lots and development of new in areas where the minimum lot size is at least 1 acre. Developments with residential density greater than one du/acre are subject to a 30% impervious surface limit, with BMPs required if impervious surface exceeds 12%. L-ENO-PW 3G% 70% impervious surface limit, with BMPs required when: a) curb and gutter is not used, and density exceeds 3 du/acre AND impervious surface exceeds 36%; OR b) curb and gutter is used, and density exceeds 2 du/acre AND impervious surface exceeds 24%. HAW-PW 24% impervious surface limit, with no BMPs required. JORDAN- PW 5 29 SLIDING SCALE FOR RESIDENTIAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS ' 7 Lot Size Impervious Surface Ratio Lot Size Impervious Surface Ratio (Acres) (%) (Acres) (%) 6,0 4.50 3.0 9.00 5.9 4.65 2.9 9.15 5.8 4.80 2.8 9.30 5.7 4,95 2.7 9.45 5.6 5.10 2.6 9.60 5.5 5.25 2.5 9.75 5.4 5.40 2.4 9.90 5.3 5.55 2.3 10.05 5.2 5.70 2,2 10.20 5.1 5,85 2.1 10.35 5.0 6.00 2.0 10.50 4.9 6.15 1.9 10,65 4.8 6.30 1.8 10.80 4.7 6.45 1.7 10.95 4.6 6.60 1.6 11.10 4.5 6.75 1.5 11.25 4.4 6.90 1.4 11,40 4.3 7.05 1.3 11.55 4.2 7,20 1.2 11,70 4.1 7.35 1.1 11.85 4.0 7.50 1.0 12,00 3.9 7.65 0.9 12.15 3.8 7.80 0.8 12.30 3.7 7.95 0.7 12.45 3.6 8.10 0.6 12.60 3.5 8.25 0.5 or less 12.75 3.4 8.40 'The lot area to be used in calculating impervious surface shall be a minimum of 3.3 8.55 one acre (43,560 square feet), and shall include the gross lot area (including road 3.2 8.70 right-of-way) for lots served by private roads, and the lot area plus one-half of any 3.1 8.85 adjacent right-of-way for lots served by public roads. 6 30 2. Non-Residential Development DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) UNIV-CA Same as Residential (See previous Table) UNIV-PW CANE-CA Up to 6% impervious surface without BMPs, U-ENO-CA 6% - 24% with BMPs. CANE-PW Up to 70% impervious surface without BMPs'. LITHE-PW HYCO-PW BACK-PW FLAT-PW U-ENO-PW Up to 70% impervious surface, with BMPs required when impervious surface exceeds 12%.1 L-ENO-PW Up to SO. 70% impervious surface, with BMPs HAW-PW required when impervious surface exceeds 24% (if JORDAN-PW curb and gutter is used) or 36% (no curb and gutter). After new non-residential development with impervious surface greater than 12% occurs on 5% of the watershed, impervious surface for subsequent development may not exceed 30%, and BMPs will be required when impervious surface exceeds 12%. 2. Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratios my be requested through one of the following provisions: a) Through variance procedures of the Board of Adjustment, as described in Article 6.23.13. b) Through approval and recordation of a conservation agreement, as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 121 of the N.C. General Statutes, between Orange County and a land owner that prohibits development of land in a protected watershed in perpetuity. In such cases, a modification of the required impervious surface ratios may be approved administratively but only to the extent that 7 31 additional land in the same watershed is conserved or protected from development. In such instances, the land which will be subject to a conservation agreement must be adjacent to the land proposed for development and for which a modification of the impervious surface ratios is sought. As an example, a person owning a 40,000 square foot lot and subject to a 12 percent impervious surface ratio would be limited to 4,800 square feet of impervious coverage. If the person's plans called for 5,500 square feet of coverage (a difference of 700 square feet), the recording of a conservation easement on 5,833 square feet of contiguous property would satisfy the impervious surface ratio requirements. (12% of 5,833 square feet is 700 square feet.) The conservation easement shall describe the property restricted in a manner sufficient to pass title, provide that its restrictions are covenants that run with the land and, in form, be approved by the County Attorney. The conservation easement shall, upon its recording, be in the place of a first priority lien on the property (excepting current ad valorem property taxes) and shall remain so unless, with the approval of Orange County, it is released and terminated. Orange County shall require the priority of the conservation easement to be certified by and attorney-at-law, licensed to practice law in the State of North Carolina and approved to certify title to real property by a lending institution (bank or savings and loan association) doing business in Orange County. Orange County approval of a release or termination of the conservation agreement shall be declared on the document releasing or terminating the agreement. The document shall be signed by the Orange County Manager, upon approval of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. No such document shall be effective to release or terminate the conservation agreement until it is filed for registration with the Register of Deeds of Orange County. 8 32 6.23.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF DETENTION PONDS a) Posting of Financial Security All stormwater control structures shall be conditioned on the posting of adequate financial assurance for the purpose of maintenance, repairs or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance. Financial assurance shall be in the form of one of the following: 1 Security Performance Bond or Other Security The permit applicant shall obtain either a performance bond from a surety bonding company authorized to do business in North Carolina, an irrevocable letter of credit or other instrument readily convertible into cash at face value payable to Orange County or placed in escrow with a financial institution designated as an official depository of Orange County. The bond or other instrument shall be in an amount equal to 1.25 times the total cost of the stormwater control structure, as estimated by the applicant and approved by the County Engineer. The total cost of the stormwater control structure shall include the value of all materials such as piping and other structures; seeding and soil stabilization; design and engineering; and, grading, excavation, fill, etc. The costs shall not be prorated as part of a larger project, but rather under the assumption of an independent mobilization. Upon default of the permit applicant to complete and/or maintain the stormwater control structure as spelled out in the performance bond or other security, the County may obtain and use all or any portion of the funds necessary to complete the improvements based on an engineering estimate. The Board shall return any funds not spent in completing the improvements to the owning entity. 2,. Cash or Equivalent Security Deposited After Release of the Performance Igist Consistent with Section IA, the permit applicant shall deposit with Orange County either cash or other instrument approved by the County Attorney that is readily convertible into cash at face value. The cash or security shall be in an amount equal to fifteen (15) percent of the total cost of the stormwater control structure or the estimated cost of maintaining the stormwater control structure over a ten (10) year period, whichever is greater. The estimated cost of maintaining the stormwater structure shall be consistent with the approved operation and maintenance plan or manual provided by the developer under Section IIA. The amount shall be 9 33 computed by estimating the maintenance cost for twenty-five (25) years and multiplying this amount by two-fifths or 0.4. Upon default of the owning entity to maintain, repair and, if necessary, reconstruct the stormwater control structure in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Agreement, the County shall obtain and use all or any portion of the cash security to make necessary improvements based on an engineering estimate. Such expenditures of funds shall only be made after exhausting all other reasonable remedies seeking the owning entity to comply with the terms and conditions of the Operations and Maintenance Agreement. The County shall not return any of the deposited cash funds. b) Maintenance and Upkeep Operation and Maintenance Agreement Required The permit applicant shall enter into a binding Operation and Maintenance Agreement between Orange County and all interests in the development. Said Agreement shall require the owning entity to maintain, repair and, if necessary, reconstruct the stormwater control structure in accordance with the operation and management plan or manual prepared by the developer. The Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall be filed with the Orange County Register of Deeds. Operation and Maintenance Plan Required An operation and maintenance plan or manual shall be provided by the developer for each stormwater control structure, indicating what operation and maintenance actions are needed, what specific quantitative criteria will be used for determining when those actions are to be taken and, consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Agreement, who is responsible for those actions. The Plan shall clearly indicate the steps that will be taken for restoring a stormwater control structure to its design specifications if a failure occurs. . Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance Landscaping and grounds maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owning entity. However, vegetation shall not be established or allowed to mature to the extent that the integrity of the control structure is diminished or threatened, or to the extent of interfering with any easement or access to the stormwater structure. 10 34 4 Repair or Reconstruction Except for general landscaping and grounds maintenance, the owning entity shall notify the County prior to any repair or reconstruction of the stormwater structure. All improvements shall be made consistent with the approved plans and specifications of the stormwater control structure and the operations and maintenance plan or manual. After notification by the owning entity, the County Engineer and/or Erosion Control Supervisor shall inform the owning entity of any required additions, changes or modifications and of the time period to complete said improvements. Minor Amendments to Plans and Specifications Amendments to the plans and specifications of the stormwater control structure and/or the operation and maintenance plan or manual may be approved by the County Engineer, provided that the changes do not involve a change in the size or location of the structure. Proposed changes shall be prepared by a North Carolina registered professional engineer or landscape architect (to the extent that the General Statutes, Chapter 89A, allow) and submitted to and reviewed by the Erosion Control Supervisor prior to consideration by the County Engineer. a. If the County Engineer approves the proposed changes, the owning entity of the stormwater control structure shall filed sealed copies of the revisions with the Erosion Control Supervisor. b. If the County Engineer disapproves the changes, the proposal may be revised and resubmitted to the Erosion Control Officer as a new proposal. If the proposal has not been revised and is essentially the same as that already reviewed, it shall be returned to the applicant. c. The County Engineer shall report any such revisions to the Board of County Commissioners at the next available regular meeting. Major Amendments to Plans and Specifications Amendments to the plans and specifications of the stormwater control structure and/or the operation and maintenance plan or manual which involve a change in the size or location may be approved by the Board of Commissioners after receiving a recommendation from the County Engineer. Proposed changes shall be prepared by a North Carolina registered professional engineer or landscape architect (to the extent that the General Statutes, Chapter 89A, allow) and submitted to and reviewed 11 35 by the Erosion Control Supervisor prior to review by the County Engineer. 7 Revision of Plan Required if Found to be Inadequate If the County finds that the operations and maintenance plan or manual is inadequate for any reason, the owning entity shall be notified of any required changes and shall prepare and file copies of the revised agreement with the Orange County Register of Deeds, the Erosion Control Supervisor, and the owning entity. c) Inspection and Release of the Performance Bond 1 Inspection by Erosion Control Supervisor The stormwater control structure shall be inspected by the Erosion Control Supervisor, after the owning entity notifies the Erosion Control Supervisor that all work has been completed. At this inspection, the owning entity shall provide: a. The signed deed, related easements and survey plat for the stormwater control structure ready for filing with the Orange County Register of Deeds; and b. A certification sealed by an engineer or landscape architect (to the extent that the General Statute, Chapter 89A, allow) stating that the detention pond is complete and consistent with the plans and specifications. 2 Submittal of Inspection Report to County Engineer The Erosion Control Supervisor shall present materials submitted by the developer and the inspection report and recommendations to the County Engineer. a. If the County Engineer approves the inspections report and accepts the certification, deed and easements, he/she shall file the deed and easements with the Orange County Register of Deeds, released up to seventy-five (75) percent of the value of the performance bond or other security and issue a Watershed Protection Compliance Permit for the stormwater control structure. b. If deficiencies are found, the County Engineer shall direct that the improvements and inspections be made and/or documents corrected 12 36 and resubmitted to the County Engineer. Watershed Protection Compliance Permit Required Prior to Occupancy No Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy may be issued in the absence of a valid Watershed Protection Compliance Permit. 4 Release of Remaining Security No sooner than one (1) year after the filing date of the deed, easements and maintenance agreement, the developer amy petition the Board of Commissioners to release the remaining value of he performance bond or other security. Upon receipt of said petition, the County Engineer shall inspect the stormwater control structure to determine whether the controls are performing as designed and intended. The County Engineer shall present the petition, inspection report and recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. a. If the Board of Commissioners approves the report and accepts the petition, the developer shall deposit with Orange County a cash amount equal to that described in Section I, after which, the Board shall release the performance bond or other security. b. If the Board of Commissioners does not accept the report and rejects the petition, it shall provide the developer with instructions to correct any deficiencies and all steps necessary for the release of the performance bond or other security. Annual Inspection Required a. All stormwater structures shall be inspected at least on an annual basis to determine whether the controls are performing as designed and intended. Records of inspections shall be maintained on forms approved or supplied by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Annual inspections shall begin within one (1) year of the filing date of the deed for the stormwater control structure. b. In the event the County Engineer discovers the need for corrective action of improvements, he/she shall notify the owning entity of the needed improvements and the date by which the corrective action is to be completed. All improvements shall be made 13 37 consistent with the plans and specification of the stormwater control structure and the operation and maintenance plan or manual. After notification by the owning entity, the County Engineer shall inspect and approve the completed improvements. d) Appeals Any requirement, decision or determination of the County Engineer may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners for consideration at its next available regular meeting. 6.23.8 PLACEMENT OF STREETS, DRIVEWAYS AND BUILDINGS Streets, driveways, and buildings or other structures shall be located, to the extent reasonable possible, so as to take full advantage of the absorptive capacity of the soils on which they are to be situated and to avoid the following environmentally sensitive areas: 1) Stream buffer zones as required by Article 6.23.10; 2) Wetlands as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 3) Land with slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%); and 4) Natural areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County. NC. To avoid creating lots that will be difficult to build upon in compliance with the standards of this Article, the subdivision plats shall show proposed building envelopes and approximate driveway locations for all lots within such subdivisions. Thereafter, no zoning compliance permit may be issued for the construction of buildings or driveways outside the areas so designated on the preliminary plat unless the Zoning Officer makes a written finding that the proposed location complies with the provisions of this Article. 6.23.9 UNDISTURBED AREA Because soils which are seriously disturbed, even if re-vegetated, can generate nearly as much run-off as paved areas, a portion of property being developed within watershed critical areas must remain undisturbed during construction. 14 38 DISTRICT l UNDISTURBED AREA UNIV-CA A minimum of the area necessary to meet impervious surface CANE-CA requirements shall remain undisturbed during the construction U-ENO-CA process. The area to remain undisturbed shall include portions of the lot utilized for stormwater infiltration. All clearing limits shall be clearly marked and observed. All Other Watershed As may be required pursuant to an approved grading permit or Overlay Districts erosion control plan. 6.23.10 STREAM BUFFERS a) Definition A stream buffer is an area of land adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams which, except as stated below, must remain undisturbed in its natural state. Perennial streams are those streams shown as solid blue lines and intermittent streams as broken blue lines on the USGS Quadrangle maps for Orange County. b) Permitted Uses Within Stream Buffers 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 appurtenant apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and switching boxes. Private wastewater disposal systems are not permitted in stream buffers. Public water and sewer lines are permitted only as allowed by the Orange County Water and Sewer Policy, and may be located within stream buffers only to the extent necessary to cross the stream buffer as closely as possible to perpendicular. 2) Bona fide farms, except any use of farm property for non-farm purposes. 3) Public and private streets, bridges and railroad rights-of-way, provided that they enter and exit the buffer area as nearly perpendicular as possible. 15 39 c) Land Disturbance and Planting of Vegetation 1) Area within a stream buffer which is subject to serious erosion may be disturbed for the purpose of planting and maintaining erosion-resistant vegetative cover. 2) Existing forested areas or any other healthy vegetation cannot be removed from a stream buffer, except where replaced with vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater runoff velocity and quantity one year after planting. 3) New vegetation shall be planted to capture non-source pollutants before they reach the perennial stream, as per applicable Orange County Standards. d) Calculating Width of Stream Buffer 1) How to Calculate Slope a. Draw a line perpendicular to the stream. b. Determine the elevation at the stream itself (1), and at the point 250' from the stream along the perpendicular line (2). c. Subtract (1) from (2). d. Divide c. by 250. e. Multiple d. by 100 Hereinafter, the number derived in e. will be referred to as "slope value". 2) Method A - Stream Buffer Based on Slope The width of the buffer shall be fifty (50) feet from each edge of the floodplain, plus the slope value multiplied by four. 16 40 3) Method B - Stream Buffer Based on Slope and Groundcover STREAM BUFFER WIDTH (IN FEET) BASED ON SLOPE AND GROUNDCOVER Slope Value Type of Groundcover Grass Woods 2 to 4.9 100 50 5 to 9.9 150 100 10 to 14.9 200 100 15 or greater 250 150 'In addition to the buffer zone resulting from the calculations below, a stream buffer shall include any portion of a floodplain as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor, or by alluvial soils as designated in the Orange County Soils Survey. 'Tile required stream buffer zone shall not be limited to one calculation, but shall be based on calculations made at points where topographical and ground cover conditions change based on an analysis of the site. 17 41 e) Minimum Buffer Width Required DISTRICT MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER WIDTH` UNIV-CA The buffer width shall be calculated for both Method A and Method B, UNIV-PW and at any given point along the stream, the width of the buffer shall be the larger of the two. CANE-CA The buffer width shall be the width calculated using Method A. U-ENO-CA U-ENO-PW The buffer width shall be as calculated using Method A, or 150', L-ENO-PW whichever is less, except where density exceeds 1 du/ac and impervious surface exceeds 12%. Where density exceeds 1 du/ac and impervious surface exceeds 12%, the buffer width shall be calculated as above, but shall not be less than 100'. CANE-PW LITTLE-PW BACK-PW HYCO-PW The buffer width shall be the width calculated using Method A, or 150', FLAT-PW whichever is less. HAW-PW JORDAN- PW 18 42 6.23.11 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The 300' stream setback for septic systems in critical areas has been deleted. Also deleted is the prohibition of off-site septic easements outside of the University Lake Watershed. The provision (currently contained in the Subdivision Regulations)that lots which provide a septic easement for another lot contain at least 20,000 square feet in addition to the minimum lot size has been added. DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNIV-CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to individual UNIV-PW wells and on-site septic tanks systems or individual on-site alternative disposal systems. No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation. Repair systems are permitted on a lot other than the lot which is the source of wastewater generation provided that the Orange County Health Department certifies that: 1. The residence or use has a failing system, AND there is not a suitable location for a repair system on the same lot as the residence or use, or 2. In the case of an unimproved lot created by recorded deed, valid probated will or recorded plat prior to June 15, 1991, there is not a suitable location for a repair system on the same lot as the residence or use. New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers, or 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, whichever is further. All other New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of Protected any stream buffers, or 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as Watersheds shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, whichever is further. Off-site septic easements are permitted provided that the lot which provides the easement contains at least 20.000 square feet more than the minimum lot size required by the base zoning district. 19 43 6.23.12 CLUSTERING DISTRICT CLUSTERING REQUIREMENTS UNIV-CA Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV- UNIV-PW B-10 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, with the additional provision that each lot contains a minimum of one acre. All Other Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV- Overlay B-10 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Districts 6.23..13 APPLICABILITY a) Existing Development Existing development is not subject to the requirements of this Article. Existing developments include projects that are built, or at a minimum have established a vested right under North Carolina zoning law as of January 1, 1994 based on at least one of the following criteria: 1. substantial expenditures of resources (time, labor, money)based on a good faith reliance upon having received a valid local government approval to proceed with the project; or 2. having an outstanding valid building permit; or 3. having expended substantial resources and having an approved site specific or phased development plan. b) Redevelopment Non-residential redevelopment is allowed if the rebuilding activity does not have a net increase in built-upon area or provides equal or greater stormwater control than the previous development. There are no restrictions on single-family redevelopment. c) Expansion of Existing or New Developments Expansions to structures classified as existing development must meet the requirements of this Article, however, the impervious surface and lot area involved in the existing development is not required to be included in the calculation of the impervious surface ratio. 20 44 Expansions to structures other than existing development must meet the density requirements for the entire project. 6.23.13 ADMINISTRATION a) Appeals Decisions of the Zoning Officer in the implementation of this Article may be appealed to the Orange County Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2.3.7 of this Ordinance. b) Exemptions Development activities may be granted minor exemptions by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2.3.6 of this Ordinance. An exemption which results in one or more of the following shall be considered a major exemption, requiring approval by the Environmental Management Commission. 1. the complete waiver of a management requirement; 2. the relaxation by more than ten percent of any management requirement that takes the form of a numerical standard; and 3. the relaxation of any management requirement that applies to a development project requiring construction of a detention pond. A description of each project receiving an exemption and the reason for granting the exemption shall be submitted to the Commission on an annual basis. All other local governments having jurisdiction within the watershed area and the entity using the water supply for consumption shall be notified of the proposed exemption. 21 45 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION IV REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS IV-B-1 MINIMUM LOT SIZE • . ... - - ... feet. 111 All lots shall contain the minimum lot area required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. (42) Any lot which provides an easement for individual septic disposal for use by a different lot shall contain the minimum area required for that lot plus an additional 20,000 square feet to accommodate the septic easement. IV-B-5 LOT LAYOUT IV-B-5a • • - _ - • - .. - • • - -- - - IV-B-5-b .... Upon recommendation of the Planning Board and approval of the County Commissioners, the construction of the access road may be postponed until building or market development is undertaken. In this case the lots shall be designated on the plat: "This lot may not be sold, 46 nor a building permit issued, until the access road has been built as specified for this subdivision." _. - - . - - - _ . : . 20 fcct. Except where reverse frontage is desirable, double frontage lots should be avoided. W-B-5-c All requirements shall conform to each and all of the requirements of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district and any overlay district in which they are located. IV-B-8 LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IV-B-8-c-1 Designation of Tree Protection Areas Existing trees, regardless of size, shall not be cut or otherwise damaged or destroyed within a primary tree protection area, and existing trees having a diameter of one (1) foot or greater, as measured four and one-half (4.5) feet above the ground level, shall not be cut, damaged or destroyed within a secondary tree protection area defined as follows: (a) Primary Tree Protection Area. That portion of a lot which is to be used for required recreation/open space area; front, side and rear yard setbacks areas; and Land Use Buffers as required by this Ordinance and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. - : = - _ . _ , . . - - - : . _. :- .. (b) Secondary Tree Protection Area. Any portion of a lot not included within the Primary Tree Protection Area. IV-B-8-d-1 Required Landscaping (a) Along Street Frontage Street trees shall be planted within the required front yard setback or 40' lands:ape-area.... (b) Lot Perimeter Trees to be planted within recreation and open space areas, and-stand shall be installed 47 IV-B-9 WATERSHED PROTECTION STANDARDS (Delete) IV-B-9A Applicability (Delete) IV-B-9b Stream Buffer Standards (Delete) IV-B-9c Infiltration Standards (Delete) IV-B-10 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS IV-B-10-b Application Criteria c) The total number of lots proposed for the tract, excluding parcels of reserved recreation/open space is not greater than the number determined by dividing the gross land area, excluding public and private road rights- of-way, by the minimum lot size requirements for the zoning district established in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. fie-areas-o€ (g) Cluster developments in the UNIV- pW and UNIV-CA Watershed Protection Overlay Districts shall comply with the development standards as set forth in Article 645 6.23.12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. IV-B-10-c Reductions in Lot Size and Setback Requirements For lots created as part of a cluster development in the University-fie Watershed-- W) UNIV-PW and UNIV-CA Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, the minimum lot size may be reduced as specified in Article 6.25 6.23.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. .... SECTION V SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS V-C-6 Preliminary Plat - Floodway and Watershed Standards For subdivisions located within a - • •- == - -_ - •. - - impettanee Watershed Protection Overlay District. as identified on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, the following information shall be designated and labeled on the plat: 48 (a) Impervious surface data as required by Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 6.23.6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; (b) Stream buffers as required by Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 6.23.10 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and (c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes as required by S et_n IV B n f th �wvaa i�-�—Jti va uua Va�tee; the Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance and Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 25 6.23.6 and 6.23.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. V-D-5-d Final Plat - Floodway and Watershed Data For subdivisions located within a . : _ :. - - importance Watershed Protection Overlay District. as identified on the Orange County Zoning AtI, the following information shall be designated or referenced on the Final Plat: (a) Impervious surface data as required by Articles-672-3r 2 .._d 6.23.E of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be provided (b) Stream buffers as required by Articles-672-36:-24r and/or 25 6.23.10 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be noted.... (c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes as by Seetie_ I n n �f th�-O d� andlief Articles 6.23, 2" a_ 6.25 6.23.6 and 6.23.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be labeled.... V-D-5-e Landscape and Buffer Data (1) Buffers as required by Section IV-B-8-dg of this Ordinance or Article 12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, whichever is greater shall be specified 49 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: MARVIN COLLINS Planning Director FROM: DAVE STANCIL, AICP C3 Planner II-Comprehensive DATE: August 6, 1993 SUBJECT: CP-4-93, WATERSHED-RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT Please find attached CP-4-93, an amendment to several sections of text and maps in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment revises sections which must be updated in order to be consistent with Z-7-93 (New Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) and the accompanying Zoning Ordinance text amendments which regard water supply watershed plan updates/revisions - in accord with the state's Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989 . In keeping with our discussions on the subject, I have only revised the sections of the plan that are necessary for consistency with the watershed plan updates. Since my July 9 memo, I have added two additional sections for amendment. Goal 10 in Section 3.5 deals with water supplies, and additions and/or revisions have been inserted to update and clarify some of the goal statements. The Hillsborough Township component (Section 3.9) also needed a few clean-up revisions after review, and these updates have been included in the attached. New text that is proposed for addition to the plan is shown in boldface andie . Text that is to be deleted is both preceded and followed by'."the"phrase <DELETED>. The County watershed map and the township component maps in the Plan must also be updated as part of this amendment. These updates involve either drawing a revised critical area or simply labeling "new" watersheds. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. copies: Gene Bell, AICP, Planner III-Comprehensive Mary Willis, Planner III-Current red i c n G . 50 (Page 2 . 2-4 ) WATER RESOURCES - Several sub-basins within the Cape Fear, Neuse r basins are e x_ _.7_ public water supply watersheds aiay o these w�ats rshe s have berms rec ai a Ja •�� ��Si�::',i��V�:•�,P �.I.. ��.$�FF�-9i��r JIF•—T� �FFI•�9� 7P����. is Ri�4.�i.AR r : co i� la 19 3 s of tie $ a e°s 'dater Sapply i eter9had tet .on 3t83. : _.: The Neuse Basin ata� R3 X -basin and ? to a edei < _'The Upper Rno sub-basin contains Lake Orange, Corp'oranon`}Lake Lake Ben Johnson, °?, i: „ a:}} r}:;.....}>r;:a:;:}>:a:::. :....::::.:::::::....:....... ........ ............... nson, the proposed 60.iit :: e:i ,•��.:}}:.env: :::.,:> ,:.:.::.}:.: •.�.... .::......:.;•:::.:::,:,,::: .:r:<.;:.:i•;.}:t:.:};::<::.::::..::::i;.;.}:.:�:::::::::.:......... }..:...........:::::thy},:>:>: ' : :iron <::. ;�: . ...:...::.::::.., {.}:...:::::.::::;:'.}.:.� ,.....}. .�<.�!}:.:.:};.; !:}:<:<:;:<:: oir. These lakes, a ,:. s t.:p t► :' serve 0e4i.:o::¢_..}.,.,,. ,}e:.r:<;-}.}:- Hillsborou h Efland, Count'y:... •• `:;¢}•••• •••• rr>::.;:J>':.: Hillsborough, , p .........: .. ....::.:::::... .:. k:..:.:.:.::::::}::..:::::.::::::..:t;:}}:::•t�`:::}:...:.:::::::::::::};:.........,.. ..¢..:heap:. #� pE:<>::.•:...:.:...:::,: : ..,...}... ........ :.:...........: .......:.:..:..�:::::•.�:::°'::.:::•.}:::.rr}•.::;::}::•.o-r.»}:•c..�.,•:::::r:.::::{crcv....... ..... 71Rx .. .II.•Ni/1.� '"" :..:...,.r,. :::$:::r.:}}..v.}:¢::¢$':}}::?:4i'-v':v:v:::•:rn. ......::::..:::...............:r::t;:t;{:•::::•::::::,:,v;•::.:::......v:.:... fir'� ........... .r •:. .:::::•:::::.�:.:., .`•.;,:•::,..:.:••::t: '.✓• '! Jt..b:v},v,.i'!J:+-%.r.••,,::;ti;c: i.vr:...:.. .v:::::..::.... .....:r....,........::••..... :�t��.-.�-• 'rY}>: .•k:Sg¢ir .Y.}........^}:::r.{ ...,�:,.,.,�,.,.,.,�...:n ,v.h•:::::n••:.v.. :rr .. .4 :;......., }:�:,.,J .... •:::. .?#}.}. : , r.xn rte ..... :........: :.. ..h}....j-'n..;.}i}}::::::.. :{::};.:. :n{v:.v,::rh.;. art-.�':i::?:}:+TixR�iu'i::?j'h hRn,. : . .•.Jy • ,. {: :f.?:::.::.::}.;.....:i::,::a:::.:::::. ... :........ ...::::.. ..-..S$}'}:<?,..} x ��•:{e:�..J��F�Kd2�"a7�5c:..?}�.a;•.¢:J}F.>.M}k,N,,'Staeue'ae3rd".h`?•r }:i:a,.:;Sid:::t::i'a;S:i3{}Y':}:':.-.`}`d;v.Fr,:rk":?r?;f'G:i:"'A,S'....,.::...:.::...;:..;,.•.,, . • .rr.{:}}}r%Yi:S'SS?`.•.w.:mrrm..:.niri+v}rnwrvi i4.}�'• {�i .:. •,;,6: +.{{y•.�J:Sh;t ...vv{r.pi:t• :t J}x}}}y; ..... ''' (� :'i':�?}.:ii:!:}}}:ri<�'}Xi::•t.::r:";:v::i:::}:;}r:}:;.;;}4�+,v,:}�` ,::¢]ti r...Ytit",r:,v,¢y;.}}3}r:.r}:}}�{¢:: tJ::.1::....}:v¢v...,... . :::::.:.:•.:.:.:..v:.:v .....:.v ,..v;...-.w•:•f,:,..:..;;.:.:..::vvx.v::::::�::is^}. ........ '.ryii'.. A�`�: .;...; .,. :.....:........,#.:.:::...........:..w:::. :v... .}r:}:d'rri{;a:.? v :.: ....,.;..;..:.....r: ..::.�;�.:::J?.r::>..}{•::};•,,ni::o:o': t¢:a•••::{.....{.,;;;�.::::...:., :,:i:::J::•::.:.•,.-,.•.`+,s'.�i•:;•::::::•::.,�.r:.r::t•}}}}}x ::::::::::••.�:..�::}>}:::::::..........:......................... .... •it �?: ., .....:.::f ...J.::. Sc,.{ .:. ,;:.,. :.}:tJx:•.}::.i, J:;.....,}:}J..:?;•:;•:;}:-}}:i-4:•::;:}"•::t}::::::.::::;;::J>:}::iJ}:•:c<.}:<.::::?f::>�':: 1v g� ,water:1. . ' • :: ?•}•tJ,,. }: ,•,::;vu:•:-:n• r.J.:::.d '•? .:. ,......;}56.vr :•}} w: vJ....... t. ..............:... .}:.rr5,. . ......:;.:.. ,..,..:::::...... ��� .w�f.}.::.:.• ..t;.�!!_."•':':�'i:v..Ji:::.r.-rt:;: 1�ii:#as1' !:j::li.:.,.:,.,~;^:i.�'; .: .. •:..,.i,..:..:.. . .. v}:cF:tt:.v n.i.....}n:: • ?:iJr%:'i':i?i'i:if>::•;:?.'; 'Un ers t Zake drain Morga. ..:.:}: ti��.<:::; ><��: :;:r :�:9i:;jSif:::� t?? `.h::••. :�;,_.. Y � 1ng the n Creek sub basin, and tthe bane Creek Reservoir, both in the Cape Fear Basin, serve as water supply to ' Chapel Hill and surrounding surrounding areas. Tk a baak r r .kria }¢} : .. c { ovid n $war } ¢ c ::v.v::.::...:::;';¢:^}:.{;.'vi:::::;.•,v- :. h•. :.;::'rZ-.,W..:... ...........:v:;•w:•:::v;. k...:.... ... �v:>4 �...........h.;d,,,,: '�' �� ���.'. :•>}:Jo-:•.':>r 45 J,:.;::�:?,..:;;?:S;3':'�::•it::S.`:iii:•,. :;;r#� ::i;ii:: iii: .istC�e .. f. r}<,'I�he.... t�Y: :J.: .:.:.:..:..v;..v..v.v.,,.:.i;::{:•:. «.,::<;>.}:.;.:::.�:,•.:,:.:<.:.}>}•..:::.:.�:.�:.:�:.fi:,;:}:?:. :.>.: ..x.. ::<{ rotor }� ' ':::� ::��.}}..,+yam• . :.yy((��.»<>�: . .; ,. ..:.:w •:::::::::;tt:::;r:.:;<;J>��.}}::.<:<::::;:<;�<: •:.,:�'.:};.+� >:}•}::.}}•::.;?:>:: ,�.r.::.}, :...:....};;: 'ea � �+�r�" ;tom. �iG1''t�t�'� nl?!�'�' a' River;;? � ..,........ }:fir e.. tfa�. ..:.:�ee�r��et• :.::ty� Jo�. ae}}}} ,.``t¢. !� #��y� �• o ; ::: ;•�;i::;; : ..:.:......:. c;:v`:r'}"ii•.�::.:??r:i $iT,.:'.:y:::;•.:::?f:,,'':;< {i":::r::o-.+•:>":':i:::i ..::.........:.. .:•:�'�.:..:;-.-:i :-k.ti.;-}r..:,r:a:�:tttc;::t:•}•::::.::::.:, ::.:;•;•:Jx;'?:>::}::2'{>2�,tt;<•;:.;... ::...... :...,.•rf}:}x?•wrw}::::LiVS<:::dirt?G>:::??:::•:{•:}:J}}}}t}r::sN�r::: . ::. }`;?: .h :..::}:::p'L:tiyy w�..:...: ::..:.:::h.:::.:r}:::ist'}::'::?}::i:?:::}}}}:4}:}i"is}:sir}Y.::::•ii::•r.}:r}:.:41'.:•:::::vn..vnv.v::::..:...�.�.:v:....:::........... ..,:v;;..•.:.;. }r::...:r..::.. ':.:}...:.•::::::.............:...:..:. .. �`::>:::}the Count , ; ><; :>:>'::..:.:: .. :.:.r.,.J.. ....:...............:.::::.::::.:::::::.:..:.. eErae�, ...ttat.:<:< crs>::> 'C " :•.'i?}: �_•- ..J'Y.•..:...: rr::i:.}lt:}}}iiii::?:[�`i'>:::'rrY,.}.;:.}:•r}:<:.:}}:a;{I[n::::.{ •:;idi::.:::_.}...:::.}•:::::...:.:..::.::..::::::...::::.:..::.:.i.::>•:::::::..v:::;.v:;v:::::;: «¢:,.}::r..uwS.,.::J}rr}.::.:.rrx:x::}i:?r•::}}'.J::t.•.;•::ti'•:r:::}"::::�:.;?.:..:t:... .�':::.:.......... ::.�::::.:..:. Because these areas contribute to the public health and safety in the form of drinking water supplies, special land use protection measures are necessary for the areas ' protection. Measures designed to ensure high water quality are discussed in later sections of the Land Use Element. - FLOODPLAINS - Floodplains are those areas which will be inundated by water in a specific storm event generally referred to as a "100-year flood" . Such a storm has a one percent probability of (Page 2 . 3-4 ) Town of Hillsborough The Town of Hillsborough has a municipally-owned water system. The Town has identified a future utility service area that extends south and east of the current Town and ExtraTerriorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) . Currently, service is provided to most areas within the city limits and ETJ, and additional portions of Hillsborough and Eno Townships to the south and east of town. The system in 1986 served 8, 800 persons, through 3,400 meters, an increase of 2 , 800 persons and 1,200 meters from 1980 service levels. Water consumption within the Hillsborough water service area averaged 1.43 mgd in 1986 . Hillsborough's primary source of raw water is currently Lake Ben Johnson on the Eno River. The impoundment has a 20 year safe yield of 0 .43 mgd. Available supply is affected by withdrawals upstream at Corporation Lake, although limited diversions can be made around Corporation Lake from Lake Orange, further upstream. Under optimal conditions 2 .5 mgd can be diverted from Lake Orange to Lake Ben Johnson. The Orange County Water Conservation Ordinance, however, allocates 1.8 mgd to Hillsborough from Lake Orange when the lake is at its normal level. This allocation from Lake Orange drops to 0 .80 mgd when the lake reaches a crisis level. Lake Orange, which can provide 2 .62 mgd, is owned and controlled by Orange County. Hillsborough is connected to OWASA via a 16" pipeline, while a 6" pipeline connects Hillsborough with Orange-Alamance Water System. A bond referendum passed in 1987 gave the town authority to construct an additional connection with Durham, <DELETED>although this pipeline has not yet been pursued. <DELETED>, Mitoet99.3104 ' »>to<:::::: k#:<:::: t:. : _iaili rh Iq:::::<::: taE:: :c.. l.et : > Jordan take may prow emiliIlsboroug ""with" 'up° t ' d`"at some` point during the next twenty years. In 1988, the town filed a request with the North Carolina Division of Water Resources for a Level II allocation of 6 . 0 mgd from the 100 mgd available from Jordan Lake for public water supplies. The request was filed as part of an application submitted jointly with other jurisdictions and agencies in Orange and Chatham Counties. The Town received a future allocation of 5.5 mgd. Plans for treatment and transmission of any allocation from Jordan Lake from Hillsborough have not yet been developed. Demand and deficit projections are displayed in Figure 2-3. They indicate that Lake Ben Johnson is severely inadequate when considered as a sole source of supply. Even with a full allocation from Lake Orange under the Orange County Water Conservation Ordinance the Hillsborough system will face a demand deficit by the year 2000, and possibly before. 1. 98sr > he Town of Hillsborough identified a preferred future Source"`o'f"'water as a new impoundment on Seven-Mile Creek, which uld also serve other County residents in central Orange as well. <DELETED>At this time, discussions are underway between the County and the Town regarding the construction, management and allocation 52 (Page 2 .3-4 (a) ) of this possible .6.3 mgd source <DELETED>. :;,......;,,.;. 9 Haweve�r is po ndi e t was o pt r ued d to u d n , eaw .rozuaer a 3n 1.991, the Town off' Hilisborosgh .identified # second, si :€n e Upp+ r Eno basin as a pr.ierxet resear . site. The deval.op ett o this sits:,:::the West Fork: of:»the Esc , s,; u der coas3.derati a ::at,.�:th4s tf :.:::..•_ .f ho;11***.;:€<0 i a : 53 (Page 2 . 3-6 ) • Orange Alamance Water Systems, Incorporated (OAWS) OAWS is a non-profit association formed in 1969 to serve populated areas in western Orange and eastern Alamance counties. The system has recently defined a future service area in Orange County in and near the village of Efland. The service area crosses the ridge line separating two major drainage basins, the Cape Fear and the Upper Neuse, serving the US 70 corridor west from Efland, the Mebane area and several rural communities in eastern Alamance County. A small portion of Cedar Grove Township is also served with water by the system. Approximately one-third of OAWS customers are in Orange County, with a slightly smaller proportion in the Upper Neuse drainage basin. Industrial use accounts for about 20% of total usage in the system. The three major industrial users - GKN, Honda, and Dayco - are located in Alamance County. The primary raw water source for OAWS is Corporation Lake, an impoundment on the Eno River just north of US 70, which has a 20 year safe yield of 0.7 mgd. The rate of sedimentation is such that 35% of its storage capacity has been lost since . the dam's. construction in 1969 . At that rate of sedimentation, Corporation Lake would be completely filled by the year 2025, with a resulting net yield of zero. The Orange County Water Conservation Ordinance, effective January 1988, allocates 0.80 to OAWS from Lake Orange when the lake is at its normal level. This allocation drops to 0 .32 mgd when Lake Orange reaches crisis level. OAWS has interconnections on the east with Hillsborough and on the west with the Graham-Mebane water system. Graham-Mebane is in turn, connected to the City of Burlington. ON$900i00.00444.4 E : $m arid:<14 bao.:c..:..... lekt : aons ron<o < the r own reservoir on Back_Creek....in...eastern...Alamance...County ' iat :o::.,+.::.:.rov.; ,e: ,;.wa..er.;;: .,o ............. ... ......... .......... ...................................................... Between 1980 and 1986, raw water pumped from OAWS increased by 50%, from 0 .42 mgd to 0.63 mgd. Population served during that time increased from 4 ,800 to 6, 150 . Projected water demand and deficits are shown in Figure 2 .4 . These figures show -that the system is rapidly reaching capacity when Corporation Lake is considered as a sole source. Even with a full allocation from Lake Orange, under the Orange County Water Conservation Ordinance, OAWS faces a system-wide demand deficit by 1995. POTENTIAL it TER 0000.1 O C....`. FOI O C TT Io 1990:, the ne>> eek: :servo r n>>Bio c Te ch4 a Leted and now eeiv s`.' A cu o ith h s* OWASA should• have adequate supplies of water through the twenty year plan period. The two water suppliers in central Orange County are in a less enviable position. As growth trends and the drought of the mid 1980 's clearly showed, Hillsborough and OAWS have serious water supply needs that are both short and long term. 54 • (Page 2 . 3-8 ) Twenty-eight potential reservoir sites were identified in five studies conducted between 1969 and 1980. Most of the sites were not seriously considered because of inadequate yield, significant amounts of development in the drainage basin, transmission distance from existing systems, or other circumstances which rendered a site unsuitable for reservoir development. Because the physical characteristics necessary for adequate reservoir development are well known, it is unlikely that any major sites were overlooked. Four of the most promising sites were fully detailed in the 1987 Orange County Water Supply Study. In 1989, the Orange County Commissioners and the Town of Hillsborough Board of Aldermen indicated that a new impoundment on Seven-Mile Creek is the preferred alternative for a new central Orange reservoir. This new impoundment could potentially yield 6 .3 mgd for the Town and other future users. <DELETED>Discussions regarding the planning and management of this " facility , are currently underway. > :.:,::...... �.:: :.:>:.;}::: :<:::.,.;:.:::..:....::::::.;>...:.:::::.::::::::::::.;.:.A .. ............... Y y <DELETED 4`.4'444 `>< :::<' a:::_ : # »:: ..::...:>:: :.. : ... :,:}::.^.,i:::r..'F:'y:.:::•::SL: .y:;;.:.. :::�:}:":�,y}::•}:is}::;•r}:^...:...:,::•y::}.,.�:i.::.i}:'•^}:4.i'.?::::npii;^i}.:i;}; aborou h>::: ail»:i: to.. •.. L. ':<}x::: . :.»;: L . ......::....::,:,.,. >::: ::..:.:::.:::;::::.:..:.:::::.::::� ./.:;�-/::�.:.::y.::: ::::::::::.:.::::::::: .. :ice. :.o-}: lr:... .:..:#.'ea' ' ;E<:«: < ...:.: : '::�:?' .. :.. •::..L.: ::::: :..:. .:.. • .. ::.. .�..:::.::L:;.:..:�}}}}:gin.. s:>: �i.,.� � .}:;.LL.vnL.rC-.•nLWY..::/..T.,.k.:::.:WJ.,.,:.fiU::..:...}}:KU•%?::..::rr...n:,.{.}}kv"v •A:':} yi�iicc.i�cpp c. ..e!�ji�yy,.: tot/ m. 1et Because Orange County is at or near the headwaters of major drainage basins, the sub-basins from which county suppliers can draw are small. This results in potential reservoir yields that are, at best, modest. It is clear that Orange County does not have the sites with a potential to supply large amounts of water over long periods of time. Even with the Cane Creek Reservoir, the County as a whole could face a demand deficit before the year 2010 . The County and individual water suppliers must think in regional terms for planning future long-term sources. Not only do surrounding counties have sites larger than those in Orange County, but joint action among water users can increase the cost effectiveness of source development. Many of these neighboring water supplies have watersheds that begin in Orange County, thus furthering the need for interlocal cooperation. The largest of the sites in neighboring counties is Jordan Lake, with 100 mgd available as a drinking water supply. <DELETED> The allocation process was begun by the Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development in 1988 <DELETED>. Local governments and agencies in Orange County requested 30. 3 mgd in Level II allocations, which are allocations that would not be used for at least five years. In late 1988, Orange County governments/agencies were allocated a total of 16.0 mgd of this future major supply. The City of Durham 004004 the Little River Reservoir in northern Durham County fiii019109thid supply adds an additional 25 mgd of water to the Durham 'system, more than doubling its capacity. Once filled, the reservoir will give Durham a surplus beyond the year 55 (Page 2 . 3-8 (a) ) • 2010 . The water from .this reservoir is in an upland watershed, most of which lies in Orange County, and is considered to be of high quality. dit a al . k ie +City of rbam papa•.::• cant . e e en water .se .the Eno ver nta a ::. In Alamance County Graham-Mebane Mebane ,:. :.::a:.;:;':;;::;:>:;:,' ::: <:::>:}:}:y.;::,::}::::...::. ;:'::«:::;:::}, ::;,<:. ::.>:;:::::};}.: awe.. �aetpi+etad t�ta• ��� � � arge part of this watershed"""•lies " .and`."°Ceda=`r`}'Grove Townships of Orange County. The City of Burlington is developing a reservoir on Greater Alamance Creek west of the Town of Alamance. It is scheduled to be built in two stages with a final capacity of 34 m d. .:........:......::::....::::::..:::::. water:... :........ ...................:....................nr..............:.•......vn..mmn..x}:i.:?.....r...nv...........:.............:}:4:4:;}:�i}: .... ...:::..v.v:::.:v:?}}:;::•ir.;.}:{:: ri4}}:::•-;'^4:j:�•:.i:?:::.}:?vii:•:.:};::iK:v:::,v.,v,v..•v:;.•:•:;•v::: : :;v::::w.•:...................................... e!::A::� •.'� •{i:::� •.. ..`:::�,,', ,,. :.�! .. .: �• .,]]((••.�.....:5:���.y!?1��.]....... .::..:...,.:: :•;...��...:�.I:�..,�L:!.�i:::},.Y•:.::.'.vj :::.•:::::{y:i::�::i,::{.Y.}:,,?}};;:::i::•::. :ii:'}iry:.}...k::::{::}'}i::.: v:.:.:.::.�::.::::v.�•.gin-, .:.:::::.......:... .:.:::::....: n..-,....n......rv......:....:...::..::..:::.:::..�::.:::::: . ....................::v:::::::;..vw.. ....:,,,,,,,�.,. :.::� .�. ' ;:•: } : '' •}.Si.....{{.Y .. ..;...<{.: ..........:4 •. :::::.::{::::}:.}.::.y.v:.v:. ..: :": it�}i:•:.... : �}}iYn:r.isn}:.}....:..:rn}}}Y{ :::<?:.: :..::.iii:.::::�.; rte• 'af ro. >::>' ::?s;;?; ., ::.:•> :?•is. r,..,.'..?z?;:• : :: :.:.i':?.}-.: <:>:. >:.:::;;:::;•`_: <`:i.;.:?:<.;{.;r :<:.}:.>:<::<.}'i:�::::.......r. .. ::.::.-.:........:....:...........x:::..:r.. . .. sue' •:: � .}:;.: ;fie!::::<:: «<; y::v,'....,:.::.�::::::..:..::.:{ti2•}:;•}}}:.:{. .::::.......... ......................:Y+iW:.i.iii:ni:}:<:::},�w.�::v:::v:.:,:+1�:•:::::..�:::}}.}}::.�::v:....•......................... ..v.:: .IIT:•::::1w1.11C�R •.yTTyy.,,, i:::i?.}, .:{S:{..}; {:::.}:?� .::.}':.v:::•;;•::::;y:;, ......... :�iYn;i}i:is}{: :fit• .: .:.. �'CE Vii.:�::.:;,.., ,�. •. .r.. r:::. •.::. .12 Vie;;;•.:s.: :«f:iot<>,,. :..... rea ;<:Casa ' ;: :>> <:.;: of°. {:4:�:.::}::•:•'ti•:iv.:.v: :.iv::::.?:::::::.v •r::r.::::}:......::.}??.}}::.:.}''.:�'.}•:::::.:........:...... ................:.::::.:�.::... :i...:............. ......::.::.::.v.,.x.:.i...................... ... 1fi�ii�'�5:;.' ?!1R:�Y"t-'::C::M#!�j'x,,1iR- •r'Y :M�� �'+Ik 41!�IYF',Ri� 4:->:{-};{.:ti?�}:4:vwv:::v v.::'::. .. }.: ..$ r-.{.::.:::..:: .:........::. .:..v:'.•:}-.. /�r�{yy��.. il►::.+;:•• • ++A.4.ST n.\•%h.rr...fv$...•.4t4k•.S:r:.YhAWr:.-0:4:v}i•:Y.i}ih:•:P:}::�R4y:SS.i{4;vri:Jri:n::\4C:M{v:Y.•Y}%','::�::�:i$}:ri:kL::ii'r}:{:}-•::i�:ry::j:•faw::$T ' The public water supply systems in Orange County are interconnected with each other and with the municipal systems in Graham-Mebane and Durham. While these interconnections were activated in order to supply water in emergency situations, they should be the precursor of a more regional approach to water supply. Good reservoir sites are not distributed equally among counties in the Piedmont. Counties such as Orange need to look beyond their borders for future supplies. • 56 (Page 2 . 3-12 ) this treatment process is so high that extreme financial burdens could be placed on smaller systems . Orange County is fortunate that its public water suppliers draw water from upland supplies contained within the County. University Lake Watershed is the most developed of the six water supply watersheds in the County, located just west of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The watershed, along with the Cane Creek 'watershed, is classified by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management as WS-T , meaning it is relatively undeveloped and has no point source discharges of pollution. Of the 19, 600 acres in the University Lake watershed, only 8% is considered developed. The watersheds of the Little River, Back Creek, Upper Eno and South Hyco watersheds are .[ `04#00 40 :•{: •:: �:,,,,.,; �; .}}},.�, rural in nature and free from potential '+r concentrat `•sources Of. Pollution. <DELETED> Durham has requested a WS-I classification for the Little River and Flat River watersheds, while Graham-Mebane has requested a WS-II classification for the Back Creek watershed. The projected water qt:'.lu:+;M:::.:n;{..:.i:.:.a:v y:•.:",'•:.:.::::.}.�:.:...,:l:.:::.{'Y:r::w•{.e•:i.:.::ii:.£•::r;y.{ty:c}%.:k•:..r'::w6r€np..y:•4}.''i f}...�.•i..:ti r.l.'.•.�;.;.o.:c m.ti3•:.;..:}..iJ:....':�5{.w�'•..;'.e.these '#.t{watersheds.tr..}'...ti•:iw.�..•io,o-.s m4....,•.:+•.Q r.:,h Se..w.•.:{, x:y,:p::.•}:e• .c~.�}'."{•,,Y.nr,.;ivt.'.n,n�'•4 e{nY, d to b>R?i• e `i`•';':::frs.:'x}}i.:iirio}si:•}�;od..;.:.•$..<{ D�t\E':LETEDM > : . n ^ v :..v ; rv}�t f a�}0 ��ia� � � •g { {ar 4 * e Y o:f:V }� 44 t •.it v xv J.. : w* Yp 0 �,�}i 0x ?� ii > �!!i.% . ." .: ` ' Ie + ' vt vN .a yr 3�e„ Watershed Classification Table The sources of pollution which have been discussed so far, are called "point sources" of pollutants. Point source refers to pollutants from a specific fixed source which enters the water at an identifiable point. An example would be the outfall pipe from a sewage treatment plant. Other sources of pollution are called "non-point sources. " These are pollutants which reach receiving streams in a diffused manner and cannot be attributed to an identifiable or specific source. An example would be the pollutants that accumulate on a parking lot or road and are washed off in a storm. Studies around the nation have revealed that non-point sources of pollution are equally, if not more important, contributors to poor water quality than point sources. The same studies reveal that non-point source pollution generation is a function of land use. Areas which are mostly forested have the lowest amounts of pollutants in the water that runs off the land. This is because forested areas have a greater ability to slow runoff and assimilate pollutants present in the runoff and lack the urban activities, such as concentrated automobile usage, that produces pollutants . In a forested area, only a small percentage of the precipitation washes off the land into the nearest stream. The ground cover in forested areas slows the velocity of runoff and allows water to 57 (Page 2 . 3-15 ) • 3 ) Work with the County' s consulting engineers on Phase II of the Orange County Water Supply study, which would focus on more precise engineering and cost data for the water supply options recommended in the Orange County Water Supply Study, Phase I, released in November 1987 ; 4 ) Work cooperatively with the various water and sewer service providers and municipalities in the County, including Mebane and Durham, to identify and develop a joint agreement on service area boundaries; and, 5 ) Develop a water conservation program for all of Orange County. With the exception of the first charge, which was constrained by external time limits, no priorities were attached to these responsibilities . In 1988, County voters approved a $1 million bond referendum to be used for the acquisition of land for the then undecided reservoir.-• •After the release of Phase II of the Orange County Water Supply Study, the Board of County Commissioners and the Town of Hillsborough Board of Aldermen agreed upon a new Seven-Mile Creek reservoir as the most suitable site for a new impoundments ;;;• ........... . ...:. may. �y/y �y �t�y.�... !► �y .........:.:...: ........... ............ ......v::4n4...Y.-}kvv.£7Y.Y.}.:..�...W ..,....�.::. Yrr.•.,w:::::•r:::::'v: v::::::::;::: }: the►$ <DE TED>fihe recent developments regarding the selection oft....•even.-Mile Creek as a reservoir site may mitigate the water problems of Central Orange County<DELETED>. However, <DEL>this<DEL> one reservoir still may not be enough to satisfy the County's needs . Recent estimates by the Count y Engiineer indicate` `ti at the. need for a second central Orange reservoir - possibly on the Eno• River north of McGowan Creek - may be needed in the not too distant future. .. ....... ...........;.....-:}}: ......,.}K.;, }::.: ;;mow:.;::::.::::•..} :.�}>:::. ::::..;•::.;�. ..:�:.::::;;:. :::.::..::.�:::::::'•.<:.<w}:<<:.}:.x<<•}::..:::::;:«a:o.s :.:�.:..,.; y ..�...............:.. ass !1u:ti::� 'r.ii. i}:. ;,f��y .n„- .. i '`i': :;i.;r•:. .. .; r .. <«;:�':)}}: : .. }}:.. .. .: .: .;.:� ::.:: y.r s<i:::i:::;}:G:•ti:::i: . :L: .//.��. `` .441004c: ....::.....:.::�}iii}i::i:}:}i}::::.. :,•:r.:::v.xv.v.....:......::nv::.v•.•v;...................�•.�......................:::•:;.... .....:. �.atsrs�te�.•..�� :.�.e3� ........�tt'o ��atershe�s; ::»a:<state��:de;<:�:$:�a�e<:.: ...:r..�;: ::;k}}:,:.�....+...�..:.,-:.�:::.�::::.�:.::::::............... :::gl�Ea��r' ;���•�l :�t,��l �ar� aka.' t�la ultimately expresso :>; n tt ; ater::<:Supply ea311: :.......:... •:::.::.:::.:::.:.:................:.�:.::::.:::.�.�:.�::::..:.......a���..........::.:....:.::...t�, �'gA�`.2.��...:.:P!'•RtKs'1iAk>:2=>:OP':;$:>:iA'1�E&:>?s>�`P � :. STAB s SHE # 8!THE : NVIR�TA :::::<::..:<y:z'�:.:•;-�:�>:•;:;2:;:,+:««:::::r::::}<::Y:;;«:}}::2::022:::0:::..,:.ii:;:�•.}>}::}x::}:}}:•:}:}}}}}>:<.}:<<;.;;;,:-o:�}:°}}r<•i::•ii}>r'}}o->}::•:�•;.>:.;:a::o:;o}::•�;o::«<;a•}r:•ir.}:}:o-:y:::.<.:;::::..;}:::::«<.;^:ai} Under the prav .s i s of t s act each .c a <>: over n t:t . state 58 • :(Pegs .; en rce« �yy�yel, y��?y.�y#9r�ams ayadj� a�dsiay�y�,c�sa� �.a mad.s}���ai3a:t`j��y,•��a���ec�a� $ad prfootecUoar .f dseei. sd) or s� protectis a �f av er as ,g wvaterahedt .Witt*xt es r ras pest re trti 44*Wa. psi 1 9 ., t1#ea c adopted watersss a pmts ia�a s adards iar;:each ssr: ,o r o water s upp t o dar...as d...t o a : d than state:::after res, a ..o .14:a s »ns •i :: i : r:..::..:.:.:.:.:{.:.::.e:::..::•....?.......}#};R .n�::::v:} : :.:.e: ser:. .�:.:e: r.}.}..;...}...te..?s;.L :em: . :. a� e. f *:> �,y a s « :..:....:t....e$:o : :ae s L:edavv _:��� v::v�: �� ? {}: gam� ,jyw /{ : .n ►R. :.� �v : ; }i .,>; 040.. : : }. F: amoo : teyie* : t suc {L ** . : : : s wat#00.dsF } <} csd . :> . 4: t-t : 0ah X44� oda : r:F:: .:...{?{?: ...:.-.. ,n.} ..:..:.....;Tr. ...:.:}:•. ::.,.,: :::.:v:s:::.:•:{?:::.f••.,.m::-v:::::::.v;.:,,•;:::.v:::v:.v:.v:; :.:.•::: :.} :::�::::::::: . .�.:.�;'R; a��'. ......... .. .... rte:::><:<E!a .. ... •:}::.::L{•};::i:::::.,:r:::.. :v.; .v:: .•j5F].4,.L rrO5,Gb4 Y......S.r.n.. `P+dfr•YN}l: .....................v.tvvn•::::.ii•:4TR:4}:4}t::2%:ti:F:is O:{LCi,1-.:}i}:R:F:k:4,isFX{J:+SEv �lf"'..._�'F::^:•v:{::}..i ., .II�F :...:........:w:::,v........•.v.vv:.v;;::•••.}}:O'Y.R::.R}:r:•v.::v::n:::••:.};•:;t:•.:},-: ;;����!!FF .;Y .'Fy,}}}}up}}::::}}�};{:s}.\R:ry:C;:;'iiSF}}%: }:}S}y4}}}:}':F•i:•:?:}r':SR}}:'::.R:^:{SV:?r..:3. ' .. ...:... ..:. :.:.: :...:..:::x::> ...,�►�esa:..': .' Na#err.:..retat• F:: ... .....,:•.�:.�:::::.:,.�::}>: ::•.:}};X.�:;.`.:;r.<;:];};??:}':k#:;%>•':%'•`:::•}:R::-.;{:F?{.}:<{{{:;R>:}:{ .::.�:�::J.........:.:.r......,.;.};n.R•x...;,h,;•,v..:..:re{{,..;:.r. ......,........ ... a# ..........:......,.:::::.,......,.:....... , �`:{.}}}:.::.}}:.: :.::::::.:.::.::::. .::::.v ........ f�m�....t.........: �.. snag. .:...:. :...:...:....::::::..... ....�.;..:.};: }..,.... . r{•X?. .Xx::••.v.:v:::::v.�:::•}..R :•r7'.v.x :TJ.,...:...h•:•::n:v::..v: :::vtx-}-{., :v'�F:{.���'.'' •:k''F ,: ..> i'•.;;�y:::::::a?.:'�'{•'�::::};:.r>`!k.:��:k:F:::":fs':a:�ta�' Y� •;.Fr ;errassca•s�;• ......... .:...... �}. x..,....;F: sX•:.::}:•}•>}]: ..v ;h .rr..::n. �' r#Q ':. IR�E ...:. ... ..% :#:::<y:;':;:. •;:•: :. .4-.x. r:. �. •.}� ,R,.;........;:. ... .... .v. :•::::w.: .r v.4... r :id' ...::'{,7�•Y�-; i,{;FV:#!7!�N�:,::...t.' `....-. �:� r{t� X, •.�„ ... .... .,,.�.. .t?,.i,} -.. v,y4,X:L••Y• i�����iZ•-��••:6:{.]r . ..,:..zr{�:tP;.raK::::o%H<:s:ir�t*x,RX :L{.,,.:•:x::::.::::,.:..: '�.{,$ �iTi: .....w.ri:•FF:+%4X4:-}:-Y.i':•}}}}}}}:J.'i:-v:4:R�'.{}C•F�+.'�{�+{v •:-: : ...... ti4;:-px}}:•y.?•}%M%•NCR.^^viY.xv.}:O:?hbN}N" {,.. ..5,' ,:}Y.-}}.:.45•X{';6'+�f•• .::�;:;:.L::.::... ,� .}.{.:,.."f.::' '.' ::.{.::.:�.::::::...:::.::.,.r. ,. r ... .. .r.R.::.... ...�..: •rn4-: �v%;. ...y......{S.hF{L•:y:h;•::w. X23::::::::iC. ,d,,>iQI=:;.]:.D' . . r - :.< . ... f::i -: ::: :;>:•.;., ..::>.::.:::.:::;;.;:;.:.;::::: Cv: {•}:•}:':.;•;:•-.;•.:}'.v'';''.''.''.�..•'•'•'-.-'•'�"i::::^:`:ti:{S'.':v}'�}'-:R:i:.}v:q :v:::., .. .....r. ... .:.......:..:..v:::...... .....✓...: .v...:nv...{...:.:•.:::::::;,. .:....;.r..•.;.... .v}:4'.;�{.;:SX•:: vVX `v'' h�,,,••,••,n•{�.•..'...v: � �5;: �....:. w ..?•}kelm'ata'a►'::fir,:i d qu {t�a:. . ..,•{ : .;.1 . ;..{ ,:.., .. ...i-{:i•:i•i:4:}}':?vY.F:J.•":•:.::,?,v. x.r........ � '�Gt• :. .v:4 ::•. �- •v'r` yr •i". ... •}•4'• .: - ,{;n-J} .....,i�. ..,{.{- ... ... {: '.�:!iS::+v;Y:'::{{•:}•:�tiR}}i4F-}:�:}i'-t: j'{i'.�FF\}}•.:R:•:':}:iti{h''F}}:}}}}:n}y}}}}yi'FF* :.:aR}?}}}:w:::i}}'::::}... xrrt..v.,.-.;v: ..:•:::hnnv;; v;...::........... .. :.F: y� y�' r:: : :. ..v.v:.. .:.. •.i,tiR{.........}.0th::A:•4:::}•:.,•nv ............ r .:. ................. �d.:s}:• yy��:�I:.::�'S•���:: .11�.. j� .. .:..............::.];�R ..:...r .....,..kF'.... .. :. {.}.;. ...,v}::\v}•: { ], �r'•;.:••{:;:.r;:Fi:R�:'}:;v:4}}:4}}:iv.v w:w:.�•i}}:-}•.} + �i15 ,ice'..;';} :. .. ..�y; ..�y;..:.: .ar y ::;.?,;:;;}}}:::^: ;. r er.::.Sa�f toYi'rCi^`i�•'y2- h'' •e`/.:j;:}../`. '' :, „�y�► .jay; .....;:..:.};,r..}:•.}••:?;::; ; ;:SS.:. :::,:?:. ::}:.}}:^:.}>:•:}:•{:;;.;:.F;.}}}:::.:::..::T..}:::}::.. ....... iti!- .,"'. ittie... }}J .. .k.:. : :{ MS• ii:: RV'. '??.. ,........:::r; .. ., .{ 'Yr ,v55v:M ..• r�vn'•:::'i•::"vri7.`w`iF$iri'{SQF}F`in'4•FF:v:i4}: i!:4}:}}iiX.:4i}:4 s�e�:h�>::..: f��•:� eta.� �. `� .......::%r{•:•:R};:i.:,,,..+...,...,.r..:.,..;x:..{.,..:,a{tS.]J$:Yx6s°.�dw4oi?` R.c:G'dL`:a.:.`.'d}.i%::i?]F::::So: '`,�`f}. 't'{.::R."b'.i::��t'•J:F:%3f%-TC ':.h:}:' •' ?:... xx?x:.::{.:?i}:.:ryyv }i}h�C:.,v,•}\.'r 4}}}}:•:•:{.i •: {fir:Si:•X•''{ :v}% }}?}}:?•:?•i;ry'y .........,��+fry Sc i�'�:X':,:::?••:•:,-}}:R:.:; :.:.}: :j;;: :•,::F' :. .;..:... ..}.:y }}}i'.v::.:.:.;.: ::..:..,:F;{{;;{:'.;ji?:<':ij;.:;iY::i ; ::'`:F':::{:i2;}:;.+-: ;.:". pro * `4!. '. #'•`�i•li;44 :n � � 4y!' : .;:...::�::• }:::..:......... ..:.. ... 'i.}-.; .v,.iR......'}hrvr'.•„v,:...•n/1.. {v}}b".,}:i:-];??•:':.:S4:v:?�{{{.:{•: .. .,r;;i. -': .;R}• ?.:..:.•.:�7► - {::{(,;;:4:••...... .., ..:?:{{:;...;:.F%• .::v;):..... .:F:•. :-FtFtitR F•<X:}:•F}:::;::}v..:' }}}}:•}}:?R:':?•} ':^T';�;i:;';AIIMf i{dei. .'n �3;} 4 i...jtrgd'ji`.`. :{;:} 4F:::. r till:' :• ............... LakeiFFFiF;;; ,;}};4.•{y..;;i. .. •> -:n +`R,. . ���,.r.:{..`: .:: •} ... ri#.: .............. .. ...:..::.:.:..:.,.::.�.......:::r:•.r X4}'..v:.::•.{..r{:.:: ' ..:..�:.:�:::;{.}::{.;R:.:.,.:.::::::.......... :4.,...�•-.::... ...........,.... ::....:'.3.1�...arZ":i$e�l3<:>::::::<><: _ rou �a r.. v ......... ...:...i]}}};• v:.v:i4..{::i}yiR}}vv:{.}:}}}:Y}i]}: :•: .:{.}}:i:'i: ;:.v:::.,:..:.v::n:.::: . ... ..... �t:..,'� �:;�:: ;'• 1}::<i.>}}'.}}:}>F�•:�}?.F:;i:::}}>}:} .......�A4k t�t;� t7�`::'dE�:::»;'��i�.�. ::}:.::•:: .. ? :. ::�:: .F. r•: .na1 ; ots ro j:a2Et OFF: �:+}�;.�.,{ :... ,. .}ran ...{tv•..?:•i:{{:{: :- : •: :,. .: :ii • ::•:.: : ::•::.�:::•::::. !fi,{.;:::::: :::<}.�:::::::.:v.�:::::::::::.::::. :::.:::.::iii`..'::;::•{`:•"}:F:%:.:::}:;:'YF+. :.ii::::"•:iyi:::": }}, '. •' -:k%:`iiF.... :;.....:'•::�:'• .. .:.... ..._: .:�:::::........:..:4}}. :}}yr.; ;;{:}i :� ;FF;;iiF::;;:`i:<:::::,;..:.{: i::i:::;`2:i:� iitiiii i::;:::F<i:`i ;-.�::;:,::}:-}}}}}o}}>}:or.;:::: :::::.:? :. :::.:::.atr:.}:->: , .:::: !fad;:>t ::* ': :Ci.=e.. . A.ew po' c :es on>zwa {:..;:a:r:►".a:i>:bee ►.::::}: . '' . c :<:::t :; r ? n�i FF:.. . :>is . . :::::.:: >:;•• 59 (Page 3.3-1) • 3.3 - LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES One of the fundamental methods used to achieve the stated Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element is the design and application of a land classification system. Each category of the land ('IAasification system is designed to accommodate certain uses throughout the County to achieve a desired pattern of development. Land in the County was classified into these categories according to the public policies expressed in the Land Use Element, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context and the projected population change and resulting land requirements in the County. The land use categories contained in the Orange County Land Use Element are based on five basic categories which have been refined into a more detailed classification system to meet the specific needs of the County. These categories are presented below: BASIC CATEGORY ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES DEVELOPED Urban Existing Urban Activity Node Proposed Urban Activity Node TRANSITION 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition Commercial Transition Activity Node Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node COMMUNITY Rural Community Activity Node RURAL Rural Buffer Rural Residential Agricultural-Residential Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Rural Industrial Activity Node Agricultural Areas CONSERVATION Public Interest Area Water Supply Watershed <DEL>Water Quality Critical Area<DEL> 'i t Resource Protection Areas New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space A description of each land use plan category is contained on the following pages. 6p (Page 3.3-3) EXTRACTIVE USE. Land designated to encompass operations designed primarily for the mining and quarrying of those substances which are legally removable from the ground and substrata. AGRICULTURAL AREAS. Land which is actively being used for farming and forestry purposes and which qualify for or are listed for, use value taxation purposes. PUBLIC INTEREST AREA. Land which contains public or quasi-public uses suck as publicly owned land, research forests or known archaeological or historical sites. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. Land draining to existing reservoirs which serve as public water supplies, <DELETED>for the County<DFi,FTED> or to potential reservoir sites •:' d*: t r'a which have been designated for protection against threats to the water quality of future water supplies, in accordance with County watershed protection programs and the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989. <DFLF.TED>WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA<DELETED> .�.,j. ......;:}. ;...:...,'......i... ::::.::::::::::.: i:••:...:....:.::::::.•'•:::.:::::::.:::•:;:v:::.�:::::nom:::v::::;:.:.:::::::::•..v:::.�::.�:.:.:..,•:,.:,..,..;"�-,;,.,.,...,.,..,:,'.�'..::}:':.::,.-.. �; .:..... {: .; ,.......I^.".. :...,y..:... ..vy.►:::.:}..::::::..::::; .:.:�.:�.;:•.�:::::::"}:;<:•,••:;}}ii••,,;,};i}}i;•.•....{t{.::}::}'•;:":::i:,..,.,;.,..'..,,''"'i,.'.;'�;:.:i.i giti .: }:. :, : :^:::;. ,v :.;;.;:...,,..;.•'::. v;.::}•:::.}v^;;.}•}.: t.}}} v t}}tii<v:tt:iSt; :�. :i}:ii:::}:L::i:::}..}:J:ti•:W:Gn ♦:.Y}}YY:;•a.,w.:.v:.:;vr�:::::: ��v:.wnw}� :•• .ri-.-.:}�%r� � ii:•:i}ii}� ':• RESERVOIR. Land which contains C�;` C;. <w•. �`: .>'. , or the necessary attributes for placement of a water supply impoundment to supply an adequate quality of water for public purposes. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS. Land which contains identifiable or potential natural resources. This includes wetlands along drainage tributaries, and steep slope areas (15% or greater). These areas form the basis for a parks and open space system which provides the framework within which other land uses are situated. NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE. Some of the land in the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the Public Interest Area designated as significant and worthy of protection according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan completed in April of 1991. (See Master Plan Map in the Appendices.) This category is part of a system of open space in Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. The New Hope Corridor Open Space is made up of critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or recreational value. ecticn Goq Is (Page 3 .5-8,'9) 61 GOAL TEN: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE AND ADEQUATE TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF ORANGE COUNTY. 10 . 1 Manage Orange County's water supplies so that available resources are balanced with existing and projected needs . 10 .2 Adopt and implement policies which specify land use patterns and intensities of development in water supply watershed and a er shed cr 4: eas that will minimize potential adverse impactson .water .quality. 10. 3 Designate prime reservoir sites, based on an evaluation of water resources throughout the County, to protect those areas from adverse development impacts and to insure that inappropriate restrictions are not placed on a large population of the land area and land resources of the County. 10 .4 Support programs which help to protect water quality, such as the Soil Conservation Service and the 004000 • iin<f aitifi programs. 10 .5 Encourage efforts to monitor the quality of water in Orange County streams. 10. 6 Cooperate with other public and private bodies in promoting water quality legislation programs. 10 . 7 Support educational efforts which serve to increase citizen understanding of water quality problems and the need for water conservation. 10 . 8 To' niiiiz.: ar hh�sr:::< ...: :..a :caa>:::io ><:: ve sity ' e : :..ai • •. ;:;.{:: o. : < ?d< d st. ,;:s o... >..<.-.,.:..t ..per to in he: wait• . .ake watersh : :<::Indus- r.ial uses a -:a "�tiClitha . ':: >a' e<':: ;n the:>Cane»; reek:<; . #11001i ........... l�7t e > • ;..,_;:":viii:;i#03;: '. Ee::::.. ::aa� qN0:'.::::,..,,.,..:.,:.; ::,.:,:>>:;.;:::.:-. should sb:.. •': mall-s l:e:::::<; **a: a ;*:i es- ted< ::t? ivrov e. :.�.:. •ss * .. .: me�iia#.�a....a>�as ..aid ::.:::::..,..:..... .}}:�.:{•<::ni:��:6i:�::n r::..:�:....::.::.:.•:::•:;:....:; .;••.:. ..::::.:.v+:;:::-;r-:�'C:':4:;:r:-.::::.:::.::.r:.... ..,.. .::::.,, .. ..:. •:i�::ii• .,. ,}••••::: :...:'�::ii:i...:. :.:{.,i:h ^ .:::.P::;i: .�pi: ":::.:.;... .�/..v: ::iii.n:...:+.;.:.:.i'Fi:{•.Y.:;':nj;: ::j :;i:}::':i"':;iii::i:::'!.:}::: o. :ed:. :outa de<:::::>o `::::::<:th± :::>:: : rsh yy {c1�r goa'! are+a� }� ..•.........:..:.::..,:.:::•.,wx.a;.•..w:.::.�:.::::..:..:................:.................:.:::......................:...,R��ii� ;i1i!AK:'ire'';�itiMl+:!wTisl!I: riiF�'11'i.{9�SFi •.•:ia►. mint tz. f :4�h','�,K.{:+.•!:,.<!b'1...{iyR:vt..,..U:.n2..:...::..::.n....,.....::�dtAl+4:.:{{{2.:::{:.y:.i:;..:<{.:��:rr.,r,• :::::::�:{L.:::{{.i::::C:;::i':;.:v;:::2.:;{{.::.:{.::{.:.M:; :.::4::::i::::::::�.^{:{:i. 10. 9 Direct urban development pressures in the I-85/US 70 corridor :.'`.;{" ' <';::: ; :'�h�.a..�.::�' �b!: >:..:: .•..: g$itsf*>< ?. g* s1'4eC in Cheeks Township to - the' areas'-'•'designated.' Tien "•and Twenty-Year Transition, and away from the areas designated W0r44e4 Critical lea.' Neon—residenti and t ig er dens t, res .de tial 4evel n <> x the Transi .o 1:.;Areas::. thould ..:.::......... utilize Est Management Pracggt s (SP's) for stoma zater cost ol, is order to + i ze potent .a , adverse impa s oe tote water quality of existing and proposed. reservoir sites in:.. his-watershe I: :,. �CCticn (Page 3 . 6-4 ,5 ) C(c•c1c; GroJ ' Natural Environmental Constraints Cedar Grove Township contains four natural environmental 62 constraints to development activity; floodplains, water supply watersheds, steep slopes, and poor soil conditions . Water Supply Watersheds : The headwaters of go water supply watersheds, serving f o`' =s inct water s stems begin i :;:..: in Cedar Grove Township. The watersheds of Back Creek, 404 Eno, Little River,: Vie' Richie FiAti$41 er) d�So ith....B cxo::t.ogethe : �...: � ::: g r cover almost X92% "of"the Township'`s total area. Two impoundments on the Eno River downstream of the Township, Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake, are the primary sources of water for the Town of Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water System (OAWS serves Efland and portions of Mebane and Alamance County) , respectively. Upstream of those two impoundments, in Cedar Grove Township, is County-owned Lake Orange. a `Q an a is an augmentation reservoir from which water can be reTeasedicluring low flow periods to increase availability of water to downstream users <::. :>':; ' '.;::. ..:. .::. : . .: . . . :...:...: ::: ..:.... :..::: .::.::.� .�::::..:.. :::..:. .::::; : ::.::.:.:�.�:::::::::.:: .:...>';:.�::.�::::..:.:::.:::>:..;.�>;;':.:�..�:: ��:::Vie. :: i::i: et ! ,'wou ::d::> . ; . .,: x .;.>�r. :::•::•::•:. .. :::::::•:::.v: nvh.::4:.v65xwU.r.•.rn...: h...isv:W.4:v.:.su.:v:rr yr r.•,-.yv::n•.w::::w..•.:vnv:<:;4i:>•ii>:•ii:ii•>ri }:?>x4:•:vii f{:i r�.`i.`hti{i•..♦ :iI � The headwaters of the North and South Forks of the Little River originate in the eastern third of the township and f low»i n to Durham's Little River Reservoir. ° » ; : : - <4W :. < x »• " � 'a { x , . µ� wx � A t , :< M><; cu e rr<.•:::::.<• ...r..::v...a..:...Y..:.9: 0x•y.:.4•,'RS..,'..,.-..:....,.t.:..;r::. ..:r.�+Y,Z. .:w: ;s;i.;l r:.i .cC. :: : : aa:�;i>r'::i>y:}. # a x, a Vy ;x ..:r:::'s•;'::Xai;. :::..}:i:$i:zi;:: The western third of the Township gives rise to Back Creek, which flows into the Back Creek Reservoir, a source of water for Graham and Mebane. Fin : . . ..>::. ::.:.... .. .::.:. . r...m•,:;.x:....�><i.:::••:.:. ,:.>:�:.>;: .. v.:.:::..r,.v<,.;.. ;:.:<:;:.:;.::.:.:.:•'; >>...:;«.: Finally, _ ce<:>SOitt yc s<>`Creek;. .. : . .. . ittiftW:Central>;•: z<;. :::.;:.>::.:.:...........;;;.:.;>::.»: .. .,i.i.;"i i::.::.•:..:: .. .. .:.:.:: .6>:. n}..:{v.:ii::urv:iti: "(�(:'i:.} 4:;•?................... ............ ........ :•:::::v:.v:.......... .............::::•::::.:::::.�::::::::::::.�. ...... ]) .:>:: i ti<•{.•r .• ti.•:i �!,;:>{: .....:..:•'.:2; v.:.... "::�•..:;,:..::»: ;i;:::,:.:::r:n%i; :;.�. i: :'::•»yi»:•ii'.w.].:i'::j:i : y,:?•:>::.:J'i�•>{:: androv,i iin >:>: . . . ..,..:. . - :::;:•:•. ;;. :::>:.:;.: ;;;>:.r:::•::<;:>! .............:..............::::::::.::::...::<.:.>:;;:<.:»:.:>:::; —......., _......_............................:.:....:.........::a.:df�:.;,!y;i;.y,,:>::•r:risc�>t;:ax:;ra s;::::z: ,i;:�:c::�:i:z:::>.>x::<:i::i3:::::i::::::<E:"s:: : While these reservoirs do not directly serve Cedar Grove Township, they do serve Township residents who work or shop in Graham, Mebane, or Durham. Water system interconnections and contractual agreements additionally create the potential for water from these reservoirs to serve Orange County residents. Floodplain: The majority of the Township's 100-year floodplain lies adjacent to five waterways; the North Fork and South Fork of the Little River, the East Fork and West Fork of the Eno River, and Back Creek. Because the headwaters of these streams lie in the Township, the stream valleys are relatively narrow and the extent of flooding during a 100 year flood is not great. Along Back Creek and the two forks of the Eno River the floodplain rarely exceeds 500 feet from the center of the stream and up to 800 feet along the two forks of the Little River. Floodplain covers approximately 8 .5% of the Township, some 4 ,430 acres . 4 '^age 3 . 6-7 ) 63 eighty-four subdivisions were considered major, those creating more than four new lots . The largest portion of the new lots were created in the southeastern quarter. of the Township, closest to Hillsborough. Approximately 40% of .both new subdivisions and new parcels created from 1980 to 1986 were in that quarter of the Township. The area of least activity was in the northeast quarter. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the organizing concepts which are policy statements that create the foundation for the Cedar Grove Plan. The concepts state the general consensus as to what patterns of growth and development are desirable for the Township. Many variables are represented in the organizing concepts, including existing patterns of development, environmental constraints and the stated desires of Cedar Grove residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing, and land requirements. These projections make no value judgements about the growth. They merely indicate what would happen if historical growth trends continued throughout the plan period. These components are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land Use Plan categories initially defined in the body of the Orange County Land Use Plan. Distribution is reflected in both map and text form. Organizing Concepts The following policy statements reflect the organizing concepts around which the Cedar Grove Township Plan is constructed: 1 ) Cedar Grove Township should retain its agricultural and low density residential character. 2 ) The integrity of the Township's small crossroads communities should be maintained. 3 ) Low density commercial uses should be encouraged in order to serve Township needs. 4 ) Rural industrial uses should be accommodated where appropriate in the Township. 5 ) The Upper o River, Back Creek, Little River, Flat River and< of < H::":iiiV* k water su 1 watersheds should be developed in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts on water quality and not conflict with agricultural uses. 7 (Page 3 . 6-10 ) 64 average size of a lot subdivided from 1980 to 1987 . In addition to acreage needed for homes, residential development creates in its wake the need for land to accommodate institutional and commercial uses, such as churches, shopping facilities, and recreational areas. The 1986 ratio of commercial and institutional land to residential land was 1 : 15 . The rate of residential growth, however, grew faster than the rate of commercial growth between 1980 and 1987 . Hence, a ratio of 1:20, or 0 . 05 acres of non-residential land for every acre of residential land, is used. This brings the total land requirements to 3,415 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County-wide goals and policies and the Township organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate projected growth is substantially greater than the calculated need. This allows for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of market forces. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system, are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Cedar Grove Township: The majority of the Township is to be maintained as rural and agricultural since the predominant land use activities will remain related to the land. Rural non-farm commercial development will be allocated to designated activity nodes chosen so as to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts on agriculture. Industrial and high intensity commercial and non-farm residential development will be directed away from areas that, if developed at those intensities, would create negative impacts in the Upper Eno, Back Creek, Little River, Flat River ? fcoC.reek water supply watersheds. Information about land in the Township is "filtered" through a set of locational criteria, including the allocation guidelines, to determine whether a specific land use is appropriate for a particular area. The resulting analysis creates the basis for the classification of land in Cedar Grove Township. 11 (Page 3 . 6-11 ) 65 Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories and Activity Nodes Land in Cedar Grove Township falls into five land use classifications. The distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Orange County and Cedar Grove Township Plans, the allocation guidelines and locational criteria, and the effect of projected growth on the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL AREAS: This is the predominant classification in the Township. It refers to land currently assessed for farm use under County provisions for use value taxation and active farm and forestry lands that are not a part of the use value taxation program. The pattern of agricultural land is extensive and uniform throughout the Township. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: While limited low density residential development occurs in land categorized as agricultural residential, the prevailing land uses are agricultural in nature. The entire Township is classified as agricultural residential due to the existing agricultural/residential distribution and the low rate of residential growth projected during the planning period. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: With the exception of the poo Hyco Creek drainage basin which lies in the north central 'portion of the township and accounts for 6% of the total township acreage, the remainder of Cedar Grove Township is designated water supply watershed. Portions of gw, watersheds account for this designation. These t beds .'G`e Back Creek, the Upper Eno, Little River, Flat R' ver `` \South l" so > k watersheds. WATERSHED CRITICAL AREAS: The southern portion of the Upper Eno Water -Supply watershed adjacent to Lake Orange and portions of the East and West Forks of the Eno are designated Water-04d Critical Area. In addition to classifying land in the Township, the county planning strategy includes identifying and evaluating potential activity nodes. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas of the Township, prevent strip development, and promote a more efficient and clustered land use pattern that takes advantage of major intersections and existing community identities. 12 (Page 3 . 6-12 ) 66 Three types of activity nodes are appropriate for Cedar Grove Township; Rural Community and Rural Industrial, with radii of 1/2 mile and Rural Neighborhood with a 1/4 mile radius. A total of six activity nodes, have been designated in Cedar Grove Township. REFERENCE: CG-1, Carr LOCATION: NC 49 and Carr Store Road (SR 1004) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community Node/Back Creek Watershed (part) ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: Existing land uses at this node include a small store, a r wash and single family residential units. ;<�3EL$'1* cEO>a � :.. . .:.disc .;:.... ..;:: ... �::.:,::,.. }:::<�, ...... . w . . �Y..::;:."V4*° The commercial facilities' at this°''intersection"'make""it`'a pl`ace where local people frequently go to socialize as well as to shop. REFERENCE: CG-2, The Village (Cedar Grove) LOCATION: Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) and Carr Store Road (SR 1352, SR 1004) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community Node/Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area • ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: A well established community character is present in the area of the node which contains three commercial uses, a church, a post office and several residences. Commercial development which occurs in the Waterehe Critical Area of the Upper Eno watershed ands.... :..:. .. .:>:;.. . . . . .:...:.. .. .,:....... .:......:::... al require certain site design features to protect water -" "'-" quality. REFERENCE: CG-3, Toler's Store LOCATION: NC 86 and Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood Node/Upper Eno Watershed (part) and Little River Watershed (part) ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: An existing commercial use is present at this node. No disruption of the existing residential character would result from development at the node. <SENTENCE DELETED> . }.:,..:;,.;;.,.:,. :...;:�:'. :�>��?da�::��a�'ted rtia�.l w�tl��. �rc�th:><.:: .: • s.:ad.. to tree Dada _ .. overlay.<:di�eti:a�: .........................:..........::::::::::.:..:. ............................. :::::::.:::::.::::.:.»::•.riY i�'ilW..ii}}F. ':.....y: :4Gwiri•:::. • REFERENCE: CG-4, Villine's Store LOCATION: NC 86, Saw Mill Road (SR 1545) and Carr Store Road (SR 1352 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood Node/Upper Eno Watershed (part) and Little River Watershed (part) ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: A commercial use is present at the wiint t ei r sebcottih o nt.he<SENTENCE D ELE TED> T his. n;ode is-'la,aa.::;t:: , :;i:::;s,; �.var wta�exs�ede. Fat non-residential d relop Sment wi in the node must a dh�ere to the opts ! zoning sta ards r`'this t aters hed over. . :.: 13 (Page 3 . 6-13 ) 67 There is some residential development in the area of this node and additional commercial development could be potentially disruptive. • REFERENCE: CG-5, Walnut Grove LOCATION: Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001) , Saw Mill Road (SR 1545) _and Little River Church Road (SR 1543) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood Node/Little River Watershed ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the • intersection of three collector roads. Moderate environmental constraints in the form of flood prone areas exist, >an < the'nade i:e within thj;;� e Lit e: :: ve. :<::Watershed:r>::>::: to e<:::nou-reei.deuta a• �`�;�''�� ``? i>::,.:;;..;<;::';<�'1_<;:`.c::ii:;;j?i:?:i<: ?i��' ><':?'r;Si:i:5i::><'S; ;y:: >�"<?:ii;a:ii: ;>::>ii;';;; ;'<;�<:i;isi:{viii<;?`�Yi:i?i:<:i>..;;;<;?::., 'i :;3i? ';i2i:•x.. de e ''"`:ea within the node must adhere t.�o the ace to zoning • '— ': .RJM'F DILiT D Si`6:::'•i;YS:rr:ii xi't:ri:: ....::::i'i:: :.: Y.........................:.................................. i� :..:,�.�::::: :.�.:.:{.:.rs•{:,;.n.::.:........:....i .:..}}:.>:•}:•i4:^»»}?:is}:i:�}::•:t>:??iri Acommercia � use exists in 'the"'are'a of t�iis"noc(e REFERENCE: CG-6, Prospect Hill LOCATION: NC 49 and NC 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Industrial Node/South Hyco Watershed (part) ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two arterials. It therefore has good access for • rural commercial as well as rural industrial :iw ::;...:,,.y:^:•`;::?:}7:•Y}F:•+>:i•.}•:'•>.:::,;:.'>..s ...:,.a:::ti..c..n...�;�y_y}L•^ .. X..,Kai:.v,.::^?�::4rti>�'Ti.}.:`i•J::¢:{t:..}.>}}":•>,}:}::a7:rt'ir•'s..<:r!�>ii,:.i.?}•?>?:t:;.•}v;.��>:?n:�{�.;};,.},}:`?;>.o:?>:::id.::}•::i:•}.�:��>•:•i?::••?>?:•}:}?::•c:i:t s....n}»} .;.cu•:nrr?cs•1?r:e,".•:ti s?i i?. v }:�:.. •:::W>i t • u iWr , > l#thisb.d.: u r 'O: :; > a•� t . ? > gatt" re>s nt µde •t•>:}.�:^. �xi•:?:�.� , :�:q .,t:.::» ::.,:�>:�.. .}r...JYct°.•:�o .:i:. .:},�' }::x;.. •,;qx�•;::.: . ... .abthid!s wa'1'fa:i'dR.#f1f!cd:2?IrF.4:'e''�'• `:.,•: i'�."ittfifF':vl�'W i!:1 iri e }::,t••;;is}}a a� a .; :..s.EX,•,: ,'. ?>?x: :::: }:a••}}.. ,cd:✓:i:2:.:::::.;w.,•r,•::...�. .,2.:•.i+}'un:::;:k:v::�}'::::.siiSi:%i>:d'•rk::i:::: ... }. ::t:f .•e ,:i,:,.: ;F:s :mall-scale rural J:;e;}:,:.yvd�i.::�:i:!ctXl:ii,..'� ':>•��'•2:aG:ar�"' ?o}uyiGr:;::^•'fi:'3..?'•i�v .:::.:sieai:;: su::••,'?e'tt::•'•'•::i:Sx industrial deve opment at die node. I'he absence of municipal water and sewer services would limit the scale of future rural industrial development in the node area. Minimal disruption of residential uses would result from such development. • 14 -_-cc +,c,, -.:. •--7 (Page 3 . 7-5 ) L , it-)e RN,Jef slopes and are unsuited for most non agricultural development land uses . 68 Water Supply Watersheds: Lite ive:, fivwst p 34: 0 on : towueh4.p 4* the County whit ka 100% w.thin water eupp1 ....::•watersheds, The vast majari.ty of t ce Towns'h'ip lies wi:t sin two drinking water supply watersheds far the city of Durham. The northern quarter of the Township lies within the Flat River Watershed which flows into Lake Michie. The remainder of the Tow nsh' '? r.:{: P •.:;};'.: ,.,the *#00#40 0 4 so4 her eV : r .a e ; lies within the•'h{i:ttle' River watershed upstreamof the tittie River Reservoir. Although these reservoirs do not serve the residences of Little River Township, they do serve the Little River Township residents who work and shop in Durham. interconnections and contractual agreements by the potential for water from these reservoirs to- serve""Hil•lsborough and southern :.....:.........:...:..r::::::.:.:.,:..::...:,r.,::. n Oran a Count .: .::;,}........:.: :....:.:: . . :..,::;:}..:•r{;:.::;:'..r:.}{{{{<{{{::::,.. Orange b :_;:Vii:: r ':} :. : ;<;.�:, :: .........:.::.::.::.::::: saer..:...;?; . .: .... .......,::..::.:.:...�::....:.:.........::::.:......................:....:.:. ....�;.....:..�...::..: }::. :.:�:.�. rya for<:::Q e� :� na imate u . ...............t.r:>>;l: .#lea;.... .. > �:: . � .:{•: r ;..:.::{ :r:-$::M:. .... .... .. .:.. .:...... ......:.•�::{:...,..{.:.yr...::.:::,r:v.a.::..,?•}}}•{••{. {.y;fi...,i:•{::}?:4}•:::;4;fi:firy:F4'- {•}}::::.::.� �{ 5 B e1 l n`« rl.:!199. .. Act v e..- .iv:,:t.:.>T Wns ;<:p::::«: .; ,$$.,$..:,}.} i sties in the little Diver Township watershed{s}$'also affect Raleigh and Wake County. Falls Lake, which serves residents in those areas, draws from both the Little and Flat Rivers. • A,:;.; :{::: :n:.;. /Y►v�}:�.,v.Y}•:{•,+N�Mj••Xd: ,may .,�:, { {n•.�: ;;;.. ;.. calri't$atu1• : ':*so {}; ,+ '` vii x{u•{A }y}}, . ::{x{..w.y,. :„.:^r{::: ;r'�:';$. , :g ::, Ay{r:.• :.{. .fi . :: T:'+i•. +...$n+'`.•Y.•;{•{-0 .. ...., ..{. , ... .%.., {a:r,.•.}r}r.<h<•:cs.” .;»G:a:{•:.•'}:�G: $'• ky'�6,.::,.�•'-'.:.y;}•.:.. x S:$;?r: :.•:.;::::.. �aeR� '•• }: v T:^.`$ r.+•.., .y•';.}..F .-{� ,�+y_r. .,.$�} w4,lr%?wr�.' .: v r.{...{v:;:•, ::.}:{•rrr:..:,}:fir 7:: rr•rm�::p}r ':{.:{.....0 ,-}r. • :.- i.x .v .` 3?w{ ;:::..,;..:. n..;. :.}-r}?'}.;{4r�{;:.{; r::::{.y: 'n:,•i,{ :. : v •:.is�:.'s :. r'av}:{•iw +�..w.W.:` n+{fi:r.����� .:. �1•ljr.{:?:$:{:4 ,1 h4 "5. ';•'....I�,,,,,,,, ^'!t +cr l - ?:::$)sp r$+,. }{, yy }.,.r.. ::.:rY{:{.;{.}vx}}rr::{{'r'r'}i:::::::....,....v., v:.:.. r..v: .,•Ai.{•,'... ; +:r i.;.. }}::........: .: ..v.v:•::..: ,v. :...., ,:v::�• {. $' fix:.v.:.{.•{... � �1T one..unite::- eSw M .,yy. :i,. ..�.,.ytb.�:��f+.;. {.. .• wa..,,�'{,,��.�,�,-.^.e:r.•}.};}:::.ry .;�..tck.}�cvrr .ro�>;Srx; ..!;r;s.}i- ?S.r,,.. .'eoo*nen4at .!�i�iA'::'aM.- r : ',"'t�r::r :$v::#z`s ei::E:�:::%i2:•r{.}:?{::;;..;$; ::::.:•::::..:::.�:::.�:::r::.:::;•:::..:;:•:{{::;;r:.$y;•:r.;{.r:.::::r �Yy���l����.�llb���f�l,jA��k .'�.<�K:..,.a.,:•��1;.,,}.. .{ 'a•} : .�y�l.j,�{i� :.�{::::'<.:.;:.}};y•;.;•:::::{:';;:c{:::.:.;..: -..-�{-:.{•.:r.. 'Y+.•`.>."� [,y r....,:..�.,^^�' {:,;,�: .�. ..: ..-:.f: r.�w�^,'•: ..:.<l!:'.,i4i.:#1Si :. ;.• :}'.;{:•{y{C•}}::...... Kp. \�� ..4In''';•.y.,..u•{.:�..0,,�,.�•::{•$::::n}S:.Lyir744 ::1}}:iv'.G$$$:ti:ri:3: :nt i<:<':the:>:wate:rsfiett , ....;:... r,.,. rr :::.......: ..-....$.•/X;..:?ti::Yii:ir::}:$C:$T:�J:}\{viii'�'fiS•:4;D}}YxX-x.iS' '���': 'v JJv :n{'h�4i:dfMSR•T- ............. {9/.:..+?:�<.,'�,pyt;,�,yi:N;•:{+il'3:OC�3)1'w• .{::.k�'i•:$$ri'•.:ti{{.,.•v r.:.:,:•r • r :K4Y,ir�M;4Yi �W.e }l g ':G({:tij;:{.::;}:hr:•i:?.:6:;{.r. Y' :SP+a,w.•rvy.. .,::Rbn•:5:� L"4'?:K- vxr{r{xx l�:�i►R".•..�:..�� $�:�::F• :��:;}'•.�:-i:}ry � ... :.•�'r'•' ;{. ri i4:M}}xw.iir•:;}:•i}'}:j; :trq:'.n ;a..;{. ;..::::.}:::�.�...... w^M::};}};:rrr?i:{•;{:.};?r.vxx : v.':1I00:::•,,, .�.. 1�:...... A. jT� .1fSt:$i:�:q to a •,. ::•}. ....Y :............ ....:::::•::w.'.::x::lw:.r•:%•:.:v::::_v:.v.{•Y.+Li>•:{:-}}}:�rrr:::.i... ..v:^'. ........r::::xnv:::::. ... ........ ,} ... ....:.v :.}v:.v:•:: :. .. r.. ..;..4.;..r.......:...::.........::.:v.•:: :::.:w.,:fi4 ....::::•v:.r.:.:.:::x:.v -\{•i;y� i n{{:{;V•v:; /I'►►. .yJ�yy:�::..yam ::.. '•►'iy,+y�,� k{r ty�F�Y ..... ..-.-J,...{'..;,n'/.:{;2:;.,}..}}tix:::}:Y}}:�}�:i:-:;:.i:::}-::•:"•ifi•}:4:i:?{•ii},^.,}:}}r:•:{::'r}}.`:: .::. : ...::.::r...:r ;ref .._.... ..:::..:.,.:::r.:w.r..t.:.r.:r:.aies�^d}k"6 as��';'tu';': $}' •��+�� #� ' 3:::::.: k ::::a ff il.'.::. .]t}:x. ..magm... $,4,i. : ':K' ....... r::::r::•:x.:...}�.i�:::{:r~w+$:::.s�:::{...Y.":.4•.:w?w"rxx'a Cultural and Natural Resources • Certain areas within the township possess unique or exemplary natural and physical characteristics that are considered to be of great value. This value may not necessarily be economic. It may also be educational, biological, cultural, or spiritual. One such natural site in Little River Township has been identified by the state's Natural Heritage Program. A population of the waterplantian spearwort, a plant species of special concern, exists along the banks of the South Fork of the Little River east of NC 57 . A species of special concern is one that fits any of the following criteria: exists in small populations, threatened with major habitat loss in Orange County, or is the target of exploitation. While sites of community and historical significance are sited throughout the Township, many are clustered in or near the 4 (Page 3 .7-11) 69 Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Little River falls into four land use classifications. The distribution is based. on_ expressed policies outlined in the Orange County and Little River Township Plans, the allocation guidelines and locational criteria, and the effect of projected growth on the Township. , • RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: The southeastern portion of the Township is considered appropriate for low density residential development to accommodate growth pressures from Durham. An additional portion of the Township, centered just south of Caldwell, is also considered appropriate for Rural Residential classification based on existing land use patterns, favorable environmental conditions and limited agricultural operations. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: This is the predominant classification in the Township. It refers to land currently assessed for farm use under County provisions for use value taxation and active farm and forestry lands that are not a part of the use value taxation program. The pattern of agricultural land is fairly uniform throughout the Township. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: While limited low density residential development occurs in land categorized as agricultural residential, the prevailing land uses are agricultural in nature. While dispersed township-wide, large concentrations of land appropriate for this classification are located in the eastern portion of the township along the Durham County line and in the southern portion of the Township toward Hillsborough. :J .}:•:V:•:'.; :.;�;;;:.::;:}}:;:v.yyiS''':ri:�•.�.. is ih .: ... :hi}•:yy:•.. :��. y�y, itYi�4�.'4iT�.aY'�#:::;��AR�}}}��}:.}: �f.. .W�.��i:::::.:fiRM .�:yy��:''2:: ir,�#i:ir �:f::ir �•►�:: :lM!F �}{{;!A! �i::.. :•.......:............. ili .d:`i :.�:::::::::::: ±ass„>. ;:".ci' .. southern :fr. a of:vt Township, falls::;< nto ;the Litter<;;: ver watershed.:•::.Water<;>: r' ,this;»:bas aar: ::r rains::<::int�o;::<' a xgou : <' .....:..::........:::....:............:.:..:::.............:... ..vi )k..:..:....:••::•::::. ••:::.:::•:::::::::::.... :�::::::.: .�::v:::..F.•::�:::�v;:::::. .:�::...:nom:: :::::::::�:!v}:•iS::.::.:%v.:.::..:::: �+:.�y.: `:::.%::5. :}• :;:i:F;. ::;:::..^. •:}�::.`:;.yv..�.t:ii{ .:};°2•^:.,:. ;..}+�:iy.:►..>; :ri �{y':�,:}}::y.�.:�:...�..I.. :;:....y.�.y�:<::::,.._:..:,�.:�..yr,.�;,�.y,.y.�..::i:c/"�`:' ;r:'.}.�. `:"';::(�1:..�..:..y.�.:.. .;, ;..., TR•:41. :::i:: +F' +!:Mi NTH }ItfMii'n o.Ml!il'i::.: :::0 ::':::n�!/:1F:th:e n:::•:' ... ►titi'7Iii1�:::::'of ii::N. i:iii�:�M wnshiyv�. ........................:........:.. .. .....,n,...:.,....ti. ....:.:•:v::v:�::::.�•v::�:::�.•:::::::::nom::::::•:::::::::::::::-::::::::::::::: :.•.�:::.�::::.mw:::::x::::.:::::v� �i,. . .. .... :...:....�::: :.... ,. .....:... ....::... {.......:/.;...: ::}: ....... 'n;:•i:^}{•isis�:i",':i•:}:'•:i:}}:i i}}}}:}:.i}}};}} � . :?f' i::.r .:i:::;::::{:.... dra ns e ..,e. <;:,•}.. ::t• .>>;of::::3urh amt<:c r nki n :::::water::>;s: . . :l:. :::<«-°>>:: e n o. .:.'' Y'of++Rurati:?lteeident al:'{: d .............:::�::•:::....n::....:•:" .:{.tiny.:v •. i::•:vii}:S•{titi:•i::•:::�i:ii:::4.... t . 9 :<::: <::?: ie3'<' +1t!s>1 [ 43 ::.:........._............................. s: ik.. ....::..:..:ect o s res'>:;: or this aster:>::; : :a.: :.: is : hese arena •i:v :•r:.}..n....\/,..:..4:{!:/.4:....H..:.}py}}i:{[n!irn:i�h{^:::Y.{.S:y[S:i::}:::5}i.:......v:.::..}:S>}Y:N.}::L::�{.i::f:..:�{:.::.t.::.:.:...:::::j:...,ry,.;r;{.{.,.:...:n.;}..:.;:. s*.t1*rast '#ia +s #Ct shi e4z:::. a:.:;:}}::.:::::.:.::;:..: :.,.; .::.:>} :<.:::..;:.}}};}}:'..}}:.: .................... . ..:::.::..... . ..................... In addition to classifying land in the Township, the county planning strategy includes identifying and evaluating potential activity nodes. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial use to the most appropriate areas of the Township, prevent strip development, and promote a more efficient and clustered land use pattern that takes advantage of major 10 (Page 3 . 7-12 ) 70 intersections and existing community identities. Two types of activity nodes are appropriate for Little River Township, Rural Community. and Rural Neighborhood, with radii of 1/2 mile and 1/4 mile, respectively. Three activity nodes have been designated in Little River Township: REFERENCE: LR-1 (Caldwell) LOCATION: NC 57 and NC 157 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community EVALUATION: The node is located at the intersection of the two main arterial highways in the Township. Several commercial and : :. institutional uses are located in or adjacent to the node. TO . - located ie the •Lithe iver tershed. Tet s non- residential :dopte :,. t . g;;_,..sta a: ds..f thief:<:: a e " . ..:>::.' .. .: . tr •:. :. ... ... ::...... ..........:.:i•.7i:::.::•:::.4i ::; : }:::L?+:�::•:i}:v::•:!S::?L:v:is{:.;}::}•:.:���e�.}:: i}1.����� � '� <SENTENCE DELETED>. No other natural environmental'''constra nts hinder small scale commercial development within the node.The absence of public water and sewer during the plan period will be the major inhibitor to commercial growth within the node. REFERENCE: LR-2 (Schley) LOCATION: NC 57 and Schley Road (SR 1546) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community EVALUATION: The node is located at the intersection of an arterial highway, NC 57, and the collector, Schley Road. As with Caldwell, Schley has a strong existing community identity. A church and Grange hall comprise institutional uses within the node. . �:.,....w.. .. `#lode:a<. : ;:> ; :}:,:. .::::.:::.::.:.:;.;:::.: .::::..::.. .�:J.v:v.•. .„k... 2 }....,., cxi••::a•,4;3o-•'•,: :..titi;,;�•.. ;,::;..a:'.:r'�:;.:::.::a:.:.:�}::r:::�: :.::.. .�•:.i::.:::.:::.::::.:::>::.:;«�}::•:•;:;��:: <SENTENCE DELETED> No"'other" na u=aY 'envi=onmenta "'constraints hinder small scale commercial development within the node. The absence of public water and sewer during the plan period will be the major inhibitor to commercial growth within the node. REFERENCE: LR-3 (Underwood's Store) LOCATION: New Sharon Church Road (SR 1538) and Schley Road (SR 1546) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood EVALUATION: This node is centered on the intersection of two collector roads in the extreme southern portion of the Township and is the closest node to that portion in southeastern Little River Township designated Rural Residential. There is one commercial establishment currently operating within the node. The node::>=: s. l;sated<.h :::x'the.{,} . tt 1. •• •v ..pi ::_n,....... ,esidential;. deve ::::::.:at:• 3.a this nodst::>:must.:ad - t >:<. : .:,..: ::::.:<.:.;.. ::.::.:.:::; .... . >:::.,�:}:::.::: :.::�::::::.:::.::;:.::.:;}:. ..::.:_::..:..:.::.:::.:::..:::::hest..�:��.. e :::>•.} tet zoning.;>.:s d ads fox �e: er shed overt:' �.. , .. < . • o other natural environmental constraints h rider'"small" scale }'' ”` commercial development within the node. 11 (Page 18-6) C S 71 FLOODPLAtNS, Approximately 1,070 acres lie in 100-year floodplains. Floodplains occur along Seven Mile Creek, Crabtree Creek and Rocky Run in the southeastern part of the Township; along the Eno River and its tributaries and McGowan Creek in the north-central part of the Township; and along Back Creek (Tributary A) northeast of Mebane. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. Most of the Upper Eno watershed, which is drained primarily by r the Eno River and Seven Mile Creek, is located in Cheeks Township. In general, this watershed encompasses the eastern two-thirds of the Township. Water from this area supplies both the Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance water systems. The construction in 1989 of the Back Creek Reservoir in Alamance County by the Towns of Graham and Mebane adds the western#.*****.iii:044.ii of the Township to the Water Supply Watershed classification. The existence of a wa„ershed crossed by an important transportation corridor requires serious consideration of the trade-offs between environmental protection and industrial development opportunities and is the critical issue facing Cheeks Township in the near future. F"a ;;. ,;<.>;,<•;;:.;:.; .<;.::;•:<.:, :,.;;:. ,:: ., : :;::..:>:<.:;.<:.;:, .;;:•:;..:.::<• :;;::<:. :::::.:.: ;.:::,: STEEP SLOPES. Steep slopes represent only very limited constraints in the Township, occurring along sections of the Eno River and Seven Mile Creek in the eastern part of Cheeks Township. There are approximately 980 acres of land in the Township on which the degree of slope is 15% or greater. SOUS. As would be expected poor soil conditions are found to generally coincide with identified floodplains. There are approximately 940 acres of flood-prone soils which lie adjacent to the identified 100 year flood plains. The only other significant patterns of poor soil conditions exist in the north-central area and on scattered sites in the south-central part of the Township where there is some limitation due to heavy clay content and shallow depth to bedrock. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas of Cheeks Township posses unique and exemplary natural and physical characteristics that are of great value. The value is not necessarily monetary. It may be historical, biological, spiritual, or of value to the planning process. The Carolina Darter, a fish found in the Eno River in Cheeks Township, has been identified as a species of special concern by the State. This designation applies when the species exists in small populations, is faced with major habitat loss, or is the target of exploitation. Four private homes in the Township have been identified by the Division of Archives and History as historically and/or architecturally important to the region. Two of these, Moorefields and the Rice Log House, date from the late 1700's and are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The spiritual and community life of the Township is served by its twenty-one active churches and additional community centers. 4 (Page 3.8-9) 72 Organizing Concepts The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township has been constructed: 1) The Towns' of Mebane and Hillsborough extra-territorial planning jurisdictions are the designated Ten Year Transition Areas for immediate and near future residential development at urban densities: • 2) The community of Efland, though unincorporated, is considered to be urban in character and is designated Ten Year Transition for immediate and near future residential development at urban densities. 3) Residential development at urban densities will occur much later in the development pattern in the area north of US 70 and north of the Town of Mebane's extra-territorial planning jurisdiction. Such development is also likely to occur along the US 70 corridor extending both east and west from Efland. 4) The remainder of the study area is considered appropriate for low density rural residential development. 5) The areas in the immediate vicinities of Efland, the I-85Buckhorn Road interchange and the US 70Buckhorn Road intersection are suitable for commercial and industrial .. uses. These areas are referenced as the Efland Center (CK-1) Miles South (CK-3) and Miles North (CK-2) Commercial Industrial Transition activity nodes. 6) Duke Forest, undeveloped county-owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek drainage basin, and the Moorefields Estate are considered public interest areas. 7) The portion of the Upper Eno Watershed in :o " ` .$:: thAti# 1.Ncfi r ► is designated as a protected water supply watershed providing public water supplies to Hillsborough and the Efland-Mebane area. 8) The portion of the Back Creek Watershed in Cheeks Th `" ELEbii {J::ri4}-•:S{::i•iii.::.}: �{•}$:�:•i:•:�:iii•}:•i:C•:i4}}ri•:i•:-::f:i^::.�.k: the? d '±± • v ' including, but not limited to, Back Creek and Mill Creek, is designated as a protected water supply watershed providing public water supplies to Mebane and Graham. •,•:..•.•.•:..�::.......... :... .}::J[t#i�!M :i...:..;:{.}:{:.{ ..{!i}'n,';:':...•.:...::.i":(:: }:$::'!:?::•i.!{�:.{::.:::{.}....per.:�•i:':i:::::: �...+ffip�•;.........�..�•:•i'n{•:{},Y/..4.i:•:viil{:i .:::.:.. . :}':::: '.•i }...... 1/IIF:•: .......... ... Population Projections and Land Reouirements: 1980-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accommodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following tables summarize the population projections and estimated land requirements for Cheeks Township during the plan period: Table 6-7 summarizes population estimates and projections, while Table 6-7a projects the number of new homes required to meet the demands of new residents, and Table 6-7b projects land use requirements for the plan period. 7 (Page 3.8-13) 73 • The undeveloped areas south of•McGowan Creek and south of the I-85 corridor are suitable for medium and higher intensity residential, commercial, and industrial development toward the end of the plan period. • Low intensity rural commercial land uses, occurring outside of the Urban and Transition Areas, should be located in proximity to activity nodes to minimize and prevent strip development. • The area of the Township which contains the gootglo water supply watershed, the Back Creek water supply watershed, e`Cai e C ee tt r u p_° should be afforded the protection necessary to minimize adverse development impacts. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Cheeks Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Cheeks Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Cheeks Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future development and the Township's projected population change and resulting land requirements. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL AREAS: The clRssification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. These lands are evenly distributed to the north and south of the U.S. 70/1-85 corridor outside the Ten and Twenty Year Transition Areas. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are Public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, County owned lands in the Seven Mile Creek watershed, and the Moorefields Estate that are significant from an educational, historic, biological, or scientific standpoint. These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The southern areas of the Township where agriculture and forestry are important land uses are clis ified in this manner. Areas adjacent to the Upper Eno Water Quality Critical Area are also cicsified in this manner as a means of buffering existing and potential reservoir sites. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Much of the land in the northern third of the Township is r1Rgs;fied as Rural Residential, which indicates a predominant land use of low density non-farm residential development. Rural Residential land has been designated in the area north of Lebanon Road and to a lesser extent, south of West Ten Road. These areas are being designated in response to expected demand for such land pending the completion of I-40. The designation also reflects emerging development patterns and a general lack of identified agricultural lands in these areas. TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land in the U.S. 70/1-85-corridor north of I-85 and extending from the Mebane ETJ to the Upper Eno Water Quality Critical Area is classified in this manner. The area already has limited water and sewer service and additional capacity is expected in the first ten years of the plan period. 11 (Page 3.8-14) TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION: Areas north of Efland in the McGowan Creek drainage basin and 74 south of I-85 to West Ten Road are designated as Twenty Year Transition. It is anticipated that municipal water and sewer will serve these areas by the end of the plan period. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: The majority of Cheeks Township lies in portions of three Water Supply Watersheds. The eastern two-thirds of the Township lies in the Upper Eno Watershed which flows into Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnson. About 20% of the Township's northwest corner lies in the Back Creek Watershed which supplies water for Graham and Mebane. Finally, small portions of the Cane Creek Watershed extend across the southern boundary of the Township. WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA: The Water Quality Critical Area for the Upper'Eno Watershed lies along the eastern boundary of the Township and covers about 25% of the Township land area. It contains the Township's Public Interest Areas and defines the limits for the eastern and western expansion of Efland and Hillsborough respectively. `e ct .::.::;.;:._;::;::;::::»>:. :>,,::<,..:.::;:;:;Bacci >;k.and :>:? ree t ed::: i .:e.:.: :.,;;: ;.:::,,:.:.;;: ,:.;:;<...........::. : :...:.:::::::;.:::.>:>:;::.: In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate potential activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of the activity node is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas in the Township, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Township. A total of four activity nodes have been designated in Cheeks Township: REFERENCE: CK-1, Efland Center LOCATION: Ef land Commercial Area PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: An existing commercial/industrial node is located in Efland, focused on the intersection of Southern Drive and Mt. Willing Road. This node currently serves as a focal point for lower and medium intensity residential, commercial and industrial uses. As Efland develops, new growth should "infill" suitable vacant land within the immediate area to take advantage of the existing infrastructure which includes the water supply from a central system and the first phase of the Efland Sewer Project. Due to the location of this node entirely within a water supply watershed, industrial and commercial uses should be limited to those types which have a demonstrated record of not generating pollutants, either through the industrial process or the size of the operation, and which are known not to degrade or harm water quality. Those uses which do meet this initial criteria should be designed and built in ways to minirriwe any other potential negative impacts on the quality of water draining to the Upper Eno watershed. REFERENCE: CK-2, Miles North LOCATION: U.S. 70 and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial (US 70) and a collector. Existing commercial uses at or near this site include a small mill outlet and two gas stations, one of which is also a small store. There are no environmental constraints imposed by sensitive lands, but the area does lie in the extreme southwestern corner of the Back Creek Watershed. A rail line is nearby. This site is presently served by a central water system with possible future sewer line extensions. These facts, combined with its proximity to Mebane, create the potential for fairly intensive commercial and industrial uses during the initial phase of the Plan since this node falls within the 10-Year Transition Area that extends beyond the Mebane ETJ. As this site becomes more intensively developed, care should be taken to ensure that the highway intersection is upgraded sufficiently to handle the increased load. 12 (Page 3.9-16) 1-4i _I � �C(Cjo� With the allocation guidelines in mind., information about Hillsborough Township land is filtered 75 through a set of criteria that evaluates the suitability of certain land uses to specific areas. The information is then used in the classification of land in the Township outside the municipal boundary and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Hillsborough Township outside to Town's planning jurisdiction is classified into the land use categories listed below. Distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Township Land Use Plan, allocation guidelines contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of the physical change projected for the Township. ' RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. Most of these lands are concentrated in the northern section of the Township. These lands are not identified within transition areas. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are public or quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: A portion of the Upper Eno watershed, which furnishes the Town of Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water System with its water supply, lies along the western boundary of the Township. Additionally, a small portion of the Little River Watershed, which drains into the Little River Reservoir in northern Durham County, lies along the northern boundary of the Township. This classification refers to land that should be protected from development that might cause water quality problems for existing and potential drinking water supplies. WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA: of tifig :`::::<.::.;:::,, ;::;:::;:.:•::::•.v: <DFLFTED>Land in the Water Supply Watershed that drains directly into water supply impoundments and feeder streams below the first tributary prior to entering the impoundment are designated as Water Quality Critical Areas.<DELETED> These lands require an even greater degree of protection from the adverse impacts of development. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The northern area of the Township, where agriculture is an important land use, is classified in this manner. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Much of the land in the southern third of the Township is classified as Rural Residential, which indicates that the most suitable land use is low density, non-farm residential development. TEN YEAR TRANSITION: Land classified in this manner indicates that public services from the Town of Hillsborough are likely within ten years. Most of the land adjacent to the Town's planning jurisdiction on the south and east and in close proximity to major intersections is designated as Ten Year Transition. Approximately nine acres north of the Town, adjacent to the Highland Woods subdivision, is also classified in this manner. The land use in much of Ten Year Transition area consists of medium density subdivisions already served with a public water supply from the Town of Hillsborough. TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION: Most of the land adjacent to the Town's planning jurisdiction that is less developed than land in the Ten Year Transition areas is designated as Twenty Year Transition. This land is predominantly to the south and east of Town. 11 (Page 3.9-17) 76 In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use strategy has been to identify appropriate activity nodes in each Township. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses that choose to locate outside of the Town's planning jurisdiction to the most appropriate areas, avoiding strip development and promoting an efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections. Four such nodes are designated in Hillsborough Township. REFERENCE: HB-1 (Coleman Loop) LOCATION: NC 86 and Coleman Loop North (SR 1334) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood This node is located at the intersection of an arterial, NC 86 and Coleman Loop. If was created to take advantage of existing commercial activity. This node is located within both the Upper Eno and Little River watersheds. Future non-residential development in this node must adhere to the adopted zoning standards in the corresponding watershed overlay district. There are no othet major environmental constraints to small scale commercial development in the node, nor would such development disrupt the surrounding residential community. The scale of development is limited by the lack of public water and sewer. REFERENCE: HB-2 (Major Business Forms) LOCATION: NC 86 and Coleman Loop South (SR 1332) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Industrial This node, located at the intersection of the arterial NC 86 and Coleman Loop South, was created to take advantage of an existing industrial use at the intersection. There are no major environmental constraints at the site to hinder the development or expansion of small scale, rural industries. The scale of future development in the node will be limited by the lack of public water and sewer and the capacity of NC 86 to handle additional traffic. REFERENCE: HB-3 (St. Mary's) LOCATION: US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition This node is located at the intersection of two arterial roads. Commercial uses presently exists in and near the node. There are no major environmental constraints to development within the node to hinder medium density residential or additional commercial development. There are constraints, though, imposed by the arrangement of the roads and its access points which would require redesign to safely accommodate additional commercial development. A sewer force main exists along US 70 Bypass, addition important infrastructure necessary for more intensive development. REFERENCE: HB-4 (Harmon Young) LOCATION: Interstate 85 and NC 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition This node, focused on the intersection of an Interstate and arterial road, contains a number of existing commercial and industrial uses. A satellite to this node exists farther south on NC 86, separated from the rest of the node by a medium density residential neighborhood. There are no major environmental constraints to hinder more intensive development in the main portion of the node. With the possible exception of the area immediately to the south of the intersection of Old NC 10 and NC 86, there would be no disruption of areas with a residential character. Additional development in the satellite should be restricted to avoid adverse impacts on Duke Forest and neighboring residential communities. Although the ability of NC 86 to handle additional traffic may hinder some development, the existence of sewer service and the road system within the node make it a good site for new commercial and industrial development. 12 TiC (Page 3 . 10-6 ) E no The Land Use Plan designates those agricultural and managed 77 forest uses that are anticipated to continue in the same status during the plan period. Agricultural and managed forest lands within transition areas are expected to convert to more intensive uses as public water and sewer are extended into those areas. Natural Environmental Constraints There are four natural environmental conditions that pose constraints to development in Eno Township; floodplains, steep slopes, poor soils, and water supply watersheds . Floodplains: Approximately 1,250 acres, excluding land in Eno River State Park, is floodplain or has poorly drained soils associated with floodplain. The majority of the floodway fringe is along the Eno River. In some spots the floodplain extends as far as 800 feet from the floodway. Other significant amounts of floodplain can be found along Stoney Creek, Huckwater Creek, and Little Creek. Steen Slopes: Steep slopes present a constraint to development by creating the potential for increased runoff and erosion. Steep slopes and the soils associated with them also pose problems for the use of septic tanks. An area of slopes greater than 15% roughly cuts diagonally across the township, northeast to southwest. Another area of steep slopes can be found along the Durham County line in the vicinity of Eno River State Park. Poor Soils: Poor soils in the Township tend to be of the Tatum- Goldston association, and are usually associated with steep slopes. Another area of soils generally rated poor for urban development activities exists along New Sharon Church Road. Water Su. :pp y:;•1.::.c/.e...d.W. .a:>..a.t.f.i e...r.:s.?v.::w he?:v:td:•.rs: *IOW thnv : ffi : : :•.s::w i w?:}'i: n : ?}}.:' •}�:>i:....?.:..... ...: v •. : :: :}F i•}":•:<:fi 4 :::.. ;: :[ : w . :. : : { i : . : w : 7„" T �7ial Management Coim ss&on T " s > d:: tiil$<10- era l . . #: : :C ti :> ' '. y water in ke 1 o ted Uie Es> v :>� n rb : :. .. pat . . {oar. ss :e $M �: . : :;r : :: addA t: .ani *:mal x# .�.y{�. .:,.. :of the N. the:::R:;i ver tit >:<:>e ends:::;:into Eno:: owns€. . :- ::v' .: Additionally, 1,672 acres along the Township's northern boundary lies within the Little River basin which drains into the Little River Reservoir, one of two major drinking water sources for the City of Durham. A small portion of southeastern Eno Township is currently served by Durham city water lines and it is expected that as many as 1 ,400 acres in Eno Township will be served with public water by Durham during the Plan period. Additionally, interconnections and contractual agreements create the potential for water from the Little River Reservoir to serve Hillsborough and southern Orange County. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas of Eno Township possess unique or exemplary natural 4 (Page 3 . 10-15 ) 78 Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Eno Township is classified into the land use categories listed below. Distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Township Land Use Plan, allocation guidelines contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of the physical change projected for the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered_ unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. Most of these lands are concentrated in the northern section of the Township. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are public or quasi- public lands, such as Duke Forest and Eno River State Park, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. • These lands also form a crucial component of the County's open space system. NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE AREAS: New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Areas include some of the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the Public/Private Open Space Areas which were designated as significant and worthy of protection according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan completed in April of 1991. (See Master Plan Map in the Appendices) . These areas are part of a system of open space in Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. This category is made up of critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or recreational value. WATERSUPPLY WATERSHED: :::y..v >;:.. .;,,r«:f:::; ,:.:.,•:,:;.>:.>;::. .;:.;:. ;:,:::.>:.:.:.: : <:.::: • y�.R-:...yy� y, .:o:. :?:ti... :;.;..:;s;:;:••-:;;.:y.!.:;r::': :::: :::ii::;:?s:i:;:••,i:?i:;:;: /�.;..: •.::•:::::::::.: ;• ;�. :F... •WnN$,�i0.�.. .<..:::.v:: .'- ::.}..:.. :n n:::::::::i�'i?ti:{vl':::.:vn:::::::[F.•. :.., :•i --ii ........... areas are those that should be protected from development that might cause water quality problems for existing and potential public drinking water supplies. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: The central and northern areas of the Township, where agriculture and forestry are important land uses, are classified in this manner. Areas to the west of Pleasant Green Road and south of the Cate's Ford portion of Eno River State Park are also classified in this manner as a means of buffering the Park. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Much of the land in the southern third of the Township is classified as Rural Residential, which indicates a 13 (Page 3 . 10-16 , 17 ) 79 In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use strategy has been to identify appropriate activity nodes in each Township. • The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas, avoiding strip development- and promoting an efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections. Three activity nodes have been designated in Eno Township. REFERENCE: E-1 (Law's Store/Palmer's Grove) LOCATION: US 70 Business/US 70 Bypass and Palmer's Grove Church Road (SR 1562 ) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood EVALUATION: This node, located at the intersection of two arterials, US 70 Business and Bypass, a 0.004 d <::#####:i0*f re.f deaf :>«:c s Y:•. ::>' :::. .: : :: , . . :>:: adhere to ;adopt ed is nd : :::;: a tershted ov ay: + ::::. .::•: •:.:. .....::.. .....ti.::v::v:::::. .:::::::v.:::::::.::::•:::..:...............:...:::::..::non•::•;\.. .::.,.::..:nv:::;•:::••::::.........:..::::::::::.:::.:::.::::::::n:..::.::::... :. .. ..::;:::n ..:..::v$....:..:. :...:4:{. ..:.::"v.:4...:.:.n:i:•�'::. :. .;;::.:..:•.............i....:.i4t.......%....\. ..... ...xn;•}::::::n;:-v;.::x::Yn•.::•::.::.:.:.r v::.z•::is d s rict. e.: ;node has;:<nc:;::o ier :::environmental, constraints to hinder titan—Sod1e commercial"'development. REFERENCE: E-2 (Eno) LOCATION: US 70 and ( I-85 ) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition EVALUATION: This node is focused on the intersection of two major highways. It is also serviced by a spur of the Southern Railroad. There are a number of existing commercial uses in the area and relatively little residential development. New commercial and industrial uses should generally be confined to the areas south of the highways in order to reduce negative impacts on Eno River State Park. ? a o r< # }?' d;: �: bii. ::..:.::.. :.. {;Y.�:iifi;{{}::. %„•.• ,:;4;{.:•$.vr' n x.4... .fi'v........:.Mn n,.r...n.:n...., .�,},y".•f,. r.,...x.r..v.m:r r.... a i4i: /�� •::Z•. .�( • � �?;4:}{i: Vl.Y:::i�'� �>Z:: :'. .a(•i:L::��1/:}�'• �4iY:M :•;:�:' :.::w�.r ..r. :.,r. •~ #�;.::r>::., .... Jt�il �:�::. ::.'.: ESA':<:"� •�•.::::.... ..' 10 >['s • '<:x:;.:: 4:r :...<:>;........::::...:.:.. :.;.:..:.: ?•:;:;.::. .;.::.:...1�:,:.;;: : : ..'::{4.::..{4.:.':>.>.';s:'.... .. ... ��.a ....wed;�.-:c��.:{::{��::< tas�$�a �ac�<:�u �.....: .:;;;c��s�=#. .�:. .... .......:..:..........::.a.:t.:4;:w. ..:.4:>.ri.:::+.@:i:::::isa.:•.RC...,..::..i.:::,^.f:::::fl::k:':4:.%d;:»;;:.Xs;L:::r:<:•' ••:iisS£:':::;:.+::...•..:::.y.{:<:,'.:.r+.•f;::;t::S:::::: REFERENCE: E-3 (Duke Forest) LOCATION: US 70, NC 751, and Old NC 10 (SR 1710) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition EVALUATION: This node is focused on the intersection of two arterials and the collector road Old NC 10. It is bordered on the south by a main line of the Southern Railroad. Existing land uses include commercial, and medium and high density residential. The node is within Durham's 201 sewer planning area and is served by the Durham city water system. Land to the east of NC 751 and a small portion north of the Southern Railroad are part of Duke Forest and not included in the node. 15 scriion �(\c; (Page 3 . 11-8 ) n4'r1 Terrell 's Creek, Phil 's Creek, and Morgan Creek. 80 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: There are four water supply watersheds within Bingham Township. " o he e sh s o 28?%$amounts o tht<Twnsi�?'s., lan area APProxi.mately. Watrshed .extends into oo f the- the eastern portion of the township, encompassing 5, 385 acres ( 11% of the township's total area) . The Cane Creek watershed consists of 20, 160 acres, most of the western and central portions of the township. The Cane Creek watershed acreage amounts to 41% of the township's .... :::>:<:•::.;: ';::::;:>.;::;:<:;:;:;:::'�..;:;:;:;:,<;3:.a:t:.:>.ot...:al a...amr...e.... a..•. .Sma rtioxs ; :P:a .m<o : . e::>:: er ....... .r...w:nv.S7k-....:�.;:...:r q:••r..w - ,Ci',:A'.X.,:.:,•.wv:,v•::vi.:::;:;::n:-::•:.v............ ���::::�:�+:J+• ..: 'fC•aJ:::.':'":•:y:'v'ii::�.;...::r....:x'w.t:.:..:/...ter-:::n..::::1R ..w:n:v:::.iivri i;:¢.:::.::............�., STEEP SLOPES: Steep slopes, those greater than 15%, are a limited constraint, occurring primarily in four areas of the township; along the Haw River; along Cane Creek, both north and south of NC 54 and along its tributaries; in the extreme southeastern portion of the township at Terrell's Mountain; and in the east-central portion of the township at Pickard's Mountain. This last area is at the headwaters of Morgan Creek. SOILS: Most of the soils in Bingham Township are adequate for urban land uses. Three soils associations are present in the township, however, that present limitations to building and development activity. The central portion of the township east of Cane Creek is characterized by soils of the Lignum-Enon-Orange association. The heavy clay content of these soils creates absorption and shrink-swell problems. Similar problems exist with the soils of the Appling-Helena association found in the southwestern part of the township. Tatum, Wedowee, and Goldston soils can be found throughout the township. They tend to be identified with stream valleys and moderate to steep- slopes. These soils are generally ill-suited to urban uses, especially those requiring extensive grading. Cultural and Natural Resources Certain areas within Bingham Township possess unique or exemplary natural and physical characteristics that are of great value. This value may not necessarily be monetary. It may also be educational, biological, cultural, spiritual, or of value to the planning process. Three sites in Bingham Township are home to flora an fauna identified by the state as species of special concern; the Carolina Darter, in Cane Creek near SR 1115; the Red Shouldered Hawk, near SR 1956 and SR 1005; and the plant Atlantic Isopyrum, at the northern end of Cane Creek Reservoir. A species of special concern is one faced with major habitat loss in the county, exists in small populations, or the target of 5 (Page 3 . 11-18 ) 81 RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: Applied to the areas draining into the University Lake, Cane Creek, Upper En ssd Raw Rve.i is beds, the category refers to lands"'that.'are""to ha, protected from '"""'r"''' development that might cause water quality problems for existing and potential public drinking water supplies . WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA: These are lands that drain directly. into watt ater impoundments that serve as public water supply ogAiiii .c ated;< n::: ::12't.::m .er.of tote watery.... •.oi nt:: <:: The ><: .............:....::. .:.... ..:..:...................:eke:.:.ar...eas require` `even"'a""gre'ater-d'egree., of-protection''"from`:•tth.e,::negative impacts of development. �:'�e:A o ly«<`'��::.,• 3 T ab :>t i < at eurrm dia t>:ttie ;tC+a+�.�••.e!�:::; ... , Akg . .s <r:a .....,..:....•.ii:Y,.•:{{{}::.vii:{{?i'{t:{{:{::is{:{::r::::Yn}:{.}ii'{i.iL{: ii' :'.:. 4:..:...:•..:.......:{: �: .:v::v:v.v:. ., ... ....... ......vr.....:......:x...:.i..r.v:.v?rc,{v.v:::x::n•.v.L::'f.•::tit:ivi:J:{•:�::::S:T•:{J:•:is ii:Y:i%:{i:S:i:iiiv::�v:<t•:i1:»^T:tiRi:^i}i PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: These are public and quasi-public lands, such as Duke Forest, that 'provide educational and recreational opportunities. These areas also form a crucial component of the County's open space. • A total of three activity nodes have been designated in Bingham Township: REFERENCE: BH-1 (Adam & Eve) LOCATION: NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of the Township's main arterial road, NC 54, and a collector road. Several commercial uses, including a wholesale mail-order distribution firm, are located in or adjacent to the node. No environmental constraints are associated with the node. REFERENCE: BH-2 (White Cross) LOCATION: NC 54 and White Cross Road (SR 1952 ) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community EVALUATION: The node, situated at NC 54 and White Cross Road, extends almost to Butler Road on the east. There are several existing commercial uses in or adjacent to the node and few environmental constraints. This site has the locational attributes which make it suitable for a Rural Community node. It is on the main east-west road through the township and extends to the major north-south route. Land within the node to the north of NC 54 and east of White Cross Road is classified as Rural Residential. UCitever':::3*.#;f:<5ox a -mos :ta . moons:o ` t :nt e>< :�.;tt: ���::.:>::: :ra, :•.eta ::. . .. . :..:�::- a • :»�<. ��t..... .:...::.::..:i:.i?":::':::.:....:.::...:;:::.i_�.. ;:.�::;•;:i: .:!: :.::•;:v ..:..:.:;:{. ::i{v::;v:.; :Y.:::...:.:.: •: ::r::::::.: .:v v.:v. .v.v::r:;:•::�::::: . ::.�• .v::•• :..::L.....T,F.. u �! ] en ev y.:?;'•is :•• .:f�':i:ti ..i.s:i: .s4....�L .:�1y�.�...- • l: 'may. .{,,0404 ; : ' ;AiR.... 1R0 100':::0!IT:T: jy�'ii::':r*S:4 iFRA'::' hYi$i: .M�Ii::.414V/Jiii• Tom•:o �T ::;.:.: :�.::::::::::::::.i::i:; :..,..4;:;:;{.�:.v:::::..v:.:v.�:::::............... .................:.::v.i•::. ... ...........{..................�.v,{v:•:;•:::.:v::::::it{•i:w:::•..:v::::.:::.v :. :... is.......:... ...� ....; ::.:.::::::.:i>::' '•:::•'!v:i..: :.y,.•,.::4::•:. :•v.:..:::...i. i{?;{Y•i:•is!{�;.}:'�ii:.ii}::!:;yy._.:..:`•^:•:.:i' .�••:n:':: ::'^::iCi:• .;.;,•`C;i:�::: :C'����;:.:::v:n•:nv: node mast adhere< Q:t?<the .ado ,ted seams >.:standards- fort this '. t rshed:t ov rlay t ri The support services that will likely accompany rural residential development are most appropriately located at this node. 13 (Page 3 . 12-3 ) "'".' r,; i 1 tVCf;,1Ct - " Natural Environmental Constraints Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area contains 82 the following environmental constraints to development activity; floodplains, steep slopes, and poor soils . Floodplains: Virtually all of the area 's 100-year floodplain acreage lies along Stoney Creek and its tributaries. The stream flows through a relatively narrow valley so the extent of flooding during 100-year floods is not great. The floodplain rarely extends further than three hundred feet from' the center of the stream and covers only sixty-seven acres, less than 2% of the area. Poorly drained soils associated with floodplains cover an additional 129 acres or another 3% of the region's land area. Steep Slopes : Steep slopes present a constraint to development by creating the potential for increased runoff and erosion. Steep slopes and the soils associated with them also pose problems in the use of septic tanks. ,Steep slopes in the portion of Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA are fairly extensive, encompassing some 787 acres or almost 19% of the total land area. Most of the steep slopes are confined to the Couch Mountain tract of Duke Forest and the stream valleys of Stoney Creek and its tributaries. Soils: Two soil associations predominate in the area; Appling- Helena to the east and Georgeville-Herndon-Tatum to the west. The soils of the latter association tend to be well-drained and are suitable for most land uses. Appling-Helena soils, however, are somewhat more clayey, posing problems for septic tank absorption fields and many building types because of poor absorption and shrink-swell problems. Wi „•:{:t...:}k.vn;.,y.,:. , ..;..;...r.:,:.t}4}}: :Dint:.:...,}::,:.'.^?'w�.;.,;?!n;?v.:i?yh:.f 1440%*** ::.Y^:•: :i;��-::;i{ti}t ::is v',i:: .}:' :-'.:it}4.'}-'..:� y .:.::....... .>.•.:.:.;.u�:.: r.:. ..ink....:::.:.•,�.�:..::::::. ......:.:::::::��:•........#�:;::��u,:;:;v.';::':�'R' ,.:i. Flt., ':�•�;v:�. --��[[yy � ” ... .. {i►�.� •,...:•:. .: :..;}.N .. ... ..y.::n':DD}. .•v}: ?. .: .{.%.: ...' >:j:::;:}':i':ii:?.:^:•}:?ibv::^:�:iD�':i'•}i:.}:i.}::4i: •I.•r ::!v:C• ...:.... ..;.x:??• * :f]v.h...d(•.ry.?4.'::... ....;.,..::: . 1i.;.i:}�Jr;MO :!``.t�i�D}} i.�y iA 'v • •:::<$::y: �"yD:•:4::i:::D J}}: ::jti:: Cultural and Natural Resources In northern Chapel Hill Township is a portion of the New Hope Creek Open Space Corridor which links the Eno River State Park with the U.S. Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. Elements of the corridor in this part of the Township are: Rhodes Creek Wildlife Corridor in the 100-year floodplain from south of Cornwallis Road-to Old NC 10; Bike/pedestrian trails along NC Highway 751, Old NC 10, and Mt. Hermon Church Road; and An unpaved nature trail along existing roads within Duke Forest. 3 (Page 3 . 12-6 ) 83 PLANNING FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan's framework begins with the organizing concepts - .policy statements around which the Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area is constructed. These concepts state a general consensus as to what are the desirable patterns of growth for the area. Because of the region's close interrelationship with surrounding townships, some of the policy statements for the region will mirror those of Hillsborough Township, Eno Township, and the Joint Planning Area. Other variables represented in the policy statements reflect existing patterns of development, environmental constraints, and the stated desires of area residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing stock, and land requirements. These projections are not a comment on the desirability of expected growth. They merely indicate the amount of growth expected based on historical trends. The organizing concepts and projections are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land Use Plan categories initially defined in the body of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Distribution is reflected in both text and map form. Organizing Concepts The following policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area is constructed: 1) The rural residential character of the area should be maintained and be the predominant land use. 2 ) Duke Forest tracts, which are a valuable research and teaching facility and are available for public use, should be protected from adverse development pressures. 3 ) The existing open space system in Chapel Hill Township, including the area north of the Joint Planning Area, which includes Duke Forest and existing agricultural and forest lands, as well as areas identified in the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan, should be protected from intrusion by incompatible land uses. 4 ) Rural lands currently existing between the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban area and Hillsborough should be preserved and maintained. : T tet c'ip,.at' 'iai tetiede at el Vi .1 ' W ip c U Q tiie a should bs..devo, co d:.:ice s. m na�1,,,tha :.. imtz .... adverseact ....:;:.......:..:. :;:: ..., ; .;:;.: ::::.:::.:_::: . .:::: :: ><';::.. .:;::;.::. ,:.:: 6 (Page 3 . 12-10) 84 Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area falls into- six land. classifications . The distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the land use plan for the area, the location criteria contained in the Land Use Component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the potential effects of projected growth on the area; RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and floodplains. This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS: The classification refers to land assessed under County provisions for use value taxation of farm and managed forest lands, as well as for active agricultural lands not enrolled in the use value taxation program. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS: Public Interest Areas are public or quasi- public lands, such as Duke Forest, that provide significant educational and recreational opportunities. The Couch Mountain tract of Duke Forest, in the eastern portion of the area is also an important component of Orange County's open space system. • NEW HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE AREAS: New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Areas include some of the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the Public/Private Open Space Areas which were designated as significant and worthy of protection according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan completed in April of 1991. (See Master Plan Map in the Appendices) . These areas are part of a system of open space in Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. This category is made up of critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or recreational value. RURAL RESIDENTIAL: Most of the land in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA is classified as Rural Residential. The predominant use under this classification is low density, non-farm residential development. W +tiiw:ii :9• 3'.' Li_d'•.:': _de%►i;'.: �..:.. ...y.�.i►�, �u .... y}� ..... .YY k;, '..�::i!.}'..::i{:.'v }{;;t:+.;j:;.i::}:J•:y'i t:+�':i:•i}:n?:u}}:}:i':. ..... ......... ��.:}n :y���'.�.�' rti•}:•.>:. lS`. 'c, : ;A% . r..., .;.... ; ::i'tS:q:..:i;viiti riL:Jii}::v:vi�i>:< ;. .. 'i:... • 'iii: . 1. .:.... '.::•::;...:::.•....:.f.}..}}:.X.::... S,/ifn .y( ..?��T:}n�.. ;. }.�T.!:. .�::v)�: �y�� i�:jy'. i... .i. ! ......:yv::::....: .:y..�.y .- .:'::'��$. "{;{$••.fy KY,.{ ny.}.w.::x.:. 4.:.,.�'•......:.:::: :.,:}. -•-•11�►.�I�S%i�.�Ti ?•: ..: ...:::::.}:.: 4:•iy:i.:ti:::%{rti tivii iii:iL:�}i•g;i':i'ii<;}.�:},:{;;'.':•:�: Lower watersh d, °of> a lO.-silo>: :..,, • TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION AREA: Approximately fifty acres north on the Southern Railroad, along the border with Eno Township, lies in an area that could be served by public water and/or sewer within the next twenty years. The area is within the Durham Urban Growth Area, as defined in the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan. 11 85 11 15 C o, ,L) G et O Vf O ,d a� O C Q 41 c C�, C E ~ $ ..0 VR, ,a E y O Z Y g 15p4 fi co Q ¢ a> ile i i a 01 a:1 ii ..0 3 i .4 A z•• ►r y 3 c -Si' � o � 3eR v�i 'a8EC�4 .8 al 33 33 � �c '° XiN � o `. o A....� C w M Nr sON ~ t C a4 c b C V " O 0 27 CO > tiR ., O W +' � �, Boa Q 3 3 cu Q, w g S L.' 8 � � I A ( � a+ 13 aa o bit as p a� N U 0 in > F 3 �o C_) � a W w co F+1 QI U V) U U I..+ a y ry F a E be to a CO p C 3 � a o 73 'ao a -8 E o 3 3 . - > .�'.a.. xi Co o o n w "= dQ c n z 3 — M Q �' Q No 3 bit o o U a� 3 r7� b .... N c T o ti) g 0 U U `C CCI z E co b '° 4 �`.) c4 g el yi 1 i. Q a) c j p. 3 b to 3 3e ;� Ix E :; b C i E 1.1 cA 44 EcA S ci) c..) z 1- � a o 2 • cc 86 o ° ' w a. 1.d"` rn ' � ' 8Ew 3 0 > > ed or C e`1 v y r 0 p N O y '3 G. y ... a`3 O r, h a� `a a+bt e4 —5-7:1 . a �$ y y o4 ° o 8 o Z 00 z > o •'> A -r ° t C ,. 0 c Dt b W Q W w 5E o vii U V a a H ° 4.7- m3 3 2 N a a o " 6 eb n 33 3 'S Qe4 p; e5 4 6 =... 5 v, � M y o >-. a � � a t. 71 crn A V 3 Z f - to O to H 1 .1 ' o c .41 N = 8 a 4 O tit o Q -• kn M 8 as it o it: .t4 till :t.....c4 mieDft CI -8 W ° ew d .4 o ° ° M7 O p e v au Q G U eke eel � oa ° ° o Z .0 d w h CCI c ti '� o > a��i 1' '4 = 4 H 0 0 w �..i U u' ob ° a a eeo U `0 U o 0 0 Z z x _ a I y a y y a he p» = C cti 0 y 3 = ^$ gp x ".--. 2 i g .in 1 " SN L y Ce4 a NO D O 6 O cin 0 e4 O — m zs ox z oo = ° "R col ° a ° ... m E o. J .. 3 o a, I W ._ r _ w^o ' � .0 3 �°. ^0 E bo a x e col CI.74 b 4:0 c4 87 I) U ° I. w -6 0 s c° vl . w2 CA b °� g g8 * o II _ c, c:G N i '8 ; ". a c ; '> i .a •U o " 3 a •8 " o •c "8 o 0 az o � oz GL pq N cn > o '> Q a ° � c .� W Q W g VI �: a '8 a4 �" 3 y cl E.- v`v, � o `n _ E 10 > 0 1 U = y .o 3b a e �" z a ,,a >, ►; ° a al w 4 ed ... y t; >, CD Ci a p; a — o end " •v stql W i 4 4 giz „„, CC en ,8 esi ii., N a. 5 3 3 3 .0 ca W .9 0 3 3 V con a . 3� 3 0 3m c,,) o = 0 a [� cv con `" 3 Q N w d °a v q ° > z o a ° a p•, bR 4.3 tn 0 c •.r _ ca o = a2 2 I z ., E C g Q oa " C ON e i 4.1' V Q x ca 4 S E $O E E ' v 7 1 0 y o " -o r' ° w wd 'W p � E ...I •b o y 1 I 1 c1 H U oz go • I- 88 7 U ?' a ai _O ^po ° " 3 6 -4 p b `a W C .O .0 ,cam tyy 0 U c� cd U] N t ; ° v "4 R' ^v a 1 3v iu S ° '0 .1 c. °� o .h Z 3 8 G 0> 3 a>, a I. on E Q a°i Q �° �, a+ a o aZ O� o $3 63 3 w W -v v� F 4 "8 g v O 3 6 t > g 1 % - C y a 74 co,CD e4 G ° z z s a U U z - ° a A4 a) a cg �nar/.by ph, w A �>1 G(/> >, 4) •° A. ^I I �,q y (/1 R bp o 'O U 'b 11 I i CC 1 Ra P. C y - eoo w °� a -g =: a .4 j X 3 3 '0N J CO c 3 5 3 8 EFa ...UE � 8t o a ° ° c a a A ! cn v V c4 i e w°0 ti Z o a g• cis 0 z ° o — rG i v.� 0 r� C t co W os 1-1 Li o ms pr,, O rs. b4 ril -a • GIl 1a$ ,,ww O O V /� ' O O Vo O a E e b 3 $ t > E , .a t. :_1-4 Fail S z V o. 89 0 ho r' r O 3 0 a � .40 3 [ p c N 3 -• 3 al col) c� 4 -18 a 1 - s p or w at 3 U BIZ ro = cu c "‹ eobW 3F" g I ,O " •• >,h m O4 0�. C C .�+ �o ac o 3 T '° 3 o W 98 WC ej ▪ G O y el) p yO O a . .a C 2.a ,- O E ._ y a) d 04 .G ° - 3 ° .et inn > . '> 3 � ;; r .: cn pi .� �, � v waw p � 4EPM0 p" - 3 3 p t Co' Q .r .v a, Az u E=' 3 y `�' 'a 0 2 � = a W i , 04 a 33 N 33 geo y �, � s — y a G `O A r. y 44 N 3 3 C G. c t.' 61 gi3 Nip G • io� ,fl ' w fWW ." �,, 0 y Ayoo •E .0 g GGH O •tor ~. c a� r U 2 '12 >1 0.1 . A � c "a ly � � ca Crl A: �R o o4, CNS 3N 3 ° y 0.0 �" o: '3S � '11:1 g o _L."o go � �" -9.. C3 3 co. v, •'" W O •p 'e2 cn y E A 2 :+ ,5 N OM .. d 'g 3 M ¢ y o Q d F o 0 e%0 5 .� .--1 1 w ts G� O. •Q 2 co C C Z V) .� O N y w O = c c "C s. ... C V '" O O :+ 'O CO O r. 02 h z r. O L "o p ,C + i = '2 s rf G . •C y J O cC v L 4 5)"Or o U Y o Q el) as o1. col o =is y " a °Wd C � _ ^ :r y4 q o � i b "° E 3 e E L M. a >, v y "' W o o p- F o >U S CIS 2 U O a O > � o m 4 Z "o c " .a 90 _ a) V _ 3 = o •v .L 3 3 as 4 a b' -a p V .� 0 i3 3 -a 'O ." >1 U.1 " N "� +fir 4 y o v 0. 0 "R $ cw 3F■ 1 co cn a 44 a� > c, .c cm.cA 1 c O a� S CO y g ,,, to C Q•"N U N to N •> > OA 3• v L �- ix 44 tg 18 y esi°, g ; > c.1 3 1.2 4)TS . � o 3 = '8 -°' el Q V 4 "v _ o as r � " z 3 a •g ua w •o °8 o. [vx•1.4�i � U o o ^�` os A O 6 X .a •L W F d '� Q . b e- � Z 04 o w g fa o L Wa Z Z N a T3 ,_ ° U s L _ „ ►•• �; UZ �. n X04 ,�, $ ; -.._ E � '3� .� N 30 .X o o R. s °"' = 6 ° U 3 Q p S i E NT Q " c Q 0 Ls y E. $. X0 •p E g ° ` c a g w o. > 0 C p V "" C y C E Z C �+ E r 6 9 E 1 p •C Xi •a E, 1 v tL7 L Q " ,� w C C ci .� ,� C O �i C p 11 _ - C ° e o ¢ ri V C4 w .„ ._ o• W .. a , V E �i b4 p `° 0 I. w i `°. C ofs S � S z n U O 1 x E-,op- .? 6,, I' 0 -- R1 4, Z ^o 0 e4 •8 it 91 a ^0 g b Qy 2a to 3 °� .. 'g $ oa v c C O E. O \ Q _O h IA WI i)i0 N 0.'O _ cd `� a y 3 3 'b a ar- n .[ -a 5 3n '° F 3 Q E. cyi ANM V v� cx ' G . ,.. w) p• Gn — O $4 v cG .y cn bQ .° m o " oW N ° = ti) a0i E= ' a c i i A . O ,n1 c OO a O ->N ` d c $ G .s v c w w ¢ _a � 3y3ti 6, r—, y eO x A N V '° ; C Q Z Z o ∎ a g O pr a _ O y N '8 5 — y p Q /� V i — v c m U 0 si a a a E v 4 C ��'' 8Q >' w o 2 Gail '42 3 v — ao' 3 - _ to ^ ,_ cn P_', a o � o � � �`� Z > 4' ^ •c '° $ 'oq '� $ o ati a A [ � �t-ct mN a "' " 3 p x Z G7 ;6. bA_ w VI o. E m 0 y m � O � s o i a ,,. 3A p to 6 ° a c $ 3a a4x 3 v G � � S o $ b cnv� o co u W O = co a la ti• = ,6 o N -o p C a CO a ue y .p y +' y Q A a / v a >,� �s d' .-r a C G E -g $ O Z Q C T VI 4) 0 .�i C O O A O o b z z a U u = ° Z a E oo Z ca°y + A. Vp v p .� 2 a 0 ecd _ a iS� ° a• 3 G 3 a o a 3 c O cl o " N v� Np4a M � w aU �' am � � p" c ° a ~ = 'c. Q ~ A VSO 3 Z a wN C O U Z 6 4 8 d Tai E O ▪ g 3■ b 1 6 a `� 3 CII s 46, 4r2S rnUM Z eine UA O on 92 IS H o .� 2a a) 3 a 0 = � o ge c C C m V V N °C" w gQ N fl Cl.) -- O � -. rn � � a v ti.. 3 m v') 3 '" CL) 0 0.) a ai a� 8 c4 73 16 v N ANO Vy 1 >, : � avac � I cv a. ° N Z U r �V Z L o . E Z c — Cr 'eLC� E C '3 c0i� .O IX va LL 1 Z O iy" O O U O b O w e z z z Q `t V a) .. a' Via" a $ N ° C0 -8 ..5' 6 2 -8 o ° C u. .� Z > pG ao c 3 3 3 3 ° A W -v � ~ ° ° � �el °41) bt �+ il c ter' a0 ° �Jw ' 4 4 3 G Z ~ o V m In o 13 Z AF" o "L 4 "E C C U ai .� a a Q as;4 c.. ° 0 u '3 ' [ 3 4 Comet E2 H $ " o .� ° 3 `° ° o o ct W v a b p� /� "• c Q Q Uo' ° �' '$ C g o a Z Z c i.tt O '� ^ O p Cj n1 `n N vOy O 0 Q A. a Z '.g C4 E W o O '� o a _° �, � � Z Z Z Z [ ¢ L3a 5 co a A. ,,p d 6 N a4 e. • C 3 3 ° o N p -� -- 3 3 o ° ° L�, O y c. 3 � � «+ w Q Q _ CV S N � bt � m � a3i tug o 0 'a. ra cj = 0 �p N �, oo _, Z Z c/, CO 'o rr � V m z yaa oa - 0 w h y h . o. Wd �� ° as w o °' E . - 3 S ,Kit 1 �° �.L E :° 6 E apt u� E 0.O4 u9 � cn V � Z 05 U C O 4 ' co 93 X4 0 3 0 N J v a I. rt.) S a S.co _v b 3 " w o o-0 c..) g c y r 8E co aai `� 3 °� L, 'n U vl io 2 •$ 2 - It o co 1... • a $ 3 Q E �°Q C N o Z ) E. w W i v x A 0 P 0 h c c z Q c. vi R. 3 z W C 0 0. _ o 4. N N N N c H 'a d T o eel i a, ra [ e. " = ["0 ... per a a a J • It it,. W a ? ,O w .� G / N Qr O y G, cd N + 2 * Z S' o Cl v b E C ,O cCd Z I C) la N • o W o `r i E .= U ; o x i vN a li cd O 13 W "' "' "' .e CO N f • 0, 8o 1 3e 20 "D "O � E y b N i E _ , N O AS Etc cri2G z v o 204 c . I- 94 = A c° • 2 I) , Q 3 a o ba .^ Ou 0 rt '!1 w ti 4. v C rn C 3 .s . v C m G. g N oG.0>� ° a.V u •v o o '5 Q � o o z rill 3 CO W _ '> tw A d12 o Br 73 F c 0 ° 0 a d z z W C w a °' o ° 4 = = 30 t e as o c TA 30 3 O3 _ ,� r� C V 2 o 0 C m o. 0 > C 1) z 5 to g C h y z j w ,7 c Q o x 8 o i a �° at L 6p, _ o. ci U t aT.,2 i tri U r o X W . � ^ c `, > 3 0 O �, 0 „ .2 W o = a = '° c4 A 0 I, ;� '> ,� 3 �4 8 6 a C. co 95 4 a) A ›, o C C a .z 4 C .5 a la N Q g N Q. ftU rte- - N p� i�r eta �C+ `n ^" pG c> °T p b cn o. -a O cr,■ +. '8 . V1 Cn a C4 C — b .2 . _ Q, •ay o .8 c z 4 CC a au a a "O 4) .o W Q W . a. r C4 c "8 k ` � Z o z z • o _ 0 W b b �.y N bt C Q,' y o a) OC1 .■ 8E 2 a t4 cel i i get2 ad2 g I p4 a a � `S" 3 3 3 ° o o N o tot y = . No 3 Q o Q .. g cV a cV n� �" C ca V 4) a w" OG a h R. ~ C 2 4 a cA eo - -- 0 a, :. •a+ t1r ••. C r.+ 0 C.) = Q "� O pG 4) a' o `r' o cva to L" C C E O o u. I. Z o • a.a D = v_� .. U = = o O a e 3 a > h.= • .. b o :a raz o a) 74 34 S 41 c 4 = a` " pa 96 oa c A N a a ego C .� c >, • cn S At a o 0 1 * CA N A c N y 'b 7 c P. "0 a a It 13 I Q Q� C� a) 0 ' ' x x 3 p tu 4 a) d a a c � o o Z 3 3 i CO 5 [ a a w 4) 0 E G4 C 0 'a 0 A o .= b z z a � z a �' 1 1 E 0 ibt a 0 Q m - � er =N w 1'G a .8 p c p p 'VN pga o o w NI 0 Nt r' y it 3w a s 6 ¢ a Ocv *" co . V a c h 2 >N etia c Z w — c y H . o p4 .. a et .B. ..' 5 v Qs 1 i ,;a = w = Sr C U C "� I r `. CO VJ w � .o � � � "0 as y� : 41 E :° E a 8 I 0 42 A c7is z v O x m 97 S) y A m C au = — y � a Q a - o a co , °C Q . c ^ a �' ' 4)3 , �° t c2 Z 3 cA � 3 �b td � y o h 0 p C N sr a UO N ..q O N y >, p u O > C kfl , 4r '� V'I O >,U ,n-, y C e,,, g o °o 4O ,+ a O C C .. t, y _ w ¢ W ki a c Qr S N o 2 y O� w. C ? 0 i a cn *. = 0 0 -p O a V) w C 'v z z C ' z c ►v/.�J U 0 !� 1 h 3 H N eg a h-0., 0 ^at4t4 Q04 C W 03 0 •b '° aa4 � V n o o c ° y O iA .b C cV �`� O� '_, '43 C3. 0 ea N v > C. c6 Etu cr. 74 o al ea y o — e g i O = e- am , 2 i c. gd .) o C c °' o co os la U a o a. FA O a O E g � 31as I. a E a� o � ;o [.y G 4 611 o 6 C O A, ~ 4a . � � cg cA z 0 o c4 go 98 DISTRIBUTED S a/c Town OF CHAPEL HILL - Mod, 306 NORTH COLt'MBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 (919)968-2714 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR FAX 919-967-8406 October 1, 1993 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Chairman Carey: Re: Proposed watershed protection standards for the Cane Creek Reservoir On behalf of the Town Council, I am pleased to transmit the enclosed resolution supporting prudent restrictions on development in the Cane Creek watershed pending completion of a watershed study to be commissioned in the near future. We respectfully request that the Board of Commissior_ern adopt standards including a 5-acre minimum lot size on an interim basis. If the watershed study justifies lower standards, then the initial standards can be revised accordingly. We appreciate the Board of Commissioners' willingness to receive our comments on the need 00 protection of County. primary water supply for about , Sincerely, Kenneth S. Broun Mayor i 7S I Y = I t 1 i I '. 99 A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION ORDINANCE (93-9-27/R-2 ) WHEREAS , the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill recognizes the community value that the Cane Creek Reservoir represents to its citizens ; and WHEREAS , the Council is committed to maintaining a high level of water quality in the Cane Creek watershed; and WHEREAS , the Orange Water and Sewer Authority will be conducting a technical study of the Cane Creek Reservoir. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council recommends the Orange County Board of Commissioners consider: 1 . Apply the same minimum lot and impervious surface limits to the entire Cane Creek Reservoir watershed as proposed for University Lake watershed, basically 5-acre minimum lots plus other strong protective measures; and 2 . Continue to prohibit all commercial or industrial land uses throughout the Cane Creek watershed; and particularly to remove the option of allowing 5% non-residential development with up to 70% impervious surface area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council supports these amendments as an appropriate conservative strategy, pending the results of a detailed technical study. This the 27th day of September, 1993 . Orange Water and Sewer Authority 100 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.Q. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 STATEMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina August 23, 1993 Orange Water and.Sewer Authority's position on the proposed watershed protection requirements is summarized as follows: • Strong support and appreciation for strict measures to be left in place for the University Lake watershed. • Support for amendments pertaining to the Jordan Lake Protected Area. • Disagreement with and substantial concern regarding proposals to weaken existing regulations in the Cane Creek watershed. The.Authority respectfully.requests the Board of Commissioners to apply the following interim regulations to the Cane Creek watershed, pending completion of the comprehensive watershed study to be conducted for OWASA and subsequent actions taken pursuant to its recommendations. 1. Continue to prohibit all commercial or industrial land uses throughout the Cane Creek watershed. 2. Apply the same minimum lot and impervious surface limits to the entire Cane Creek Reservoir watershed as proposed for the University Lake watershed, basically 5-acre minimum lots plus other.strong protective measures. 3. Allow the provision of water and wastewater service only through individual onsite wells and disposal systems; no municipal or community level wastewater disposal. There is ample justification for assigning more protective rules to Cane Creek than to other WS-II watersheds in Orange County. The Cane Creek watershed merits special protection for a number of very important reasons including: • Field observations and unreduced monitoring data suggest that water in the Cane Creek Reservoir may be of substantially lower quality than originally predicted. An Equal Opportunity Employer ACr CTIJCr CDIhI 01 ,2 CAA TaMA 101 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Statement to Orange County Commissioners August 23, 1993 Page 2 • The Cane Creek Reservoir represents a $20 million dollar investment by nearly 60,000 Orange County customers served by OWASA. Except for University Lake, no other water supply in the County is so essential to as large a number of residents. • We acknowledge that Cane Creek still lacks a comprehensive watershed analysis such as the one conducted for University Lake, and this strongly suggests stronger interim regulations. OWASA's current timetable is to have a completed Cane Creek study by the end of calendar 1994. Especially worrisome are proposed amendments that would allow commercial activities in a watershed where no such uses are now permitted. The allowance of up to 70 percent impervious coverage for non-residential development without stormwater controls on up to 900 acres of Cane Creek watershed land does not appear to be justifiable, even though consistent with the EMC's statewide minimum. The Authority strongly urges that, at a minimum, these non-residential allowances be eliminated from further consideration. The Authority has demonstrated a commitment to maintaining its $20 million dollar investment at Cane Creek Reservoir through a number of strong actions including: • Investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchasing critical acreage around the lake, • Supplementing the North Carolina Agricultural Cost-Share Program to help private farmers pay for conservation management practices, and • Spending thousands of dollars on special technical studies and monitoring projects. • Prohibiting the use of gasoline powered motorboats. Along with this demonstrated commitment to protecting Cane Creek Reservoir comes the expectation that Orange County's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations will provide a level of protection commensurate with the reservoir's value to the community, and commensurate with the financial investment underwritten by its users. We believe that the higher level of interim protection, as outlined above, is justified both on the basis of the preliminary water quality data and the community value that Cane Creek represents to a majority of Orange County's residents. The Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority respectfully offers these recommendations for your consideration. TOTAL P.04 102 5 B ''R V O ti Ovum nrf 3Iillsburnu 101 E. ; 4• .Apor Orange Street P.O. Box 429 *01 9 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA (919) 732-2104 • 6, CAR°N- 27278 October 11, 1993 Orange County Planning Board do O.C. Planning Department P.O.Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Members, Since the Town is planning a reservoir in the Upper Eno watershed, we have reviewed the proposed watershed protection ordinance you and the County Commissioners are considering. We have a few comments we would like to share at this time. We would like to stress that these comments are based on the differences between the state mandated regulations and the proposed ordinance. These comments are not meant to indicate any displeasure on the Town's part with any current agreements we have with the County. It occurs to us that the prohibition of non-residential uses in the critical area limits the economic growth of the whole county, the interstate/rail corridor between Hillsborough and Efland in particular. This area, with access to the multi-modal transportation network is an ideal location for non-residential growth. We realize this area is not currently designated as a node or transition area in the County's Comprehensive Plan. This raises a second concern. The review and approval process for any project that is not within a designated node or transition area is very lengthy and involved. While this process ensures citizen participation and careful plan review, it is a strong deterrent to developers. Certainly we are not supporting the location of heavy industrial or hazardous uses in this corridor or within watershed critical areas. We are asking that you, the Commissioners, and staff consider following the state minimum regulations more closely. Well planned, clean industry can be built and should be built in this corridor and in other areas to protect the economic future of this county and its taxpayers. Our final concern relates to water and sewer connections. It is our opinion that if water and sewer service is or can be made available, development should tie on to that service. As you know, the track record in this County for septic tanks is not the best. In the long run, the chance for failure and contamination is a real concern. Once again, we are not implying dissatisfaction with any current agreements between the Town and County. We are concerned about the future of this county's citizens. We ask for you and the Commissioners to consider our comments as you review the proposed watershed protection ordinance. Thank you. Sincerely, illsborough Board of Commissioners Horace H. Johnson, Mayor cc: Orange County Commissioners 103 Pic/'cetr/Sprouse kVY 1 (,AMI1111,Mos Commercial Realtors MAkh MIC C); NR l;h C7'/*AI,('C164 3805-A linivcrslry Drive • Post Offirc(sox S2178 • Durnam, Nor', CAr(7Iin,27717 • Telephone(919)493.039;; • fax No (9lST/493.751; October 6, 1993 For the Public Record Orange County Hillsborough, NC VIA FAX 644-3002 Dear Comi111S$iOn1$ a utl Plncuiorn: It has recently come to my attention that a public hearing came and went which received very little notice or comment. Specifically, I am referring to the proposal to prevent the pumping of waste water effluent through easements or on to adjoining lots in a drinking water watershed. This proposal is a bad idea. This proposal is a bad idea for several reasons: 1. It does not add to the quality of the drinking water. In fact, it will lead to the use of lesser • quality soils for waste water treatment when better soils were potentially available, 2, It will lead to poor quality lot design. 3. It works counter to the concept of clustering which is the main tool identified to protect the "rural character". 4. 'This proposal impacts virtually the whole county under the new watershed regulations and will severely limit the development potential of some properties. In summary, the use of pumping and septic easements is an important tool which allows for new and creative design. Creative design is often what creates the economic value to provide the opportunity to preserve a natural resource. In addition, pumping generally means moving any source of contamination further from a creek or stream. It would be a mistake to implement this proposal. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Mark N. O'Neal -w•END•+• 104 E\T Zan...a/ . 226 S. Churton St., Hillsborough. NC 732-6262 October 8, 1993 Orange County Planning Board Orange County Commissioners do Mary Willis Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioners and Planners: I have recently been made aware of the proposal to prohibit designated water supply watersheds in septic field easements within Orange County. I believe this will put an unnecessary burden on the county's landowners. supplies regulation of the physical location of a septic system with respect to designated water u Pplies and their tributaries is an appropriate method of protecting water quality. The physical location of a septic system with respect to an arbitrary equivalent(or even discernible) effect on water quality. Thly effect of dis-allowing septic system easements would be to decrease the density of development below the level which has already been suggested for adoption. If lesser densities are desired, they should be placed on the watershed as a whole, not exclusively on those landowners whose land has only concentrated areas of suitable soil. In fairness to all county residents, I urge you to reject the proposal to prohibit septic field easements. Sincerely, Steve F. Yuhasz 105 "r F2 COMPANY P. O. BOX 13983 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709-3983 September 3 , 1993 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 28287 Re : Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations for Orange County, NC Dear Mr. Collins : Teer Company ( "Teer" ) currently both owns and leases certain parcels of real property in Orange County' s Little River Township as shown on Tax Map numbers 910-11-9243/1 .4 . . 9 and 910-10- 3603/1 . 4 . . 9E. Thus, representatives of Teer attended the recent public hearing regarding the above-captioned matter. From our attendance at the meeting, it appears Orange County' s present intention is to zone Teer' s referenced property agricultural . Teer objects to such a zoning classification and instead requests its property be classified as Existing Industrial ( "EI" ) . EI zoning more closely describes the existing uses on the Teer property. To date, Orange County has issued Teer a minimum of three (3) building permits on the property, two for quarrying and one for an accessory asphalt plant at the quarry. The quarry building permits show, among other things, the (i) prcessin plant , (ii) pit and (iii) material storage area . Likewise, the permit for the asphalt plant (which operates daily) outlines the plant and material storage area. As noted in the written materials distributed at the public hearing, your staff wants to know of all existing businesses so that they can be placed in the appropriate zoning district . I trust that after a thoughtful analysis of the foregoing, you too will concur that an agricultural designation for the Teer property is inappropriate and that EI zoning will instead be implemented. Should you have any questions or comments regarding any of the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 380-2620 . Very truly yours, Don A. Lineberry cc : Mary Willis Vice President ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTING MATERIALS MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION (OPERATIONS) (SALES) EQUIPMENT TEL:(919)380-2600 TEL:(919)380-2530 TEL:(919)380-2610 TEL:(919)380.2630 TEL:(919)380-2700 TEL: (919)380-2750 FAX:(919)380-2747 FAX:(919)380-2578 FAX:(919)380-2616 FAX:(919)380-2616 FAX:(919)380-2733 FAX:(919)380-2755 106 6291 Orange Grove Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 August 30, 1993 The Orange County Planning Board Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sirs: According to the August 25 Chapel Hill Herald, pages 3 and 12, OWASA officials are saying that the already strict lot size and percent impervious area rules imposed on Cane Creek Watershed residents are not strict enough to suit them. Several years ago OWASA decided they wanted the community of Orange Grove to furnish them land for one of Chapel Hill's water supply reservoirs. Now they are demanding that our residents jump through a special set of expensive environmental hoops to make their lake water as clean as they think it should be. It supposedly is not as pristine as they predicted it would be! In my opinion the Cane Creek Reservoir is not any more important than any other drinking water reservoir in North Carolina even if it did cost 20 million dollars. For this reason and others that I will mention subsequently, I think that the rules set forth by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission governing all watershed development in North Carolina are plenty strict to maintain water quality. Additionally, I have been shown absolutely no legitimate reason why Orange County's rules governing Cane Creek should be any different than State requirements. The price of land in Orange Grove is sky high these days since it has become a bedroom suburb of Chapel Hill, Durham, and Raleigh. If the proposed regulations are forced on Cane Creek Watershed it will pose severe economic discrimination against many citizens who may want to live in the area. If OWASA has its way as proposed in the newspaper report, a house lot in the area may soon cost a minimum of$50,000. I don't know many wage earners who will be able to afford to own a lot in Cane Creek Watershed - much less build a home. It seems like the city crowd who makes the rules wants to replace Cane Creek Watershed farms with only wealthy folks who can afford to buy large tracts for their country estates. Excessively strict watershed rules will not only exclude many families who want to buy land and live in Cane Creek Watershed, but also may make it very difficult for citizens who now own larger land tracts to utilize them for the purposes for which they have planned. The bottom line is that all the citizens in the Cane Creek Watershed (present and future) will pay an unfairly high price for stricter than necessary water quality rules. 107 In my opinion, water purification, after State requirements for watershed protection are met, is a cost the customers of OWASA should pay for, and not the landowners living in the Cane Creek Watershed. It is my hope that the Orange County Planning Board and County Commissioners will take long hard looks at this situation before making Cane Creek Watershed rules any stricter than the State of North Carolina requires. Respectfully submitted, Joe M. Kenyon, Jr. cc: Orange County Commissioners 108 Joyce Stanford 8700 Stanford Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 Ms. Chairman ( Orange County Planning Board) Mr. Chairman ( Orange County Board of Commissioners) Members of the Boards I live across the road from Cane Creek Reservoir and my former home. Even after OWASA, I still own some acres in the Cane Creek watershed; some of these acres are in the CA --some acres are presently held hostage in site 0C2 for the landfill search. These acres are in sight of the reservoir. OWASA representatives gave statements in public hearings, N.C. Courts, and in "Environmental Impact Statements" that a reservoir would be con- sistent and compatible with the community and no further restrictions would be necessary --- apart from State and Federal clean water re- strictions. Before Cane Creek Reservoir, they. wanted the water because of its quality --- even calling it "PRISTINE" ! When those studies were con- ducted, there were six more operaring dairies with more than 2000 animals. We property owners do not need more restrictive zoning to protect the land and water --- a 200+ year record proves this. The EMC's final "EIS" noted in its socio-economic impact the losses to the community who do not benefit -- not allowed use of the water! ( A drink of water can only be gotten if we go into Carrboro or Chapel Hill to shop or dine.) More restrictions would increase this loss: 109 History reminds us of our freedom and responsibity. 202 years ago our forefathers and founders passed into law the "Bill Of Rights" as I understand it, to protect the rights of individuals from government. I call your attention to the 5th. amendment part that states " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Placing all of Cane Creek watershed into the Critical Area denies the property owners full use of their property --- which is a TAKING. Who pays -- the individual by losses --or the public (water users) who benefit ? I support the N.C. regulations and the Planning Boards recommendation. I ask you to oppose more restrictions in the total PW Cane Creek watershed. Thank you. necewect S;DC;9 3 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS (\A 5Q2`^`° no ,j/L1( *tie/ 77,e, al3if_ 7'114/ , crku(/-1L.„ 4"),4;1,2) cps, ,Q3 2e0„i, f4tL4-t-e ot4-1/-zeLe--0 , 71e; c9,7, - 78' JiA) ; h,1-601J2 elarfu-di 044-44";-' 26L7t-4t) Pot4401(41 iqu-44401' ioLv a_ ge- -/- )C1-iLA71-44- s2zz L-Aill:7427taaffri.4)6 *- ,quiaa& vLA,dh& sbAi- 9 _ fid-af‘J 61'7 V4e4s44ii 2/I h‘ ,) CHAPEL HILL . NORT}{ �ROUNA a.( LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 111 OF CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO,NC P.O. Box 3397 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-3397 August 23, 1993 STATEMENT BY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CHAPEL Hill/CARRBORO TO ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING AND WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO PROTECT ALL, OR A PART OF, 10 WATERSHEDS. The League of Women Voters of Chapel Hi11/Carrboro is in favor of the proposed zoning and watershed standards. We support the watershed standards being in- corporated into the Orange County Zoning Ordinance because they involve restric- tions pertaining to lot size, land use, and impervious surface coverage. Orange County has had a long history of protection of its water supplies and had one of the earliest Watershed Ordinances in 1981 and has updated it several times since then. Citizens of Orange County have taken the responsibility to having good water and its protection. Citizens have also believed in conservation, particularly when it was caused by drought times. Orange County lies at the headwaters of two rivers of North Carolina so that means we may expect low flow at times. Conservation habits should be a part of water usage patterns which could save money in the long run. Both Conservation and Protection of Water Supplies save money for citizens. The League of Women Voters of NC worked for the passage of the 1989 Water Supply Watershed Protection Act and for Water Supply protection across the state. The organization believes good protected water is in the best interests of public health for the citizens of this state and that government has that responsibiity. It is time for Cedar Grove and Little River Townships to be zoned even though they are mostly agricultural residential. This can also give citizens an opportunity to express their opinions when undesirable uses such as mining or gravel pits apply for permits closeby. It so happens that the vast majority of Cedar Grove and all of Little River Township are located in protected watersheds. Our position statement is "support for stringent controls to protect the quality of current and potential drinking-water supplies, including protection of water- sheds for surface supplies and of recharge areas for groundwater". We believe that the Protected Watershed Overlay Districts set of regulations will prevent and reduce pollution from future development by runoff that would enter drinking water supplies. We urge the County Commissioners to pass these proposed amendments to Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Signed: • PETITION 112 TO: THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WE RESIDENTS OF CANE CREEK WATERSHED STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY PROPOSED WATER QUALITY RULE OR REGULA- TION WHICH IS MORE STRICT THAN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA REQUIRES FOR THIS WATERSHED. NAME AND ADDRESS: 6 4 v1;0 110/11)X ,e/VY cca, o XNcAA,, -' 47/. td< &" "zgre;:f4IG" c7'ea CII/V1 PETITION 113 TO: THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WE RESIDENTS OF CANE CREEK WATERSHED STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY PROPOSED WATER QUALITY RULE ORRECULA- ' TION WHICH IS MORE STRICT THAN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA REQUIRES FOR THIS WATERSHED. NAME AND ADDRESS: . C . • 114 \ -‘3% .-..eV\\ .'1\a2AQZ 115 � /6 /993 7°4 • ??7,c 2L 27 116 __56 / 9 /-(eAf‹,,,,-,--) 1f L I? �J it:c -A73 CZ . 14, / 9s.3 PG, i 2/ Pi 7� 7f <44 -15J -L\ L )4 cL PETITION 117 TO: THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD AND COMMISSIONERS WE RESIDENTS OF CANE CREEK WATERSHED STR ONGLY OPPOSE ANY PROPOSED WATER QUALITY RULE OR REGULA- TION WHICH IS MORE STRICT THAN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA REQUIRES FOR THIS WATERSHED, NAME AND ADDRESS: /✓C c2 72_ • It 4_, /r...,e-e-a-ei-,(--0 G-ziL 4-4(jle-t-"4"ez' / ■ /0---z-z-f;---' 01:1€,,, 4/7- zz-- i � � State of North Carolina 118 Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Lf• Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ■���_ Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary c I-1 NI F A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director August 23, 1993 Mary Willis Supervisor, Current Planning Orange County 306 F. Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mary, Thank you for submitting a draft water supply watershed protection ordinance and/or management plan to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) for review prior to approval by your local Board. Although a number of local governments have had their ordinances reviewed and were able to incorporate DEM staff's comments into the ordinances, I regret to inform you that due to time constraints brought about by a need for timely review of final ordinances, I will not be able to review and comment on ordinance individually. I do, however, have the following comments to offer regarding issues t at have repeatedly come up in my previous review of draft ordinances and recent review of final ordinances. • Statutory Authority: The statutory provision which requires local governments to adopt and implement water supply watershed ordinances and management plans is NCGS 143-214.5 (Chapter 143, Article 21). This statutory authority must be stated in your ordinance. The Model Ordinance suggests a citation at the beginning of the ordinance entitled "Authority or "Authority and Enactment". • Existing Development: Existing development is not subject to the Rules. Existing development is defined as those projects that are built or that at a minimum have established a vested right under North Carolina zoning law(see the definition under 15A NCAC 2B .0202(24) and the Model Ordinance definition). The criteria specifying whether a project has established a vested right is noted in the Rules and Model Ordinance definitions;however,the actual determination of a vested right is made at the local level. Lot Recombination: A deeded single family lot owned by an individual prior to the effective date of the ordinance or any subsequent owner, regardless of whether a vested right has been established, is not subject to the development restrictions of the Rules. This exemption does not apply to multiple lots under single ownership (i.e., to a developer of a residential subdivision). If however, one individual owns two or more adjacent lots and those lots individually or together do not meet the minimum lot size requirements in the Rules,then the municipality may require the lots to be combined in order to meet the minimum standards or to be more conforming. You do not have to require lot recombination. • 5%-70% Provision: If you have land use jurisdiction outside of the critical area of a WS-II or WS- III watershed you may use the 5%-70% provision. The acreage available for you to use for additional new nonresidential development under the 5%-70% provision is the acreage within the WS-II or WS-III watershed outside of the critical area that is in your land use jurisdiction as of July 1, 1993. The amount of acreage available to use under the 5%-70%provision should be recorded P.O.Box 29535,Rdeigh,North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919-733-2496 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper 119 Mary Willis August 23, 1993 Page Two on the 1:24,000 scale map that is required in addition to your ordinance. Please note that public lands upon which you do not exercise land use controls (e.g., National Forests and State Parks) are not allowed to be calculated in your acreage tabulation. The amount of land you have available to use for the 5%-70%provision is equal to five percent(5%) of the amount of land within your jurisdiction of a WS-II or WS-III watershed as of July 1, 1993 minus critical area and minus state or federally owned land. • Agricultural Activities: The required 10 foot vegetated buffer for agricultural activities conducted after July 1, 1993 and the implementation by July 1, 1994 of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which are recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission for animal operations greater than 100 animal units are required only within the critical areas of WS-I, WS-II, WS-ill and WS-IV watersheds. The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (NCGS 143-214.5) prohibits enforcement of more stringent regulations pertaining to agricultural uses. Therefore, you can not require the buffer or BMP provisions of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules outside of the critical area; however, the statewide nondischarge rules will apply and are implemented at the state level. Since the Rules went into effect in August 1992, the state has adopted a set of statewide nondischarge rules to control the discharge of waste from animal operations(15A NCAC 2H .0200). These rules have similar requirements to the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules, but a different deadline for the implementation of BMPs. • Variances: Variance procedures seem to cause the most confusion. The Model Ordinance suggests a definition of major variance as the complete waiver of a management requirement;the relaxation of any management requirement by more than 10%; or the relaxation of any management requirement under the high density option. The Model Ordinance also states that this definition is included as an example and that local governments will be given latitude in defining a major variance. However, it is not the intent of the Model Ordinance definition, nor is it the intent of the variance (exemption) provisions in the Rules, to allow local governments to categorically approve increases in density or built-upon area by virtue of a minor variance. Therefore, I suggest that you add a provision to your definition of a major variance which states that all requests for increased density or built-upon area constitute a major variance. Also, all major variances require approval by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) prior to a watershed protection permit being issued at the local level. When a variance is requested, the Watershed Administrator should notify and allow comment from all local governments with land use jurisdiction within the watershed and any entity using the water supply for consumption. If the variance qualifies as a minor variance, the local Watershed Review Board reviews the case and makes a decision based on variance procedures delineated under North Carolina zoning law. If the variance qualifies as a major variance,the local Watershed Review Board reviews the case and makes a decision. If the Board approves the major variance, a record of the decision is forwarded to the EMC for review prior to the issuance of a watershed protection permit. Please note that the EMC does not act as an appeals board, nor do they review a major variance request prior to local government board review. Any appeal from a local government board decision must be filed with the Superior Court. Finally, a record of all variances (major and minor) granted by the local board must be submitted to DEM on or before January 1st of each year. Please refer to Model Ordinance Sections 501 and 507, as well as the attached variance procedure diagram, for more specific information on variance requirements and procedures. Mary Willis 120 August 23, 1993 Page Three I hope this information is useful to you and I apologize for not being able to review each draft ordinance individually. If you have additional questions or need further assistance, please contact me or Steve Zoufaly at (919) 733-5083. Thank you again for submitting a draft ordinance and for your cooperation with the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program. Si erely, Lisa Martin cc: Steve Zoufaly Tim Donnelly, RRO DEM Marianne Frederick, RRO DCA l'er7Y1 - tp„9„9,,,a 44-;9,Li tu-4,pd city. ,,,trrara . / , ' ( i 121 DRAFT 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 23 , 1993 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on August 23 , 1993 at 7 : 30 p. m . , in the New County Courthouse , Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for their Quarterly Public Hearing . COUNTY ___COMMISSTONERS , PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr . , and Commissioners Alice M . Gordon, Stephen H . Halkiotis , Veria C . Insko and Don Willhoit COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr . , Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe , Planning Director Marvin Collins , Planners David Stancil and Mary Willis . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Waddell , Virginia Boland , Carol Cantrell , Jean Hamilton, Paul Hoecke , Betty Eidenier , Kent Scott , Joan Jobsis , and Clint Burklin. A. OPENING _REMARKS_FROM THE CHAIRMAN Chairman Carey called the meeting to order and welcomed the Planning Board members and citizens in attendance . He indicated that the Chair of the Planning Board , Carol Cantrell , would preside over each of the items on the agenda. Speakers were asked to keep their comments to a maximum of three minutes each . B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge . C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ( a ) CP-3-93 Bobby Kirk Sr . and Jr. This item was presented by David Stancil for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which has been submitted by Bobby Kirk Sr . and Jr . The proposed amendment would affect a 1/4 mile radius at the Orange Grove Road/ Bradshaw Quarry Road intersection in Bingham Township. Part or all of 16 parcels would fall within this radius . The developer requests the creation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at the intersection of Orange Grove Road and Bradshaw Quarry Road . The area is currently designated Agricultural-Residential in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan . By definition , Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes are defined as 1/4 mile in radius , and are located at the intersection of arterial or collector roads . This amendment is a principal amendment to the plan , since it proposes creation of a new activity node . Creation of a new Rural 122 DRAFT 2 Neighborhood Activity Node would allow up to five acres each of Local Commercial-1 ( LC1 ) and Neighborhood Commercial-2 ( NC-2 ) zoning . The property is currently zoned AR, and is within the Protected Watershed-II ( PW-II ) overlay district for Cane Creek watershed . It is located outside of the Water Quality Critical Area for Cane Creek Reservoir . Rural neighborhood activity nodes are areas at strategic intersections which may contain a limited amount of small-scale commercial activity, such as country stores . The applicant ' s plan would use only a portion of the intersection . There is no proposed zoning change at this time . The current zoning of Agricultural-Residential ( Protected Watershed [ PW] ) would not be amended by this proposal . However , it would add an overlay district of Rural-Neighborhood Activity Node in a 1/4 mile radius around the intersection . A future petition for LC-1 or NC-2 commercial zoning may be requested for certain parcels . Otherwise , the zoning will remain agricultural-residential . In support of their request , the applicants cited the following points : There has been rapid subdivision development in Bingham Township over the past 20 years . The applicant has counted 1000 mailboxes within a possible market area for a community store . This is a strategic intersection where two collector roads that are primary thoroughfares in the Township come together. "There is no community store in the area to provide services to residents , or to provide an outlet for local agricultural products . "The Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department has indicated it will remove the underground fuel storage tank if fuel services can be provided at this site . In addition to evaluating the proposal against locational criteria, two other efforts relate to the amendment . The Rural Character Study addressed the issue of rural community and neighborhood centers , and recognized their historic and cultural significance . It recommended the protection of existing rural centers and recommended that the potential for designating new community focal points be studied . The Water Supply Watershed updates are also relevant , since this site is within Cane Creek watershed . There are four goal statements in the Land Use Element that relate to watershed protection, and these are proposed for updating as part of CP-4-93 . The state standards allow up to 5% of the watershed ( outside of the critical area ) to be used for non-residential purposes and up to 7O. impervious surface . The proposed node , plus the existing commercial zoning totals 14 . 6 acres with less than 1% of the watershed outside of the critical area. The applicants next steps involve petitioning for rezoning to LC-1 or NC-2 for the country store site . These zones are the lowest- intensity commercial zones in the Zoning Ordinance . A conventional activity node could have up to 10 acres of LC-1 and NC-2 zoned land . However, an alternative for consideration is the creation of a more compact , refined node , with limited commercial activity permitted only at the intersection core . This approach was used in the Joint Planning Area at Blackwood Station . In response to a question from the audience , Stancil indicated that 123 DRAFT 3 the 1/4 mile radius of this proposed node consists of 125 acres . Ten ( 10 , of those acres could be developed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD: Planning Board Member Bill Waddell asked if this land was within the flood plane and if so what guarantees would be in place to assure that it would not be developed . Mr. Stancil indicated that 50 acres will be in the flood plane and only a small portion of the entire 125 acre parcel will be used by the store . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT BOBBY KIRK, the applicant and a resident of the Orange Grove Community, indicated that he and his father believed that establishing a store at this location would be good for the community as well as a .good business venture . There was at one time a store at this location and he has very positive memories of the community gathering there . It was a focal point in the community. The Orange Grove community would be much enhanced by having a local place to purchase milk or other staples . He indicated that their plan calls for a quality operation with a well designed building. He thanked David Stancil and the Planning Department staff for the quality of support they offered him in preparing this application. VICTORIA PRIUTT , a local resident, spoke in support of this rezoning . She commented that a country store is important to a community. Also , having a local store would reduce the number of trips into town by local residents . PATRICK MULKEY, Chairman of the Bingham Township Advisory Council ( TAC ) , spoke in favor of this rezoning . The Bingham TAC passed a resolution in support of this request. He indicated that Lois Herring , Chair of OWASA, suggested that small country stores could be accommodated in this area without opening the area to other uses . He indicated that he supports a tightly defined node . JEFF PELOQUIN , also a member of the Bingham TAC , also spoke in support of this request . He commented that it would be a great benefit to the community which is currently forced to drive long distances for milk , bread and other staples . He indicated that he also supported decreasing the size of the area in order to assure that the area would not be overdeveloped in the future . TOMMY HOLMES , the area volunteer fire chief , spoke in favor of this proposal and indicated that the fire department would be able to provide service to this facility. BOBBY KIRK, indicate that he is in favor of a more compact node . A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis , to adjourn the public hearing to 7 : 30 p . m. on October 4 , 1993 J 124 DRAFT 4 in the Courtroom in the Old County Courthouse in Hillsborough , N . C . to receive the Planning Board recommendation . VOTE : UNANIMOUS NOTE : ALL REMAINING ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER 1 .. ( b ) CP-4-93 Watershed Protection 2_ ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ( a ) Z-5-93 Little River Township ( b ) A-6-93 Cedar Grove Township ( c ) Z-7-93 Watershed Overlay Districts 3 . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ( a ) Article 4 . 2 . 27 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts - Intent and application Criteria ( b ) Article 6 . 23 Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts ( c ) Article 22 Definitions ( d ) Appendix Detention Pond Design standards 4 . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS ( a ) Section IV-B-1 Lot Standards ( b ) Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout ( c ) Section IV-B-8 Landscape and Buffer Requirements ( d ) Section IV-B-9 Watershed Protection Standards ( delete ) ( e ) Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments ( f ) Section V-C Specifications for Plat Drawings ( Prelim. Plan ) ( g ) Section V-D Specifications for Plat Drawings ( Final Plat ) Mary Willis presented proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas , Zoning Ordinance , Subdivision Regulations and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of extending zoning to Little River and Cedar Grove Townships and implementing State mandated watershed protection standards . On June 23 , 1989 , the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Water Supply Watershed . Protection Act . The purpose of the Act , as stated in its opening paragraph, is " . . . to protect and enhance the quality of the State ' s surface water supplies by establishing a cooperative program of water supply protection to be administered by local governments consistent with statewide management requirements established by the Environmental Management Commission ( EMC ) . " The EMC , with the NC Division of Environmental Management ( DEM ) , as its staff is the State ' s appointed board on environmental and resource protection. Its charge was to : -Develop and adopt watershed protection minimum rules , classifications and standards ; and -Classify each water supply watershed across the State into categories consistent with these rules . The EMC created five watershed classifications for freshwater 125 DRAFT 5 supplies . These classifications are based on the amount of existing and proposed development in the watershed and the quality of the water in streams feeding the water source area generally described as follows : "WS-I -watersheds are essentially natural and undeveloped with no permitted wastewater discharges . "WS-II - watersheds are predominantly undeveloped, with only General. Permit wastewater discharges allowed. "WS-III - watersheds are low to moderately developed . "WS-IV - watersheds are moderately to highly developed . "WS-V - watersheds are generally upstream of WS-IV waters and have no special watershed development or wastewater discharge restrictions . Each classification has different protection measures designed to protect the existing water quality . For example , the type and intensity of development allowed in the higher-quality WS-I and WS-II watersheds are more restrictive than that allowed in WS-III and -WS-IV watersheds . A Table prepared by ( DEM ) summarizing the minimum protection measures for each classification as adopted by the EMC is a separate enclosure . The Zoning Atlas changes create Watershed Protection Overlay Districts for the 10 water supply watersheds that are located in Orange County. The Zoning Atlas changes also include the establishment of Zoning Districts within Cedar Grove and Little River Township. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance involve standards for development within the protected watersheds and also include an appendix to the state standards which specify standards for developing detention ponds and their construction. The changes to the Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan are technical in nature and are being proposed to eliminate any unnecessary duplication. Technical consistency will be provided between the Subdivision Regulations , Comprehensive Plan and the more substantive changes of the Zoning Atlas and the Zoning Ordinance . The NC EMC has identified watersheds throughout the state which drain into drinking water supplies . Each of those watersheds has been classified into one of several categories . For each of those categories the minimum development standards have been created by the State . Local Governments must comply with those standards. For the most part , the State standards deal with minimum lot sizes , densities , impervious surface limits , and the use of detention ponds to store storm water runoff to allow for slower infiltration to settle out pollutants . Impervious surface is a critical component of this . The State ' s definition requires us to consider gravel as impervious surface which is not a county requirement in many areas at this time . The State standards also addresses stream buffers and limitations on various types of land uses allowed in different types of areas . Little River and Cedar Grove Townships are being proposed for zoning at this time . Little River Township has two basic zoning districts ( with several exceptions ) . The main recommendation is Agricultural-Residential 126 • DRAFT 6 ( AR ) zoning with a proposal for Rural-Residential ( RR ) for most of the remaining land . The boundaries of all of these areas are consistent with the current Land Use Plan . The main difference between these areas is in the RR area where there is a minimum lot width of 130 feet and the AR which has a minimum lot of 150 feet . Those figures would apply when subdividing property. The other distinction is that the AR districts allows a few more uses than the RR. Those additional uses focus on farm business activities . For example , a grain and feed store would be a use that would be allowec in the AR district but not in the RR district . In Little River there are three nodes and in Cedar Grove the base zoning for all of the Township is Agricultural-Residential with several. activity nodes . Within the activity nodes there are already areas that are being used for commercial businesses and those would be given a Local Commercial ( LC1 ) or Neighborhood Commercial ( NC2 ) designation. Ms . Willis indicated that any existing lot which is currently built upon can continue to be used for its current purpose . This was in response to the question of rebuilding after a fire . This is also true for existing commercial businesses which are in areas designated as Commercial . If the, area is not designated as commercial it would be considered a non- conforming use which would require that no expansion or rebuilding occur . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit regarding the status of green box collection sites , Ms . Willis indicated that use would be permitted in any district. Commissioner Insko asked for an explanation of the rational between the 1/2 mile radius and the 1/4 mile radius in Little River Township . Ms . Willis indicated that the Nodes with the 1/4 mile radius are designated in the Land Use Plan as the Rural Neighborhood nodes . The ones with the 1/2 radius are designated as the Rural Community Nodes . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT ROBERT NICHOLS asked for clarification of the term "stream" . Ms . Willis indicated that the solid , or dotted blue line on the USGS map is considered a "stream" . These are perennial or intermittent streams . The USGS map is used by county staff in determining streams in order to apply buffers , etc . Uses that are permitted within stream buffers are utility lines for electricity , telephone cable services , farming uses , streets , bridges and railroads . All other uses are prohibited . In response to a question from the audience , it was explained that the minimum standards are greater than the state requires due to the findings of the technical study. Non- residential uses are limited and are allowed only in the activity node . The minimum lot size is also impacted . Under current regulations , any land use type is allowed . With the new standards , non-residential uses will be 127 DRAFT 7 limited to the Activity Nodes . The other major change deals with the minimum lot size for residential development . The minimum lot size will be 2 acres with a 6% limit on the amount of area that could be covered with impervious surface . It was also clarified that EC-5 designation would need to be at least one acre , however it would rezone only the area in question. In response to a question from Dick White , Ms . Willis repeated that all current commercial uses would be grandfathered in the ordinance . GEORGE HORTON stated that the Camp , Dresser & McKee watershed study was only one of several studies available . He suggested that other sources be used as well . Mary Willis indicated that the Planning staff would be willing to use other studies to make recommendations if they were found to be accurate and helpful . She commented that the Camp, Dresser & McKee study stated that without the more stringent measures throughout the entire watershed , degradation of the water supply within those watersheds would occur . DICK WHITE requested that existing commercial zoning be considered as,- an option. Allowing non-conforming uses would allow the continuation of an existing business without opening the area to other commercial development. In response to a question from the audience , Ms . Willis indicated that if a commercial zoning district has not been established , existing businesses would continue as non-conforming . No changes , expansions or rebuilding would be permitted. Where commercial zoning is in place , rebuilding and expansion would be permitted . The "nodes" themselves are designated in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1981 . The Township elements in Little River and Cedar Grove were adopted in 1986 and the Nodes were designated at that time . They have not been applied in terms of the Zoning Ordinance because zoning has not been established in those Townships . There are means of creating new activity nodes which generally they provide a community service and are at strategic intersections . In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit , Ms . Willis indicated that expansion of a previously developed commercial establishment would require that the impervious surface ratio be met . An EC-5 zoning lot could be developed that would be non-conforming because of the impervious surface ratios , however, that lot would not be expandable unless it could meet the impervious surface ratios . Ms . Willis commented that building would be allowed on existing lots provided the dimensional requirements , such as setbacks , are met . A greater issue comes into play with non-conforming lots with a two acre minimum lot size . In the event that the land owner wanted to add an outbuilding , etc . on that lot , the State gives flexibility in dealing with that . The state normally does not require that their standards be met for DRAFT 128 8 existing lots even if they are not yet built upon . Hearing , this issue will be taken into account and pecificfrecommendations will be established so that existing lots can be built upon in a reasonable manner . She also mentioned that the approach the County is using avoids causing everything outside of the commercial areas to be non-conforming . County Attorney Gledhill commented that "spot zoning" is a term used by the Courts to tell local governments that you can ' t property. There must be a rational basis for the designation lofadifferent uses . These existing commercial districts are not considered "spot zoning" because the designation of Existing Commercial is not arbitrary. It is based on the fact that they do pre-exist the Ordinance . This Existing Commercial designation assures the property owners that they may continue the use of that property in the manner in which it is currently being used . Ms . Willis indicated that gravel surfaces are considered impervious in the University Lake Watershed . This was a change that was made several years ago . That is the only area in the county that includes gravel as impervious . The State mandate will require that gravel roads which are part of a lot be considered as impervious surface. In response to a questions from the audience , Ms . Willis indicated that the State mandate does not restrict the use of water and sewer lines . Within Orange County there is a water and sewer policy. A key aspect of that policy is that water and sewer service is limited to the transition areas which are the areas that allow for the higher density residential . The county water and sewer policy and underlying zoning is what determines this issue . County attorney Gledhill indicated that the history of the "EC" district in Orange County demonstrates the County' s approach to existing commercial uses that were not zoned "EC" at the time the zoning is put into effect. Those commercial uses are considered under the provision of the zoning ordinance that allows for amendments to the zoning atlas . For example , if there is an error in the original decision of an existing commercial use that fits the criteria used for the other commercial districts , the county would favorably consider changing that . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED FOR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS LOREN TOMPKINS , a property owner on Buck Horn Road , commented on the commercial application of the zoning in this watershed . The economic impact is substantial for the property along the interstate . He asked that the Board consider variable options , and alternatives and exceptions . He asked that the Board of Commissioners consider the expense that is incurred by the land owners when they purchase land they will not be allowed to use . He requested that railroads , farmland , state highways and interstates be considered allowable as a part of the 30%. JAMES MERGNER, Acting Chair of OWASA, presented a Resolution passed by OWASA on August 12th which authorized his comments on this issue . Those comments in summary are as follows: 129 DRAFT 9 -Strong support for strict measures for the University Lake watershed Support for amendments pertaining to the Jordon Lake Protected Area "Disagreement with proposals to weaken existing regulation in the Cane Creek Watershed -Listed interim regulations to the Cane Creek watershed . Requested more protective rules to Cane Creek than to other WS-II watersheds in Orange County -Concern over proposed amendments that would allow commercial activities in a watershed where no such uses are now permitted . Mr. Mergner' s comments , in their entirety, are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk ' s office . Ms . Willis indicated that Litter River and the Flat River are proposed at 2 units per acre with 6% impervious surface . The Cane Creek proposal , more closely reflects the State minimum, which would be one acre outside of the critical area. Commissioner Willhoit commented that upon completion of the Camp , Dresser & McKee report the Board of Commissioners urged OWASA to budget the money to study Cane Creek. BUD MAYES, owns 240 acres south of I-85 on Seven Mile Creek, and indicated extreme concern about its use . The land is restricted to two acres per lot and he urged OWASA and Board of County Commissioners to extend water and sewer into that area. Industrial/Commercial zoning on the north side of Seven Mile Creek could be good for Orange County. He also asked that a decision be made about Seven Mile Creek and the proposed reservoir. TOMMY WARREN thanked the Planning Department for all of its hard work in locating the existing businesses and zoning them appropriately. He resides in the Flat River Watershed which has more restrictions on it than Cane Creek Reservoir. He commented that he felt that an unfair burden was being placed on Orange County landowners. He asked that Person County officials be contacted in order to determine their intentions . He commented that the State guidelines call for two acres per lot or 24% impervious surface . The State says that if a lot exceeds the minimum lot size , no impervious surface restrictions may be placed upon that lot . He stated that he attended a seminar hosted by Camp, Dresser and McGee and was advised that the only way to remove the pollutants is go with the detention ponds . He asked that Orange County adhere to the State requirements , if necessary , but not set higher standards . JOYCE STANFORD, a resident of Stanford Road and land owner in the Cane Creek Watershed , indicated that she opposed more restrictive zoning . The Environmental Management Commission ' s final environmental impact statement noted the socio-economic impact losses to the community because of Cane Creek. Placing all of Cane Creek Watershed in the critical area denies the property owner full use of their property. She asked the Board of Commissioners to approve the Planning Board ' s recommendation and to 0 any additional restrictions in the Cane Creek Watershed . PPose 130 DRAFT 10 PATRICK MULKEY, indicated that he agreed with Ms . Stanford ' s comments . He indicated that OWASA has a reputation for being inflexible and he believes that they are once again proving that to be true . This proposal is a setback . He pointed out that during the debate over the reservoir . boardgstrecommendations aretacceptable . undue The Plannthe land if they want to regulate all 20 , 000 acres . purchase the• BOBBY NICHOLS , a Cedar Grove resident , thanked Mary Willis for her professionalism. He indicated that last year he went to the hearing in Raleigh on watershed protection for the state . The State classified the Upper Eno Watershed as WS-4 . The Environmental Commission changed that to WS-2 . This new classification makes the Upper Eno more restrictive than required by the State regulations . He asked that the 50 foot stream buffer not be increased and that the State standards be consider He also requested that Water and Sewer be 'd sufficientt1 areas . He stated that it is much more permitted in the water cri rather than septic tanks and wells . .. progressive to have water & sewer NORMA WHITE, requested a zoning designation from AR to RR on Schley Road . This is a residential community with over 40 homes in a 2 mile- stretch. She asked that existing commercial businesses be granted non- conforming use so as to protect the residential community. She also asked the Board of Commissioners to review a business in this area. It is listed as "auto sales" , however, it is actually a paint & body shop with over 50 cars on the property. BEN LLOYD, indicated that US 70 and I-85 and I-40 all run through his 700 acre dairy farm. Also , the main line of the Southern Railway, a connector from 70 to I-85 & I-40, a 16" water line and an 8" sewer line also run through it. All of this property is in a water quality critical area, He indicated that Orange-Alamance Water Company and the Town of Hillsborough provided some of the best water in the State to their customers . He asked the Board of Commissioners to consider if they are going to protect ourselves out of business. JOHN HARTWELL, Chair of the TJCOG Water Resources Committee , indicated that the plan which is being presented is on the whole necessary and laudable . He commented on the quality of the received in the mail and on the high level of expertise David Stancil demonstrates . He indicated that he owns land in two of the watersheds and these regulations would pose no particular hardship for him or others whose property is near his . His comments apply to the Lower Eno and Upper Eno Watersheds . He agreed with Mr . Nichols ' statement regarding two acre lots with detention pond , however , detention ponds must be regional . Having ponds on each two acre lot is not the solution. He also mentioned that he Chaired Water Resources Public Hearings across this 6 county region on the issue of water and sewer. The argument against water and sewer lines comes down to the fact that sewer pump stations are bad in water quality critical areas . If sewer is put in the critical area a pump station will probably be needed because all of the lakes are in bottoms . If you run the sewer to the bottom it must be pumped out . The threat is that of a catastrophic failure of a pump 131 DRAFT 11 station. He indicated that potential problems with the current proposa_ center around impervious surface . The State indicated that the requirements could be met by "either/or" because of the cost consideration . No one thought that lot size would take care of the problem. The State ' s plan is best because it reduces cost and is simple . Lastly the flexibility in the State law as it applies to existing lots , increases stream buffers and lower impervious surface , results from efforts made by citizens at the State hearings . Severe hardships on individual , isolates cases will be the result of inflexible standards . This needs to be taken into consideration and plans need to be in place to assure that undue hardships are not placed on individuals. MR. CHOCKLEY, from Cedar Grove Township, indicated that this has been a very informative session. He asked that all of the information be seriously considered in the decision making process . A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis , to refer all of the items to the Planning Board , for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 4 , 1993 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further items for consideration, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 1993 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the 01c Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly Blythe, Clerk • 132 Agency comments were received from Emergency Management, Recreation and Parks, Soil & Water Conservation, NCDOT and Erosion Control. Applicable comments have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. ` The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Winding Branch subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval (a copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/23/93) a. Watershed Protection Standards and Zoning of Little River and Cedar Grove Townships Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Zoning Atlas (Map) Amendments Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments Presentation by Mary Willis. On August 23, 1993, a public hearing was held to receive citizen comments on proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of extending zoning to Little River and Cedar Grove Townships and implementing State mandated watershed protection standards. This item is to consider those proposed amendments and provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on November 1, 1993 for a decision. The proposed effective date of new watershed and zoning provisions is January 1, 1994 . Some of the proposed watershed standards have been revised in response to comments received during and after the public hearing. Changes which result in less restrictive standards than those advertised in the August 23, 1993 Public Hearing Notice do not need to be readvertised for public hearing. Changes which are more restrictive, or changes which were not addressed at all in the original Public Hearing Notice may need to be re-advertised. There are two 133 items that must be addressed at the November Public Hearing. One is some adjustments to the Back Creek Watershed which affect the impervious surface limits and lot size. There are also some clean-up items for the non-residential zoning lots' in Little River and Cedar Grove Townships . Willis summarized the comments and issues report. This information is an attachment to these minutes on pages . This information is all consistent with that presented at public hearing on August 23, 1993 . One issue is the recommended lot size and impervious surface limits for the Little River and Flat River Watersheds which are significantly more restrictive than the State mandate. The higher standards were proposed in response to the recommendations of a technical study prepared for the Lake Michie and Little River reservoirs. Also, in 1990, Orange County adopted standards for University Lake Watershed in response to recommendations of a technical study performed for that watershed. For these reasons, the Planning Staff originally recommended adoption of a higher standard that that required by the State mandate. Willis continued that the State mandate requires a minimum lot size or impervious surface limit, but not both. To assure that reasonable development could still occur on existing lots, impervious surface on existing lots has been calculated in accordance with a sliding scale. The percentage of impervious surface increases as lot size decreases. The Planning Staff proposes that the existing sliding scale be revised to provide for a 12% impervious surface ratio for one-acre lots (consistent with the 1-acre lot size/12% impervious surface option offered by the State mandate) , and a 6% impervious surface ration for 5-acre lots (consistent with the current requirements for existing lots in the University Lake Watershed) . The revised scale would allow less impervious surface than the existing sliding scale. The greatest change would occur in 1 .0 acre lots, which would decrease from 14% to 12% impervious surface. As the lots size approaches five acres, the differences diminish. For lot sizes between five and six acres, the impervious surface ratios of the revised scale range from . 15% to .50 % less than the current scale. Currently, gravel roads and driveways are not 134 treated as impervious surface (except in the University Lake Watershed) . The State mandate requires that gravel be considered an impervious surface. The inclusion of gravel roads and driveways in impervious surface calculations can have a significant effect on lot development, particularly for two-acre lots which have previously been subject of a six percent limit. Willis continued, giving examples of development that could occur with a 12% impervious surface limit. Review was done by the Planning Staff to determine the impact of lowering the sliding scale. (This review is included in the Comments and Issues Report. ) The Planning Staff recommends that the revised sliding scale be used to determine the impervious surface ratio for all existing lots and new lots (except for new lots in the ULW) . The overall effect of the revised sliding scale would be to meet the State mandate through lot size restrictions while also maintaining a limit on impervious surface. Willis also reviewed the Proposed Residential Impervious Surface Limits table. Waddell expressed concern with the table noting that he felt developers are being encouraged to develop smaller size lots. Willis responded that the mathematics of the scale are such that the square footage begins to drop at about 4 .5 acres, but that the amount of impervious surface is still more than adequate to allow for full development of the lots. Barrows indicated concern that the larger lots were expected to provide the provisions for rainwater runoff from the higher density lots. Willis responded that the smaller lots did have a high percentage in order to accommodate reasonable development. Barrows noted that she felt this was discriminatory. Willis responded that there is a State allowance of 10% variance from the Board of Adjustment. Eidenier asked why this recommendation is not being applied to University Lake. Willis responded that no changes are being proposed for University Lake Watershed due to the study that was done. In regard to the Flat River Watershed, Willis stated that water originating in the Orange County portion of the Flat River Watershed flows through Person County where development standards are considerably less restrictive (one-acre minimum lot size, no impervious surface limit) . Upstream protection provided by Orange County could be negated by the 135 time the water reaches Durham County and Lake Michie. The Planning Staff recommends no change to the existing minimum (net) lot size of 40 , 000 square feet (with the additional provision of a gross lot area (including road right-of-way) of at least one acre) for the Flat River Watershed. Impervious surface limitations are proposed to be as in the revised sliding scale. About 2/3 of the Little River Watershed is in Orange County and covers a significant portion of Little River and Cedar Grove Townships . Downstream development includes the residential portion of the Treyburn Development, which is located immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Existing standards in Durham County and Durham City require a two-acre minimum lot size and six percent impervious surface limit throughout the watershed. However, runoff from existing development bordering the reservoir could negate some of the upstream watershed protection measures. The Planning Staff maintains its recommendation of a two-acre minimum lot size, as proposed at the public hearing, but recommends that the impervious surface limit be as in the revised sliding scale. The upper limit for impervious surface within WS-IV watersheds is proposed to be changed from 50% to 70% to correspond with the limits allowed by the State mandate. In preparing the draft Ordinance, it was the intention of staff to apply the limits as allowed by the State mandate. The 50% limitation, which is required only within WS-IV critical areas, was an oversight. Willis continued with the requirements pertaining to septic tanks and nitrification fields. The requirement for 300 ' septic setbacks and 150 ' building setbacks in Critical Areas is proposed to be deleted entirely. DEM and Orange County Environmental Health require only a 100 ' setback from streams for septic tanks and nitrification fields. Environmental Health has indicated that application of the 300 ' septic setback often result in the residence itself having to be set back almost an equal distance, even though the required setback is only 150 feet. The mandated standard that septic tanks and nitrification fields be located at least 100 ' from perennial or intermittent streams is proposed to be moved from Article 6.23 .4 Setbacks 136 (deleted) to Article 6.23 . 10 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities. Orange County standards currently require that septic systems require that septic systems be located outside of stream buffers. The minimum width of stream buffers is 50 ' . Larger buffers may be required, depending on slope and vegetation. Outside of Critical Areas, the maximum buffer width is 150 ' . Within Critical Areas, there is no maximum width. The Planning Staff recommends that septic disposal systems be located outside of stream buffers, or 100 ' from an intermittent or perennial streams, whichever is greater. Burklin asked if the 300 ' setback is based on a study. Willis responded that was in place when she began work with Orange County. She noted that review with Environmental Health indicated they have no concern with a 300 ' setback. Burklin asked if DEM had addressed that issue and Willis responded no. Collins stated that the 300 ' came from a document titled "Environmental Planning" . The section on wastewater disposal related to environmental concerns stated a recommended requirement of 300 ' in critical areas. Collins continued that CDM considered all of University Lake Watershed a critical area, thus, the 300 ' requirement. However, CDM did not recommend 300 ' . Willis continued that another issue was stream buffers. Application of the proposed stream buffer requirements on existing lots which were not subject to stream buffer standards at the time of subdivision approval could result in difficulties in developing the lot. Such difficulties can be addressed through submittal of a variance request to the Board of Adjustment. Because the State does not mandate that buffers be applied to existing lots, there is no minimum buffer width which must be maintained if a variance is approved. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed stream buffer standards continue to apply to existing and new lots in all watersheds, as is currently required. Property owners can request a variance from the Board of Adjustment if application of the full width creates a hardship. Cantrell asked if the general public seems to be 137 comprehending the concept of the stream buffers. Willis responded that there had been no recent inquiries regarding the stream buffers. The next item reviewed by Willis was restrictions on the use of septic easements. Currently, the use of off-site septic easements (except as needed for repair area) is prohibited in the University Lake Watershed. In the amendments presented for public hearing in August, it was proposed that the ULW restrictions pertaining to septic easements be extended to apply to all protected watersheds. The Orange County Division of Environmental Health reviewed the provisions and indicated that the prohibition of individual off-site septic easements would not enhance water quality, and that allowing easements could be beneficial in some cases due to greater flexibility in locating and designing septic systems. In response to these concerns, it is recommended that there be no change to current regulations regarding the use of septic easements. The Subdivision Regulations require the lot on which the septic easement is located contain at least 20, 000 square feet in addition to the minimum lot size required by the zoning district. It is recommended that this provision also be made explicit in the Zoning Ordinance. Willis continued addressing construction of non- residential BMPs in residential zoning districts. Parking lots, septic systems and water supplies are required to be located within a zoning district that allows the primary use which the facilities serve. The same provision would apply to non-residential detention. The result of this provision is that the non- residential zoning lot may require a significant amount of land area for infrastructure needs. The acreage requirement does not pose a significant problem in Commercial or Industrial Activity Nodes ( such as those in Efland or the vicinity of I-85 near the Durham County line) . This limit could be a problem in Rural Activity nodes when there is a limit of 10 acres of non-residential zoning which can be approved with in the node. The Planning Staff recommends that detention ponds be located on the same zoning lot as the development 138 that it serves, as is currently required. It is further recommended that acreage limits which apply within Rural Activity Nodes be reviewed and modified as needed to account for acreage needs associated with project infrastructure. The next issue reviewed by Willis was the use of regional BMPs as opposed to individual on-site BMPs. On-site detention ponds may pose significant problems in developing lots for non-residential use, particularly lots that are relatively small, such as individual businesses on one or two-acre lots . A pond for a small development would probably cover 1/2 acre or more, with the specific location dictated by topography. At this time, the State mandate makes no provision for the development of regional facilities. Several jurisdictions, including Orange County have discussed the issue with DEM staff. Use of regional BMPs to satisfy the State mandate may be possible, but will require close work with DEM to develop acceptable design and other standards. In addition to design standards for the facilities themselves, there is the issue of funding. If a regional facility is to satisfy detention pond requirements for individual developments, then that facility must be constructed before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the development. There is little reliable information on cost estimates for regional detention ponds in North Carolina. According to DEM, the data that is available pertains to other areas in the country where cost factors differ from those likely to be encountered in this area. The only locale in North Carolina which has any experience with regional BMPs is High Point and that experience is somewhat limited. Regional BMPs facilities would most likely be constructed by the County. The costs could be recouped through establishing a special assessment district or collecting impact fees. Until such time as a regional facility was in place and functioning, new development would be required to provide an on- site BMP sufficient to serve the development until the regional BMP was completed. Regional BMPs may, in the long term, be a desirable approach to stormwater management. However, it is an issue that will require significant study to estimate cost, and to develop funding alternatives. 139 In addition, County staff would need to work with DEM to reach agreement on design standards and other issues to assure that a regional approach would meet the State mandate. These issues can be pursued in the coming year. In the interim, individual on-site facilities are necessary in order to comply with State requirements. The Planning Staff recommends no change to the proposed standards. Discussion followed with Willis describing a regional facility, the need for one and the process. Reid asked who would create the original BMP noting that it should be in place prior to development. Willis responded that the County would have to start a funding process. She noted that it is not reasonable to assume that developers of several properties would be developing at the same time and providing sufficient BMPs for several developments. The last substantive issue is that of Cane Creek Watershed. OWASA and the Town of Chapel Hill have requested significantly higher standards in Cane Creek Watershed. Several property owners were opposed to higher standards. The standards proposed for the Cane Creek Watershed at the August 23 public hearing included a 2-acre minimum lot size/6% impervious surface limit in the Critical Area, and 40,000 square foot minimum lot size/12% impervious surface limit in the balance of the watershed. The Land Use Plan does not currently provide any areas for commercial or industrial development, however an amendment is being considered which, if approved, would allow the creation of a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node at Bradshaw Quarry Road and Orange Grove Road. Up to ten acres within the Node could be rezoned to the LC-1 Local Commercial or NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts. Industrial use would continue to be prohibited. The proposed Node lies outside of the Critical Area. Willis made reference to resolutions from OWASA and the Chapel Hill Town Council and a letter from the Town of Hillsborough (attachments to these minutes on pages ) . Willis noted that a study is anticipated for Cane Creek Watershed but is not yet underway. The Staff is not recommending adopting more strict standards as an interim measure until that study has been 140 done. The Planning Staff recommends application of a two- acre minimum lot size throughout the Cane Creek Watersheds recommended in the study' prepared for the University Lake Watershed. Also recommended are impervious surface limits as provided in the revised sliding scale. Further consideration will be given to recommending more stringent standards upon completion of the technical study for Cane Creek, if so recommended by the Study. Due to the low level of residential development activity in Cane Creek Watershed, the Planning Staff finds that the application of standards proposed will not have any measurable detrimental effect on water quality, even if higher standards are recommended upon completion of the technical study. A table was included summarizing development in the Cane Creek and University Lake Watersheds between 1984 and 1993. (A copy of the table is an attachment to these minutes on page . ) Although both watersheds contain about the same area, more than three times as many lots have been created in the University Lake Watershed than in Cane Creek. The definition of Critical Area in Article 22 (Definitions) differs from the description of the Critical Area description in Article 4 .2 (Intent and Application Criteria) . The Critical Area is proposed to extend one-half mile from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. This definition is correctly reflected in Article 4 .2 .27b) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts - Application Criteria, which includes a description of the location of each overlay district. The Critical Area definition provided in Article 22 (Definitions) in the draft text presented for public hearing was incorrect, and has been revised to be consistent with Article 4 .2 .27b) . The Planning Staff recommends that the Critical Area be defined as: The land area within one-half mile of the normal pool of an existing or proposed watersupply impoundment or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. Eidenier asked what comments OWASA made regarding the expansion of American Stone Quarry. Willis responded that OWASA did not make a statement at the 141 public hearing so it is assumed that they are in favor of the expansion. She noted that OWASA does have some agreements with some of the property owners. This property is in the University Lake Watershed. The proposed amendments are attachments to these minutes on pages . Willis noted some minor corrections and these are included on the attachments. Barrows asked if OWASA customers could be required to recompense those property owners who would be unable to have full development potential of their property due to lower densities in the Cane Creek Watershed. Collins responded that a Purchase of Development Rights program could be developed with OWASA through its water rates. Collins continued that the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board is working on a proposal for a Purchase of Development Rights program. He continued that OWASA prefers low density residential development rather than preservation of farms in the watersheds. Eidenier suggested that a separate resolution concerning Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) . Barrows again expressed concern that those receiving a service should pay and those providing the service should receive. Other board members indicated concern with those who should receive compensation for the loss of the ability to develop their property. Barrows suggested that this concern be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. MOTION: Burklin moved to recommend adoption of the Planning Staff recommendations. Seconded by Hoecke. Waddell expressed concern again with the ratio table: He expressed agreement with the sliding scale but wanted it to be such that it would induce people to have larger lots. More discussion resulted in the amendment to the motion that dispensing with the scale beyond 5 acres and all else have 6%, would address Waddell's concerns. This was accepted as an amendment by the first and second to the motion. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Scott - felt that too much was being done too quickly) . 142 Jobsis proposed that a resolution be forwarded to the County Commissioners expressing the Planning Board's concern with the development rights of landowners if the minimum lot size restrictions exceed two acres . Seconded by Barrbws. Waddell stated that he felt the Commissioners are already aware of the Planning Board's concern and would not like to be further reminded. He felt that they would respond asking for a solution and the Planning Board does not have a solution. Barrows indicated she would like for the Commissioners to hear this concern from the Planning Board again. Burklin noted that this would be a good topic for an inter-board discussion. Other members indicated they felt that there was not time for a meeting with the Commissioners prior to the State mandated date of January 1, 1994 . Jobsis stated that she felt a very non-hostile statement could be forwarded to the Commissioners to make them aware of the on-going questions of development. Reid asked if it could be presented some way other than a resolution. Willis stated that this concern could be included in the Staff report to the Board of Commissioners. The first and second to the motion did accept that, rather than a resolution, the concern could be included in and emphasized by Willis in the Staff report. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Waddell, Scott) . AGENDA ITEM #10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Proposed Meeting With Board of Commissioners Burklin noted that there are several issues that he felt would be beneficial to discuss with the Commissioners. Some of these are water/sewer issues, water rights, Hillsborough Cooperative Planning, Rural Character options, Mebane and Durham Cooperative Planning, and ways to handle the equity issue. He suggested that as soon as the Planning Department has the time to prepare a presentation a forum of exchange be conducted with the Board of Commissioners. He felt that since such a meeting �- /- �. Excerpts: Watershed Management Plan: Lake Michie and Little River Watersheds Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1989 3.4 NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADING MODEL 3.4 .1 DELIVERY RATIO/TRAVEL TIME The nonpoint pollution loading factors shown in Table 3-2 represent measurements of loadings which have been discharged into a storm sewer, swale, or stream channel. For urban and agricultural land uses, sediment deposition during overland flow is already accounted for. Therefore, these loading factors represent discharges into the stream channels upstream of Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir. In large watersheds like Lake Michie and Little River, where maximum instream travel times are one day or greater, the storm event loadings discharged to streams are likely to be reduced (e.g. , sediment deposition) enroute to the reservoirs. Since large infrequent flood events can scour out stream beds and transport deposited pollutant loads downstream, some studies make the assumption that 100% of the nonpoint pollution loadings discharged into a stream will ultimately be delivered to the water supply reservoir. For the Lake Michie/Little River study,: we were requested to incorporate a pollutant delivery ratio into annual loading evaluations. - The delivery ratio method used in this study is an approximation of relative differences in pollutant delivery potential for various locations in the watershed. This pollutant delivery ratio method is consistent with the nonpoint pollution loading factors (Table 3-2) in that it only accounts for pollutant decay during instream transport to the water supply reservoir. Locational differences in the discharge of pollutants into streams are not accounted for, although land areas which adjoin a stream are likely to deliver a higher loading than land areas which are further removed from the streambank. Because there is insufficient monitoring data available in the literature on relative_differences in-pollutant loadings - for "onstream" and "offstream" sites, it is generally assumed that the available monitored loading factors (e.g. , Table 3-2) reflect an average of the two: In other words, within the single land use test watersheds which were monitored to develop these loading factors (e.g. , NVPDC, 1979; USEPA, 1983b) , it -is assumed that- the- areas adjoining the drainageway produced a -- 3-19 higher pollutant delivery ratio and that the upland areas produced a lower delivery ratio, with Table 3-2 representative of the composite loadings. The approach used to estimate the pollutant delivery ratio is based upon travel time from the lake to the point of runoff discharge. This method assumes that suspended pollutants can be settled out in a stream channel while being transported to a lake. The methodology applies to suspended pollutants only, with dissolved pollutants assumed to exhibit 100% delivery to the lake. In addition to being useful for evaluations of water quality impacts of nonpoint pollution loadings, the pollutant delivery ratios can be used to identify the most critical sections of the watershed in terms of pollutant delivery potential. } Later in this report, sensitivity studies which assume 100% pollutant delivery from all sections of the watershed are presented. These . sensitivity studies demonstrate that watershed management conclusions would not change if it was assumed that all sections of the watershed delivered 100% of their pollution discharges to Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir. Ideally, the delivery ratio method should be applied to the range of storm events which occur over the course of one or more years for determinations-- of travel time contours and long-term pollutants deposition rates. The selected approach approximates long-term impacts by using regional statistics on "average" rainstorm conditions. Based upon statistics on the mean duration and mean- volume for regional rainfall events, travel time 4 contours were developed for Lake Michie and Little River watersheds and pollutant delivery ratios were estimated based upon sedimentation calculations for channel transport periods. Since settling velocities for specified particle sizes only apply under it quiescent flow conditions, the duration of turbulent flow resulting from . -- rainfall runoff is an important assumption. For approximate delivery ratio -'j calculations, based upon triangular hydrograph approximations, it is reasonable to assume that the maximum duration- of turbulent flow in the 4 major stream channel system is about_1.5 .to_2.0_times the rainstorm 3-20 duration. Since storm events in the Durham region have a mean duration of about 8 hours, the maximum duration of turbulent streamfiow conditions lg which may preclude settling of suspended pollutants is 12 to 16.hours. It Figure 3-2 illustrates the use of this method to develop pollutant delivery ratio contours for Lake Michie and Little River Watershed. The travel time and pollutant delivery ratio contours were based upon the mean storm event statistics (mean duration of about 8 hours and mean rainfall volume of 0.44 inches) . Channel slopes and cross-section characteristics were defined for the main stem channel system in each watershed. Based upon rational formula calculations for existing land use conditions, flow depths for the . . mean storm event were found to be on the order of one-third of the bankfull depth throughout the watershed. Based upon the Manning equation, stream channel velocities (typically 1.0 to 1.5 ft/sec) were calculated for specified reaches and travel time contours were developed for each watershed. As maybe seen in Figure 3-2, -maximum travel times to the _ reservoirs from headwater areas are on the order of 24 to 36 hours. Settling velocities for suspended pollutants were assumed to be on the order of 0.1 ft/hr (fine/very fine silt particles) . Under the assumption that turbulent streamflow conditions (i.e. , periods of no sedimentation) , occurred for 12 to 16 hours after the start of rainfall, sedimentation rates were calculated for transport from different sections of the watershed. The sedimentation calculations were based upon the ratio of depth settled by a particle following the turbulent flow period to the total depth of flow. For example, for a location 18 hours from Lake Michie which is subject to instream sedimentation for 6 hours (18 hours travel time minus 12 hour duration of turbulent flow) , the sedimentation rate (20%) is the ratio of settling depth, 0.6 ft (based upon 0.1 ft/hr times 6 hours) , to the average flow depth (3 ft) within a 6-hour travel time from the reservoir. The corresponding pollutant delivery-ratio for a 20% __._ _ ' - sedimentation rate is 80%. ----- The pollutant delivery ratios shown in Figure 3-2 were used to calculate average annual lake nutrient budgets for each reservoir. The delivered nutrient load was calculated_by multiplying the delivery ratio by the suspended fraction of the nutrient load and adding the product to the - - -- 3-21 FIGURE 3-2 TRAVEL TIMES AND POLLUTANT DELIVERY RATIOS: • WATERSHEDS OF LAKE MICHIE AND LITTLE RIVER RESERVOIR 158 1 r , • J., 'PAIL_ ....,.-. , . ,,,4, -' (0- -.1 ...../ �� �� f� y } .1 .1 -�� f t f a I (' -� �t j �- EV� 1 ° Nip., ' , f 0 -f f t 1p' -SONC�� w z .-- - - �`— OR�IMGE Co. DU" a ��� -t ,` s • L Z rf�i 1 Q } ca • ' ' ,c ' :' ( ‹,..' ,z, ) t it,i. i i 1311 • /•P, ! ,r ° _...•[1, ii. •,°, r, L LAKE f • � � MICHIE i ■ 411/art LEGEND 'DELIVERY RATIO LITTLE RIVER 1 ■•••■• TRAVEL TIME RESERVOIR _ 3-22 dissolved nutrient load. In addition, the delivery ratio contours were used to identify critical management zones in each watershed. As shown in Figure 3-3, the area exhibiting 100% delivery of suspended pollutant loads (less than a 12-hour travel time to the reservoir) was designated as the "most critical zone," and the area upstream of the 50% delivery ratio contour (travel times of about 30 hours or greater) was designated as the "least critical." The most critical zone extends about 10 miles upstream from the water supply reservoirs, while the least critical zone begins about 17 to 18 miles upstream from the impoundments. The most stringent nonpoint pollution controls (e.g. , land use controls) are recommended for the most critical zone, while the most intensive land uses and structural controls are most suitable for the least critical zone. 3.4.2 FAILING SEPTIC TANK IMPACTS Most of the residential developments within the Lake Michie and Little River watersheds rely on household septic tanks and soil absorption fields for wastewater treatment and disposal. The nonpoint pollution loading factors for low density residential areas (Table 3-2) , which are typically served by septic tank systems are based on test watershed conditions where- the septic systems were in good working order and the septic tanks systems made no significant contribution to the monitored nonpoint pollution loads. In fact, septic tank systems typically have a limited useful life expectancy and failures are known to occur which cause localized water quality impacts. This section presents a methodology for estimating long-term and average annual septic tank failure rates, the areas most likely to be impacted by septic tank failures, and the additional nonpoint pollution loadings from -failing septic systems located close to waterways in the Lake Michie and Little River watersheds. -- A limited number of case histories for-septic-tank failures-were -obtained from the Durham County Health Department. According to Health Department - staff, most septic systems that are presently failing in Durham County were installed in the late 1960's and the 1970's. Typically these systems have either conventional- or sand filter fields. Local staff estimate that about - _ 50% of the systems installed in Durham County during these time periods • 3-23 ---* FIGURE 3-3 CRI TI CAL MANAGEMENT ZONES IN WATERSHEDS OF LAKE MI CHI E AND LITTLE RIVER RESERVOIR X. 1 158 .:::::::::::11 LEAST CRITICAL ZONE , , • -,?--t---- ".-_-_----:--•-•__ .:7--.2---.-...---__----...- ._.,. _ TI_ ■ _:^ = . w,.I, �;-` _ ` P 'SON C.f . s'1 , .. t> - - _ _'_ ; t�ir, 't'� ORi�4Ne CO. DU : ,•:.;, ?::;•.I ::::' ;'::••••`` .r :l:: • ( X:• .a .. r l Ki ` 1 r F F•. ,i. `-i r 1 e K ti a: r m .r ........:: -..,....:•: .:::.:-: :::4,6::::::::,::::::,..1.::::: .........- ,•:...........:::::::•:.•:..• -f :r r•: LAKE �� MI CHI E LEGEND : ;:: 1 1111■::;::::1::::.:::::: DELIVERY RATIO '.. .. ... ::::::..• I :::i•• LITTLE TRAVEL flUE it RIVER , �� BOUndQfy of ,t RESERVOIR MostCcriica\ Zone MOST CRITICAL ZONE Hillsborough 3-24 7. r have failed. This rate is for long-term failures of the septic system absorption fields and does not include temporary problems such as sewage backup into a house. To estimate an average annual failure rate, the time series approach proposed by the 1986 EPA report "Forecasting Onsite Soil Adsorption System Failure Rates" was used. This approach considers an annual failure rate (percent per year of operation) , future population growth estimates, and system replacement rate to forecast future overall failure rates. An annual septic tank failure rate of between 2% and 3% Ter year was assumed for the Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir watersheds. This is somewhat conservative as literature values reported for areas across the U.S. range from about 1% to 2%. Population estimates assume an annual population growth rate of 5% per year. Average household size was assumed to be 2.6 people. Based upon these assumptions, an overall failure rate of about 50% is predicted for the period 1960-1987, which is consistent with the information provided by the Durham County Health Department. The predicted overall failure rates for the periods 1960-2005 and 1960-2050 (buildout) are 57% and 62%, respectively. For average annual conditions, it was assumed that septic tank systems failures would be unnoticed or ignored for five years before repair or replacement occurred. Therefore, during an average year, 10% to 15% of the septic tanks systems in the watershed were .assumed to be failing. The "impact zone" or -the "zone-of-influence"_for_-failing:septic_tanks--.was assumed to be limited to areas within 300 ft of a stream. This is based upon overland flow lengths characteristic of Piedmont watersheds. The area within the--"impact-zone" as-determined by-multiplying by the 300-ft width by the total length of perennial and intermittent streams in each watershed. The "impact zone" for Lake Michie is about 22,300 acres or 21% of the watershed. For Little River Reservoir, the impact zone is 14,300 acres or about 23% of the watershed. 3-25 • Pollutant loading rates for failing septic systems were developed from a review of septic tank leachate monitoring studies. The mean concentrations of total-P and total-N assumed based upon literature values are as follows: Total-P Total-N Low 1.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L Medium 2.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L High 4.0 mg/L 30.0 mg/L Annual "per acre" loading rates for septic tank failures from low density residential land uses were then estimated assuming 50 gpcd wastewater flows. The loading rates were applied to residential land uses with 5-, 2-, and 1-acre lot sizes. The septic tank loading factors were added to the runoff pollution loading factors summarized in Table 3-2. The percent increase in annual per acre loadings attributed to failing septic tanks is: Total-P Total-N Low 130%-180% 120%-150% Medium 160%-250% 140%-200% High 220%-400% 180%-310% Despite the large increase in annual loading rates, septic tank failures have only a limited impact on overall .nonpoint pollution discharges into Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir. This is because the increased annual loading rates were applied only to the fraction of low density development located within the "impact zone" that are predicted to have a failing septic tank system during an average year. Based upon this methodology, failing septic tank systems occur on only about 2.5% of the watersheds. 254.4.3 AVERAGE ANNUAL NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADS Annual nonpoint pollution loadings discharged into the two reservoirs under existing land use conditions were calculated using the loading factors described in Section 3.2. The annual nonpoint pollution loadings for each jurisdiction draining to Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir are summarized in--Table 3-7 and--Table 3-8, respectively for- existing land use • 3-26 TABLE 3-7 EXISTING ANNUAL NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADINGS FOR LAKE MICHIE WATERSHED Durham Person Orange Granville County County County County Total Area (acres) 19,961 79,946 6,785 338 107,030 Percent Imperviousness 4.7% 2.0% 1.5% 0.5% 2.4% Average Annual Load o Total-P (tons) 3.4 15.5 1.3 < 0.1 20.2 (% of total) 16.7% 76.9% 6.2% 0.2% 100.0% o Total-N (tons) 37.6 179.4 15.4 0.6 233.0 (% of total) 16.2% 77.0% 6.6% 0.3% 100.0% • o Lead (tons) 0.3 0.8 0.1 < 0.1 1.2 (% of total) 26.3% 69.0% 4.7% < 0.1% 100.0% o Zinc (tons) 0.9 2.2 0.2 < 0.1 3.2 (% of total) 26.7% 68.0% 5.1% 0.2% 100.0% 3-27 TABLE 3-8 EXISTING ANNUAL NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADINGS FOR LI'ri'LE RIVER RESERVOIR WATERSHED TCM/ Durham Person Orange County County County Total Area (acres) 21,327 40,864 80 62,271 Percent Imperviousness 4.3% 1.7% 1.7% 2.6% Average Annual Load o Total-P (tons) 3.4 8.2 0.2 11.8 (% of total) 29.0% 69.6% 1.4% 100.0% o Total-N (tons) 41.3 90.3 0.6 132.3 (% of total) 31.2% 68.3% 0.5% 100.0% o Lead (tons) 0.2 0.4 < 0.1 0.7% (% of total) 34.3% 65.7% < 0.1% 100.0% o Zinc (tons) 0.9 1.1 < 0.1 2.0 (% of total) 45.0% 55.0% < 0.1% 100.0% puchnm 4('an3e Pelson 1^0l Q l 3-28 } { ti conditions. The drainage area, percent imperviousness, and average annual t! loads are summarized for each jurisdiction. s 1. ?a3 Under average rainfall conditions, the existing land use pattzrn is estimated to produce total-P discharges into Lake Michie of about 20 tons per year while total-P discharges into Little River Reservoir are about 12 tons per year These estimates represent the medium, or most likely, loading rates based upon application of the medium nonpoint pollution loading factors. The high (95th percentile) and low (5th percentile) loading factors produce annual total-P loading estimates ranging from about 10 tons per year to 55 tons per year for Lake Michie and about 5 tons per year to 30 tons per year for Little River watershed. Average annual total-N loads are approximately 235 tons per year for Lake Michie and 130 ton per year for Little River watershed. Metals loadings are directly related to the amount of urban development within the watershed. Under existing conditions, less than 5% of the watersheds is developed, therefore, metals loadings are relatively low. 4= Medium estimates of lead and zinc loads discharged to Lake Michie are 1.1 tons per year and 3.1 tons per year, respectively. Little River Reservoir, which has slightly less urban development receives approximately ' S1 0.7 tons per year of lead and 1.9 tons per year of zinc. The high (95th percentile) and low (5th percentile) loading factors.produce a range of lead discharge estimates of 0.8 ton per year to 1.8 ton per year_-for lake, Michie and 0.5 ton per year to 1.0 ton per year for Little River Reservoir. _ Comparisons of future and existing loadings presented later in this report • will show that the relative impacts (e.g. , percentage increase) of different land use alternatives are the same for medium, low, and high • loading factors. ' <f 3-29 8.0 RECOMMENDED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN 8.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the major management recommendations for Lake Michie and Little River watersheds. The recommendations cover nine major areas: o Water quality goal o Overall approach to nonpoint pollution management o Nonstructural controls o Structural BMP's o Wastewater disposal • o Institutional requirements o Financing requirements o Regulatory requirements o Ongoing watershed management program Benefits of the recommended watershed management plan are summarized in the final section of -this chapter. 8.2 WATER QUALITY GOAL, - Based upon .both quantitative and qualitative indicators, _the -existing water quality of Lake Michie appears quite satisfactory for water supply uses as. does the existing water quality projected for Little River Reservoir. Consequently, it is not necessary to specify a water quality goal-which - wouldfrequre an .improvement in water quality over existing conditions, based on the information at hand. Either the nonstructural approach or the structural BMP strategy (or combinations of the two) can sufficiently mitigate future nonpoint pollution impacts to ensure that water quality criteria are generally met. Insofar as projections of future water quality in both water supply 8-1 • reservoirs under either of the BMP strategies are consistent with water quality criteria and are approaching existing ambient levels, a goal of approximate nondegradation appears to be reasonable. This goal implies that affordable control measures will be used throughout the watershed to ensure that future urban development results in only minimal deterioration in reservoir water quality and that water quality criteria continues to be met in the future. 8.3 OVERALL APPROACH TO NONPOINT POLLUTION MANAGEMENT 8.3.1 NONSTRUCTURAL VS. STRUCTURAL APPROACHES Two different approaches to urban nonpoint pollution management were evaluated under this study: nonstructural controls and structural BMP's. Both approaches are capable of mitigating future nonpoint pollution impacts and achieving sufficient water quality protection. From the standpoint of less risk and a greater factor of safety, the nonstructural' approach (land use controls) is preferable. However, water quality management is only one of several factors which must be evaluated by local officials responsible for land use decisions. - In recognition of -the complexity of land use decisions, it is recommended .that_structural..BMP_'_s_be__designated_an acceptable alternative approach for those situations where nonstructural controls are considered to be unfeasible. Caveats regarding the deployment and maintenance of structural BMP's are outlined below. 8.3.2 LOCAL DISCRETION IN SELECTING MANAGEMENT APPROACH One of the attributes of a successful management program for multijuris- dictional watersheds is that all jurisdictions do not have to use the same types of nonpoint pollution controls. Therefore, it is recommended that each county be allowed to choose the type of nonpoint pollution control program which best suits its needs. Since both nonstructural and struc- tural controls are designated as acceptable approaches, either approach or a combination thereof should ensure sufficient water quality protection. The most critical requirement is that Person, Orange, and Durham Counties 8-2 must all participate in the watershed management program if it is to be effective. 8.3.3 CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION CONTROL The emphasis of the management evaluations in this study has been on how to control nonpoint pollution loadings from stabilized urban areas. An important assumption is that future development will comply with appropriate State and local requirements for the control of construction site erosion. In order for this assumption to hold up, an effective inspection and enforcement program in each county will be critical. In allocating local resources for inspection/enforcement activities, it is recommended that each county place its highest priority on monitoring erosion controls for construction sites in Lake Michie and Little River • watersheds. 8.3.4 AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROLS At the present time and for the next several years, agricultural land. uses will be the principal source of nutrient and pesticide loadings discharged - into Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir. The federal Farm Bill should result in greater implementation of nonpoint pollution management practices -- over the next decade. The county soil and water conservation district offices in the watershed should be encouraged to place its highest priority on fostering implementation of agricultural BMP's in Lake Michie and Little- _ River watersheds.___A_public-education program that comcmuzicates to._farmers_ ___ the water supply protection benefits of-_agricultural__BMP's should-also -be undertaken,- -Consideration might- also be--given to -supplementing -federal-and -- State cost-share programs for agricultural BMP's--in the Lake Michie and Little :River watershed: A potential source of funding is the regional cost-share program outlined below. AV 8.3.5 WS-I CLASSIFICATION Implementation of this recommended approach to nonpoint pollution manage- ment should qualify both Lake Michie and Little River watersheds for a WS-I 8-3 water supply classification, the most protective classification avails..__ from the State. Participation of all watershed jurisdictions in the nonpoint pollution management program is required to secure a WS-I classification from the State. A WS-I designation will reinforce the local nonpoint pollution management programs in that it will prohibit any point sources from being permitted in the watershed. In addition, a region with a water supply singled out by the State for its exceptional water quality and the highest possible level of protection is likely to have an edge in recruiting the new clean industries which most jurisdictions covet. 8.4 NONSTRUCTURAL CONTROLS 8.4.1 LAND USE CONTROLS • Restrictions on density and imperviousness represent the preferred approach to watershed management. For those jurisdictions which elect to rely in 'jk whole or in part upon land use controls, a 2-acre minimum lot size for single family residential development is the optimum restriction. In order to be effective at managing future nonpoint pollution impacts, the 2-acre . lot requirement must be accompanied by a 6% -imperviousness ceiling: -To ensure adequate water supply protection with land use controls alone, a minimum residential lot .size of 2 acres (6% imperviousness) should ideally be maintained throughout both watersheds. In recognition of -the-fact -that /this may not be feasible, a critical zone where land use controls are most —j desirable has been identified (see Figure 3-3) . It is recommended that land use controls be the method of choice_-withinthe-_critidal zones, and_ that intensive urban.development be discouraged in_this areal-intensive • development is more suitable for the least critical zones in the watershed headwaters. Land use controls should also predominate within the tran- sitional zone in the middle of each watershed (i.e. , area between most critical zone and least critical zone) . Jurisdictions which rely upon land use controls should still require structural BMP's for all development more intensive than a 2-acre single family residential lot size, including multi-family residential, commercial, industrial and institutional land uses. The maintenance _ _ 8-4 guidelines recommended below for structural BMP's also apply here. An effort should be made to maximize the drainage areas of structural BMP's and to rely upon a regional approach where feasible. '* 8.4.2 BUFFER ZONES Although not a panacea for nonpoint pollution management, buffer zones along streams and reservoirs should be included in the overall watershed 4' management plan package. By preventing development from encroaching upon streams, buffer zones can help minimize stream channel erosion downstream of urban development. If properly situated and kept in an undisturbed natural vegetation, buffer zones which receive sheetflow runoff (i.e. , , .. runoff which flows slowly in a "spread out" type of pattern, rather than being concentrated in a swale) from adjoining urban areas can achieve some reductions in nonpoint pollution discharges. Effective use of buffer zones can increase the overall factor of safety associated with the watershed management plan. Width (i.e. , distance from the stream to -the edge of the buffer) is -the critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a buffer zone. Recommended parameters that should be considered to determine buffer zone width include: o Amount and velocity of runoff draining through the buffer _ zone which is determined by: Land use and treatment above buffer zone Slope above buffer zone _ _ Length of slope above buffer zone Soil erodibility above buffer zone o Physical properties of the buffer zone, including: Type of vegetation within-the-buffer-zone - Slopes within the buffer zone 8-5 //- From Treyburn rezoning application Treyburn is virtually surrounded by water. Lake Hydrology Michie , to the north , supplies Durham' s water. Falls Lake , to the southeast , is Raleigh' s source. The Little River Reservoir, to be completed by January 1986 , lies to the west of the site and will augment Durham' s water supply. The Eno River , south of Treyburn , runs east-to-west. It joins with the Little river, which runs through Treyburn , to feed Falls Lake. The Flat River, running from Lake Michie to Falls Lake , is to the east. All three of these rivers have an average width of 30 to 40 feet although this varies along their length. Three main watersheds have been defined by the ridges on the site ; the Little River Watershed , the Eno River Watershed , and the Flat River watershed. The Little River Watershed is the largest on the Treyburn property although only a small portion actually drains into the reservoir. The majority drains into the Little River. The western boundary of this watershed will ultimately define the Water Quality Critical Area. All of Treyburn is in the watershed of the Fall River reservoir and drains into class C portions of the lake. However, there are two other watersheds within the Flat River; the Little River and the Eno River watersheds. Approximately 300 acres of the 100 year floodplain lies within the Little River watershed. This area can be used for recreation or as pervious areas of developable Iparcels . The Eno River Watershed lies in the southern portion of the site. The smallest of the three, it drains into the Eno river. ' There are seven perennial streams on the site. The size of these streams fluctuates with the amount of rainfall . The importance of their preservation is irecognized. Scattered throughout the Treyburn property are approximately six pockets of water (agricultured ponds) ranging in size from one to five acres. These small water bodies can be used as amenities and potential sources of irrigation supply. •e 2.6.1 _ . ' u4',),;-•:•"1-' t$uCMw - c SUN DIAGRAM •-_ !�• ,1;,.., ,... , - .. ,- -...„ •...,,.- __.(0)_ ..., . • ....,, ,.. . . .. .., • .,., . . . , . . . , ......r , . ,, ,,. . ..: . . .," „.....,...... , _ , • .,_,,..„ , . . ,,.WIND DIRECTION ile !.. ." ,II'x , , i tom;"` i.�i §'!� ` �`i. ,1 • .•,'•� i� _ ` h �. Ridge ` '1' _ — L>, • { ■ 1 1t .. ..,_. . .._... _.,.... i 1 +. _ f •4-.. 8 1 1' 1. ,. !A b i ... .f.5. .\\\....,,_,._(. .. _..,,..,,,,., . :, .' J; ;-. -I 4247, � tit ' ,� .\ k",' C �I .-- tia a�pa.fi n'+o V i� 1 a✓� 4.0 1/Y�s���p Lam- . • 1 \,..„....•• Yr A ,ts 1 'per, J V - �** P :N.1 . W j1fi . • _ i - g... � t • w,., - " --- -..,r„ c — — . ' cif T .4-.+ mo • ... f urnE + t• s. ( ' RIVER S r R y • , i�r f' i��rt'J 2•+ o• ."sy 4 41,1:---,4 .,: '':,. ,. . e ■ 1„... t am• �._ j f A` �•: ' � -e a i t'� , ri �.i,Wi. 4Z 1. - Nom. .�,, > .>iN!1 . ..,! ' --.;..-,.e.,7V2'.-1-,'..t y..i.t,.-• • • : '-.":. • .; 1 ;, - -%1 .. Illit' ' ' il. '''f:';'-''''.21--,-----7''.- -- - r f�. s .r • '. � " I r :1f r, -- g �� _ HYDROLOGY& CLIMATE - —_ IE\��/Qt , - T DURHAM RESEARCH PROPERTIES. INC ` , p t�V RN - EDWARD O.STONE JR.A ASSOCIATES•PLANNERS ANO LAVn SC ARE ANAME[C'S _.•_� - n,'�orth Carolina Master Plan i'3 4' ACRES li i INDUSTRY 368 il RESEARCH 1, 615 ''i OFFICE 161 i COMMERCIAL 319 AIMULTI—FAMILY 336 riSINGLE FAMILY 458 4 R-20 HOUSING 160 9 s GOLF .580 SPORTS/FIELDS TENNIS 56 COMMUNITY SERVICES/ SCHOOLS 63 OPEN SPACE 332 }, EASEMENTS - 175 ROADS 549 TOTAL 5,172 • 1 I 3.1.2 . I \\ • \, LAKE M -IE g . Ridge Lines � Cdca;nOng into reeeNo\r, f • SI \\ l ��• • , \� z- • Iit A A .A,Iii \\\ „--•-•: -.1 / JL ` N.04.: . :.------...-.-3\--' ii\7 1 \ • I )l • ---< ' ' .4....r..1, i no �c/ 1, \l\` \', ,>�\ n•�M \,`[[y / STAGVLLE FARM \•'ii a[ 1 q•Ac • \� !r\�-- r,i RESERVOIR •,./. .�. \.(—"N !r°// `' I \, \�� .J \: JO ,,,......‘..7...., / 'll u 1. I I � �; • .sir, ./A\. - : ,4. \\ `.. �,: �/c ,cam/s;,f AC /� II iL/ C I✓l• r(�Z� �.. � '-� s�1Dm' '...∎-n—SIC 11U�FAFNf6S11 FARM '' ''''C--\ LEGEND C `4. ;"�v•/ fAc 1, \� • °\ )py INDUSTRIAL • 388 am, •-..."`■ T*10.LL (RA _ `` TiAI j w AC .. \»AC I 1 RESEARCH APPLICATION 1,615 AC11ta e�.`r •-. k; - a< \ ' \ / c `� C • OFFICE 161 Acnu % I ,...,,..„,4 c .\-":" ✓ 9 ∎�� p�. COMMERCIAL 319 acmes \ ����'-°, �� ro �TAL i (tat r `rAfi n K -°^ �' •I I SMlGLE FAMILY HOUSING 618 AcnE• `—wATEw , i/ ^�^ Irotx.rar A La WAC 1••AC a0T U re II ll WEE ISO AC 240 U V E140 RWF' C •WAC *0 0 AC 100 5 - l//f°' f.f.,7 AC 100 5 111 I MF 1 MULTI—FAMILY HOUSING 338 nn�a - L •{VAC ••AC 2•4117 / - -� T. •WAC 9•4 AC 1011 V Q. 12 WAC •1 AC 1021 / K IA WAC •a AC I102 U 'I / 9 II I COMMUNITY SERVICES 83 ACRES / I I GOLF 580 ACRES l' / CONCEPTS as 1M CWT*1�BOTE.O2 I TO TWO RECREATION `�J/ IMPROVE THE MASTER KAM.WE REaERYE THE won 58 ACRES TO"EYIE. III Q I/ - ALL AC EAOES WTO MME A. OIU••TE. OPEN SPACE 332 50505 TSCAU:T•r-r •r•••en 1,v ® 1�1 EASEMENTS 724 ACRES MASTER PLAN PS TOTAL SITE AREA 5,172 ACRES �� ° • •.o ,... sm Wes 1 i J _ - A T�,TREYBURN oow wi S A•oclAtu•aAr•Ern AM] ARC+eTLrn TS - 3.1.3 7 =-..y"' ---1=M-'724.—•--K IoYO.�tl • i)urh.Im.\urth ( ,rrulma' _ _. _ = A�w...MOM Ia.... RJYIC ANG•DArrc.�a1v.R.0 •- MINT > U.1 W Z to a ¢ Q 2 J u a CI. N C CC I_w- m m >- •l_... �; . g i- •2 III} • L,. r 1 , I i• .'I li 1 J . L± A -• I tip .._\,,,....../,,,,,,,,,// • W \ I t/ - z C }'"\. 6 II iI' W J '17%; ' i.%• • .�' 1L'' i g • ;1 ji !. )-- ',.,,, (,,,---.„,:kt 33 i , / • .•`. '\ , >, , _ ; • .. II _ .y,�, ,i' g ' ,' �' �' III -,_`.. 1) it. ' •, - --;""%:• \_ II ti;. _• 1 '/ 1 '\I?1 0 _c: 'J, 111 ) "` •,./ 1 , -;I:,''U= '1 D.' 1 I 714' •• ' ` , y • . :I -,..vz - .7.;1'r_ 1/ ,, \ .1 ``' 1 _` r \il ,ti. : • ,v.„...:l I ' • l . ,, �i ,, :7 �� . , .•' III • I p b' / y , \,/... ,....._ 4.-1-._I . .' i %,?3, „, \I k r5 7 1, .. . , . ..lit .„.-',./..A- .. • ;1. - • III a!\ /'! gr II 1- I `'' •. ,..S III •IN ��d a\� P.-/ _ 11 I;III pal N. • s 1• 4�', I /7- 7- 73 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER ALICE GORDON • FROM: DAVE STANCIL 4S Comprehensive Planner II/Land Use and Environment DATE: October 28, 1993 SUBJECTS: 1) LITTLE RIVER/LAKE MICHIE "MOST CRITICAL ZONE" 2) TREYBURN INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY On Tuesday evening, you asked me to gather information about the above issues regarding Little River watershed. I am writing to inform you of my findings . As suggested, I am providing a copy of this material to members of the Board of Commissioners, the County Manager, and Planning staff involved in watershed planning. First, I have copied excerpts from the 1989 Watershed Management Study: Little River/Lake Michie Watersheds that deal with the "most critical zone" in terms of pollutant travel time to the reservoirs. I have attached the entirety of Section 3 .4, "Nonpoint Pollution Loading Model" . Most of the narrative deals with modeled delivery ratios for pollutants entering streams in the watersheds. At the top of page 3-23, the "most critical zone" concept is defined as the area within a 12-hour travel time to the reservoir. The following page, figure 3-3, shows the boundaries of the "most critical zone" (shaded) . I have also enclosed sub-sections 8 . 1 - 8.4 of the "Recommended Watershed Management Plan" . On page 8-4, the middle paragraph references the critical zone shown on Figure 3-3 as a fallback recommendation, if the study recommendation of land use controls (two-acre lots and six percent impervious surface limits) for the entire watershed are not found to be feasible. In regard to Treyburn, you asked about the internal topography and hydrology of the project as it relates to the water intake of the adjacent Little River Reservoir. I have spoken with Dick Hails, Assistant Director of the Durham City-County Planning Department on this subject. Please find attached excerpts from the approved 1985 Treyburn rezoning, including text and a map showing hydrology/climate, plus a table and map on the land use pattern of this mixed-use development. In addition, I have a larger map of the topography and hydrology on loan from Durham. In general, there are two portions of Treyburn that adjoin the Little River Reservoir, referred to respectively as the east, or "right" bank; and the west or "left" bank. The "right bank" contains single-family residential uses (the commercial/industrial area lies across the ridge line out of this watershed) . Only a portion of these houses are on land that actually flows into the reservoir (see hydrology map) , as many homes are on land that drains into Little River, downstream of the impoundment. All of the houses are served with Durham city sewer. Wastewater (and stormwater) from the "right bank" residential area is piped out of the watershed via a gravity flow sewer line which takes the wastewater/stormwater up the shoreline, and through a ridge cut into another sub-basin. The only sewer pumps on the "right bank" are basement pumps in some houses which would lift the wastewater to sewer lines in the streets. The "left bank" of Treyburn (Phase IV) is undeveloped at this point, but would also consist of single-family residences that would use city sewer service. The final map in this enclosure shows the site plan for this phase of Treyburn. Wastewater from the "left bank" residential development will also be piped out of the watershed into the Durham system, via a unique "double" sewer line. Should a malfunction occur with one sewer line, the wastewater will be shifted into the second parallel line. Other backup systems are also in place to help control any potential system problems. However, the sewer lines on the "left bank" are not gravity-flow, but are force mains pumped via pump stations - which would be located in the residential area. Because of these engineering techniques that keep wastewater and stormwater from entering the lake, it is the opinion of Durham staff that there is little impact from Treyburn on the water quality of Little River Reservoir. I will bring the large version of the Treyburn hydrology map to the November 1 meeting in case there are any questions. I hope this information proves helpful, and please let me know if I can be of further assistance. copies: Board of Commissioners John Link, County Manager Marvin Collins, Planning Director ,/Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board Gene Bell, Planner III-Comprehensive Mary Willis, Planner III-Current Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor Emily Cameron, Planner II - Current BOARD OF ALDERMEN ITEM NO. AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: November 16, 1993 SUBJECT: REPORT ON ORANGE COUNTY'S PROPOSED WATERSHED PROTEC- TION STANDARDS AFFEC'T'ING CANE CREEK DEPARTMENT:PLANNING PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO ATTACHMENTS: FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Regulation and OWASA Comment .Roy M. Williford, 968-7713 Summary 2. November 11, 1993 Letter to Moses Carey from Mayor Kinnaird 3. OWASA Comments 4. Chapel Hill Adopted September 27, 1993 , Resolution 5. • Orange County Comments and Proposed Ordinance 6. Proposed Resolution for Ado'ti❑n Mammon THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED: ( )Purpose ( )Action Requested ( x)Analysis (x)Summary ( x) Recommendation SUMMARY On August 23,1993 Orange County held a public hearing to consider amendments to their Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations for the purpose of implementing State-mandated watershed protection standards due January 01,1994. The Orange County Planning Board made recommendation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on November 01,1993. The Board of Commissioners delayed action on these amendments until November 16, 1993. On November 09,1993,the Carrboro Board of Aldermen discussed relevant comments submitted by OWASA to Orange County. As a result of their discussion,they directed that a letter be sent from the Town to the Orange County Board of Commissioners requesting that they delay their discussion to give Carrboro an opportunity to complete its review and to make comment(letter attached). The Aldermen also directed the staff to present a report on the County's proposed watershed protection ordinance revisions. ANALYSTS: The attached"Summary of Proposed Cane Creek Watershed Amendments and OWASA Comments" was prepared to assist in reviewing the proposed Orange County regulations and to show relevant ordinance changes addressed by OWASA. The OWASA comments made on August 23,1993 are embodied within the following three recommendations: 1. Continue to prohibit all commercial or industrial land uses throughout the Cane Creek Watershed. 2. Apply the same minimum lot impervious surface limits to the entire Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed as proposed for the University Lake Watershed,basically 5-acre minimum lot plus other strong protective measures. -- 3. Allow the provision of water and wastewater service only through individual on-site wells and disposal systems; no municipal or community level wastewater disposal. On November 11,1993 the OWASA Board adopted an additional resolution authorizing a technical study of the Cane Creek Watershed on which to base permanent regulations and requested Orange County to adopt strong interim regulations. These interim regulations should require either(a)a minimum 5-acre lot size,with imperviousness determined by the proposed sliding scale,or(b) a uniform impervious surface limit of 6%,regardless of lot size. On September 27,1993 the Town of Chapel Hill adopted a resolution supporting comments#1 and 2 made by OWASA on August 23,1993. On November-OS,19h3-the Town of Chapel Hill.reviewed-a-memo by Council Member Julie Andresen concluding that interim standards should emphasize conservative restrictions such as a 6% maximum impervious surface rather than lot size. RECOMMENDATION in view of the comments made regarding the watershed regulations proposed by Orange County for the Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed,the Administration recommends adoption of the attached resolution that supports OWASA's August 23,1993 comments and supports a detailed study of the watershed by OWASA with interim 6% impervious surface restrictions. P. 3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CANE CREEK WATERSHED AMENDMENTS & OWASA COMMENTS gran a county Re, ug I Lions W A Acomments _. 1. Overlay Districts Two overlay districts are proposed for Cane Creek: a)CAf E-CA - The Cane Creek Critical Area Overlay District that is located 1/2 mile from the normal pool of Cane Creek Reservoir, or to the ridge line of the watershed,whichever is less. b)CANE-PW- The Cane Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District that is located in that portion of the drainage basin not covered by the CANE-CA District 2. Land Use Restrictions The following land use activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are prohibited by the respective overlay zones: a)C.4NE-C4 - No new landfills are permitted; no sludge application is permitted; &no commercial or industrial uses are permitted.. b)CANE--PW-No discharging landfIlls are 'Continue to prohibit all commercial or permitted; Industrial use is limited to industrial land uses throughout the Cane non- hazardous light industrial uses Creek Watershed - characterized by low water use (less than 100,000 gpd per employee) and water used for heating and air conditioning. 3. Setbacks "existing setback requirements of 300 feet The requirement that septic tanks and their for septic systems & 150 feet for structures nitrification fields be located at least 100' should remain in place along the shorelines from perennial or intermittent streams is of University Lake & Cane Creek required by the State mandate, and has been Reservoir & along the perennial streams moved to Article 6.23.10 'Water discharging-to these impoundments _ Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities". The requirement for 300' septic setbacks and 150' building setbacks in Critical Areas is proposed to be deleted. RECEIVED FROM 919 968 7728 • P. 4 ..,_ Huy 15 '9d 1,_i:d.d 1...1Hmmr ur-, i vvvi , , ,- `A PAGE 2 3,-..z Qran�un R ut ti C}L1VASA Comments, 4. 'Residential Density - Apply same restrictions used for University C�9 N Gt1 and E" ' di s are 1 Lake Watershed: 5 acre minimum lot size dwelling unit per 2 acres. plus strong protective measures; Interim emulations for the entire Cane 5. infiltration Systems Creek'W'atershed should require either:ms and ' ��,rmwattar infiltration systems a) a minimum 5 acre lot, size, with --- - - - detention facilities are proposed for filter the imperviousness - determined --b�the- t types:1/2" of stormwater and are of two proposed sliding scale,or types: b) a uniform impervious surface limit of a)�lon-structural starmwater control: 6°%o regardless of lot size. I)on-site control through the use of impervious surface ratios; 2)aff-site control through the use of dedicated infiltration areas. b)Structural controls (detention ponds or 11114Vs) may be required where non- structural methods do of starntwa#sr _ control the fast 1/2 runoff. G)I 1)res den surface limits: �n regulatis for the a Cam I)residenttad tale for Creek Watershed with a S acre lot size /�+,( V�jT yam.& impervious s sliding scale, or a uniform impervious'oas surface surface limit of 6% 2pt.4 NEid d °6, The allowance of up to 70% impervious (,;A11rE-C4 rip to 6% pervious coverage on 5% of the Cane Creek PW surface without Slto 2 ° SMP's area should be deleted from the County's 6%to 24%with CANE-PW up to 70% with proposal.evelvpmeztt in the Cane Creek BMI�'s (after new ton-residential Watershed should be subject to the same --_ development with impervious surface regardless of the - greater strict impervious limits regar greater than 12%occurs on 5%of the residential or.non-residential nature of the - watershed, impervious surface �Y project. subsequent development may flat exceed 30%, and BNIP's will- required when impervious surface exceeds 12%.) r NOV 15 '93 1.:,.34 CARREORO TOWN HALL P.6 PAGE 3 Orange County Requiat ions t 1116A A ac�ttne its 6.Operation&Maintenance Requirements for detention (structural BMP's)are provided for 7.Placement of Streets,Driveways, and Buildings Streets, driveways, & buildings should be situated to take advantage of the absorptive capacity of the soils & to avoid environmentally sensitive areas (stream buffers, wetlands, steep slopes >15%, it identified natural areas). Subdivision plats must show proposed building envelopes & approximate driveway locations. 8. Undisturbed Area CANE-CA (only): a) A minimum of the area necessary to meet impervious surface requirements shall remain undisturbed during the construction process b) the area to remain undisturbed shall include portions of the lot utilized for stormwater infiltration call clearing limits shaft be clearly marked &visible • 9.Stream Buffers a) CANE-CA. The buffer width shall be the width calculated using "Method A" which is "The width of the buffer shall be - (50) fifty feet twill the edge of the flood plain plus the slope value multiplied by four." b)CAIVE--PW The buffer width shall be • the width calculated using "Method A" or 150 feet whichever is less. 10) Water Supply / Sewage Disposal Facilities Allow the provision of water & waste New septic tanks &their nitrification fields water service only through individual on shall be located outside of any stream site wells & disposal systems; no buffers, or 100 feet from a perennial or municipal or community level waste water intermittent stream as shown on the USGS disposal. Quadrangle maps,whichever is further. Existing set back requirement of 300 feet 11) Clustering for septic systems& 150 feet for structures The number of lots cannot exceed the should remain in place for University Lake, number allowed by-the base zone & cannot Cane Creek, &their perennial streams. be less than 50%of the base lot size. _ _ --- „ • • . . . ' • . • . . . . . . . • • ■•.-ft - -1- , *- , • __ ,:.....3 1 • . FIGURE 3-2 4 TRAVEL TIMES TO UNIVERSITY LAKE . . .4 4 6 HOUR 4 r ` 3 HOUR i /-- / ...... STOldff QU/Yi{ty I it 1�" 14 /Rt R ( /!/ .... ' 3 WUR ,cis;) 1 ill 1 i ,r r , 1 ,. I { 4 i t k, ./ :LA - 1 1 ` 1 UNWCRS�TY �/ 1 ,ux[ _ \ t 1 of �. "I 1 2000 0 2000 4000 t, ‘ \- ...., � . -—— coma co. `'/� imil ` CNATNAII CO. 0. 1......H- LEGEND - - ' - . - 1 11 --- TRIBUTARY — — TRAVEL TIME CONTOUR - JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY `- ill .•■ WATERSHED BOUNDARY inn 3-25 4, _.: ///h2 ��1^^ TOWN OF CARRBORO 1 [ei b 05 p/ j 4 F r l t ��.— i NORTH CAROLINA i• Z II G •' ' n n"^T CA� " November 11, 1993 Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Moses : At the end of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen' s meeting on November 9, 1993, the Board briefly discussed the proposed watershed amendments for Orange County and comments submitted by OWASA. Concern was raised about the Cane Creek Watershed. It was expressed that although this watershed is not a part of the joint planning agreement, it certainly falls within the spirit of it. Since this facility serves the citizens of Carrboro, the town has a joint interest in preserving the water quality of Cane Creek. In particular, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County have exerted a considerable amount of energy to provide the highest degree of protection for its water supply watersheds and would not want to take any actions which would undermine those efforts resulting in a lessening of the water quality. It is our understanding that the Board of Commissioners may take action at its next meeting concerning the Cane Creek Watershed. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen directed that I formally request that the Board of Commissioners postpone its decision on these watershed amendments until the Carrboro Board of Aldermen has an opportunity to prepare comments for the Commissioners ' consideration. The Board of Aldermen will be considering this matter at its mee17.3ig on November 16, 1993 . It is also requested that a joint public hearing on this matter be considered. Your consideration and positive response to these requests would be appreciated. Sincerely, Eleanor Kinnaird Mayor cc: John Link, County Manager P. O. BOX 829 • 301 WEST MAIN STREET,CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27510 • (919) 942-8541 • FAX (919) 968-7737 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ////1/2, DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) UNIV-CA Same as Residential (See previous Table) UN1V-Pw CANE-CA Up to 6% impervious surface without BMPs, U-ENO-CA 6% 24% with BMPs. CANE-PW Up to 70% impervious surface without BMPs 1. LITTLE-PW HYCO-Pw BACK-PW FLAT-Pw U-ENO-PW Up to 70% impervious surface, with BMPs required when impervious surface exceeds 12%. 1 _. L-ENO-PW Up to 6047e- 70% impervious surface, with BMPs HAW-PW required when impervious surface exceeds 24% (if JORDAN-PW curb and gutter is used) or 36% (no curb and gutter). 1 After new non-residential development with impervious surface greater than 12% occurs on 5% of the watershed, impervious surface for subsequent development may not exceed 30%, and BMPs will .be required when impervious surface exceeds 12%. - PROPOSED WATERSHED PROTECTION STANDARDS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Watershed New Lots Existing Lots UNIV-CA 2-acre/5-acre min. lot size Sliding Scale UNIV-PW 6% impervious surface Options: 1. Existing ULW Scale 2. Planning Staff Scale 3. Planning Board Scale CANE-CA 2-acre min. lot size Sliding Scale -) U-ENO-CA 6% impervious surface - CANE-PW (See Options above) LITTLE-PW __ BACK PW .92-acre min. lot size 12% impervious surface _ FLAT-PW. 12% impervious surface HYCO-PW U ENO•PW L-ENO-PW Min. lot size per zoning district___ _ ._24%/36% impervious surface HAW-PW 24%/36% impervious surface JORDAN-PW 4:711;; <//%1/273 DISTRICT MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER WIDTH UNIV-CA The wider of: UNIV-PW 1. 50' from each edge of the floodplain, plus an additional amount based on slope. (No maximum width) OR 2. If wooded: 50' to 150' from stream, depending on slope If grass: 100' to 250' from stream, depending on slope CANE-CA 50' from each edge of the floodplain, plus an additional amount based U-ENO-CA on slope. (No maximum width) U-ENO-PW 50' from each edge of the floodplain, plus an additional amount based L-ENO-PW on slope. (Maximum width 150') If density exceeds 1 du/acre, then the minimum buffer width is 100'. CANE-PW LITTLE-PW BACK-PW 50' from each-edge of the floodplain, plus an additional amount based HYCO-PW on slope. (Maximum width 150') FLAT-PW HAW-PW JORDAN-PW The Planning Staff also proposes that: 1. Stream buffers be applied adjacent to watersupply impoundments as well as streams; 2. Septic systems be located the farther of 300' from watersupply impoundments or -- outside of the stream buffer; and 3. New structures be located the farther of 150' from watersupply impoundments or outside of the stream buffer. /0/ v<14 5 V i '11/ 6 t/ 15- 0A-A: - V e 77 - h -� ',, l ;'l _ - -- • .7., \ r . ' :r c•., _ I p ", !� 11' 1 j i ; ^ .11111... 4 • , L ,......; _..,,.. / .. '. 11 ,e ______ _At sink-al g if :-_-,,,, ,p; : ilt,'41 -1 ,_, WI& f si-Awig- lir ,-,, - .. -. / \ i 1 , .—' , 1: ''', litiViks\ f .- 1 3 1 ‘ ,'-.4-: ©2 D Ya-fiNfE 12,WAIP:,( : '',r.r•t- 1., ILVFITL2 \r'-ii_714‘r 'I I\ " I ,..._11,..,-l.? Y-Q—s Aii\o -, i ./ j..„... Ir: -AL,' ..i i . --.. k ,--1 —27°— .., / / 4 AIM v l \.. ,4,,,,..: _:-.1,.,_.:(' .-i.„, \,,,, _••—•,,_, , ,,,,... l' � 1✓ ( /' ♦ '1 I Ems'+ \I I /� sF J i ', libiffr ' II'' tkiiilli i" .,---• I -V;iiiir:1‘.. --- -44' IMIP ''''' ) --'t_"./- i OF: 41'E-k"-t ... � J Jam i !' � ? . . _ . .___. .. \ ' 1C 1 1,141 J n r% \ s ) 9 � tr "1"4=1.2 ." • _ _, 1 / — /-, h l y Ml! l fr‘ „---,_ i '' I .s,I.-,_.. '\.... ' 1.-".' '''\'`.`; 111,111,1 — ----------------sto-tr -.7i 057. .. P'-- 1 - , i 's '.' - 1 ,' / , • 7 '... i ..„,. :,,,,..:11:1 : di , ___, .._.., __ ,r., , .,,..„-- ... , ,.....„ iii.,. . . ...,- „ ) s L E_—fir \ �+ r 1 n s _gar I r � FT _ i�it / 1 --- _ r.� _ - 1 1" 1 J _ _ s� e � 5 _ j�� 1 sz l 1p1 n '-'...14.,., i /.t2 -NI Vip: F.. , -gf:_,,. j - -- .,:., .V,.,.••o fa1, W J �i, 1 %, r I, �t _ f } f; \, „:,_.-.,, ,.- 11,,,,. .,..5 , ,,, : . vLii, 7 1 I =.7 '11 :— ' !1 , 7 . ‘ ,v 1411114111.1 .. '1. F:7, ..1. LEFT 5 _ ‘,1440,/ hOlttli,'• 1 , --az-- -irEf— i V r 1 I _c' 1_I General Approximation of "Most Critical Zone," - as shown on Figure 3-3, Watershed Management Study i _ ' \ Lake Michie and Little River Watershed Study.------ --- . ORANGE COL Pp5 1 l 10-29-T3 •