HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-16-1993 - VIII-B 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 16. 1993
Action Agenda
Item # V211 -B
SUBJECT: WATERSHED PROTECTION STANDARDS AND
ZONING OF Ll'1TLE RIVER AND CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIPS
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Staff 11/10/93 Memorandum Mary Willis - Extension 2583
OWASA 11/5/93 FAX
Town of Carrboro 11/11/93 FAX PHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
(Please refer to 8/23/93 Public Mebane 227-2031
Hearing agenda materials plus Durham 688-7331
Chapel Hill 967-9251
11/1/93 BOCC agenda material.)
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.
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:
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
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
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 a 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.
November 1. 1993 Board of Commissioners Meeting
The proposed amendments were presented to the Board of Commissioners
3
on November 1, 1993 for a decision. A number of questions and
concerns were raised and a decision was postponed to receive more
information. The Planning Staff response to the questions and concerns
raised at the November 1 meeting is attached.
Planning Staff Proposals
Even though the State mandate could pose problems for lot development
in some cases, with careful design during the subdivision process, it
would appear that the standard of 6% impervious surface for two-acre lots
and 12% impervious surface for one-acre lots could be met, particularly
if those ratios are applied to the development as a whole, and the
landowner or developer is allowed to transfer surpluses on some lots to
other lots. Coupled with this feature is the fact that a 10 percent variance
can be approved by the Board of Adjustment to handle hardship cases.
For existing lots of record, there is no State mandate concerning
impervious surface. Thus, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposals as presented at the August 23, 1993 public hearing, including
the revisions proposed at the Commissioners' November 1, 1993 meeting
as amended below:
1. Adopt a six percent and 12 percent impervious surface ratios for
two and one-acre lots respectively.
2. In the case of new subdivision development, apply the impervious
surface ratios on a development-wide basis, and allow the
developer/owner to transfer surplus impervious surface from one
lot to another as necessary.
3. Continue the use of the current sliding scale, including its
application to all existing lots of record in all watersheds.
Adoption of the proposals and recommended changes thereto would result
in a greater level of protection than currently provided in Cane Creek
Watershed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board consider the
Planning Staffs suggestions, and, provided that the Board agrees
with the suggestions, 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.
The proposed effective date of new watershed and zoning
provisions is January 1, 1994.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
:-1,e'
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
From: Marvin Collins, Planning Director N
Mary Willis, Planner III/Current Planning
Date: November 10, 1993
Subject: Proposed Watershed Protection Standards
Copies: Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney
David Stanch, Planner II/Comprehensive Planning
At your November 1, 1993 meeting, a number of questions were asked concerning the proposed
watershed protection standards. This memorandum lists those questions, provides answers, and, where
necessary, Staff recommendations concerning each.
1. Will the adoption of impervious surface ratios (sliding scale or set ratios) require
additional Staff time for calculation and monitoring purposes?
The answer to this question is no. As part of its work on the University Lake watershed,
Staff developed a spreadsheet template (see Attachment #1) to provide a quick and efficient
means of performing such calculations. Information needed for this purpose is readily
available from site plans submitted by applicants for building permits.
In terms of monitoring impervious surfaces on an individual site or for an entire watershed,
ORPERMIT, the County's computerized building permit system, is being revised to require
the amount of impervious surface to be shown on the permit form (see Attachment#2). With
this information in the system, computer generated reports can be produced which indicate
the amount of new impervious surface for a site, area or watershed for any period of time.
Plans are to complete revisions to ORPERMIT before the end of November, and, in any
case, before the January 1, 1994 effective date.
2. What are the implications of adopting set impervious surface ratios; e.g., 6% for two-
acre lots and 12% for one-acre lots, on a property owner's ability to build a typical
single-family house?
ATTACHMENT 1
5
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning& Inspections Department— Orange County, NC
PROJECT DATA. • .
Applicant Name: Governor's Grove Subdivision — Phase Nine
Location: Governor Scott Road — Lot/16
Tax Map Reference:
LOT DATA: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DATA: •
Width (Ft) 175 Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio(ISR): 6%
Frontage (Ft): 175 Maximum Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 3085
Depth (Ft) 268
Area (SqFt): 51420 BUILDING DATA •.
Area (Acres) 1.18 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 40
ROAD DATA. . Total Floor Area 1110
Class: Public First Floor Area 1110
Width (Ft) 18
UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES:.
DRIVEWAY DATA. : Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 125 Structure/Use (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Width (Ft) 4 Garage 0 0 0
Storage 0 0 0
Utility 0 0 0
Porch 0 0 0
Sidewalk 50 4 200
Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool/Tennis 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Total 200
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
Structural Coverage Driveway Road
Parcel l/2
Size Building Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage Width Area
(SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
51420 1110 200 1310 125 4 500 175 9 1575
CALCULATION RESULTS:
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 3385 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 1 )Yes = 1
%Impervious Surface: 6.58% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: —038% OR —299.8 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply. 1.30 Acres OR 56417 SqFt
NOTES: (1)Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2) Driveway length includes property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3) Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of SO—foot right—of—way.
ORANGE COUNTY. N.C. ATTACHMENT 2
APPLICATION/PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER WORK 6
PARCEL : NuMSEA MAP ,,UR,S
ZONING !LAND LSE WATERSHED. CENSUS ec
RMlT v
PROPER"!DESCRIPTION I 1
WATER SEWER DATE ,
I
PROPERTY ADDRESS
LAND AREA EH PERMIT w EH PERMIT
1 TYPE
I PROPERTY OWNER NAME/ADDRESS 1
PHONE
PERMIT HOLDER(IF NOT OWNER)/ADDRESS
PHONE
1 LICENSER I GENERAL CONTRACTOR ADDRESS
I
LICENSE M ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS I
LICENSER 1 PLUMBING CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS
UCENSE R MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR ADDRESS
UCENSE R MH SETUP CONTRACTOR ADDRESS
UCENSE R OTHER(SPECIFY) ADDRESS
_ --
CLASS AREA S.F. HT. TYPE ROOM BORM BATH PLBG. ELEC. HEAT A/C INSUL. DECK FIREPL CONST,COST
FLOOD MAP FLOOD ZONE BASE FLD ELEV (FT) 1ST HAB FLR ELEV (FT) BASEMENT STORIES IMPERV SURF S.F. 1/2 MI AGR DIST
I I I I SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE
The undersigned does hereby declare that the information given above is correct and agrees to comply with RECEIPT
ordinances and regulations,the N.C.State Building Code,and any restrictions as shown below. The applicant furthermore declares that he/she
» TOTAL FEE
is the property owner or he/she does truly represent the property owner.
i
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROVAL BY
RESTRICTIONS DATE
1
ti.�•t='_ +-: w^ w:th*' Npa
TYPE REO DATE INSP.DATE ���--~ �'+ ��..S��`:...:� . ..-
�. ACTION TYPE REO DATE INSP.DATE ACTION
- -. 1-1""--.1:-.77:t":,---:: - - _
Rt F�
� F
MI .v
t .- '- --•_.-- T
kF �*-F•
�- ter--- � .+� � _
•-
.. a - �„ _
.. .DATE OF APPROVAL - ._., ,.__ _,e,.> ..,. _:. F;.1-_..�..:_-. ., __.
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL INSPECTOR
This is to certify that the building or work described above has
been inspected and approved as noted. All phases of
construction/work have been completed as of this date,and the BUILDING INSPECTOR
building/site is ready for occupancy.
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR
APPLICANT'S COPY
7
Attachments #3-#8 provide impervious surface calculations for one and two-acre lots to
illustrate the difficulties a property owner may experience in complying with impervious
surface ratios of 12% and 6% respectively. The results of these calculations are summarized
in the table below.
Impervious Surface One-Acre Lots Two-Acre Lots
Coverage W/12% Limit W/ 6% Limit
W/ One-Story House of
2,200 SqFt Centered on Lot 11.77% 7.00%
W/Two-Story House
(1,100 SqFt Ground Floor)
Centered on Lot 9.26% 5.817o
W/One Story House of
2,200 SqFt Placed at 40 10.58% 5.66%
Foot Building Setback Line
As is evident in the table, the principal limitation involves two-acre lots where homes are
set back from the street. The length of the driveway, combined with lot frontage and
building area, results in situations where the impervious surface standard of 6% cannot be
met. Through construction of a two-story home or setting the house at the building setback
line, compliance is possible.
These simple illustrations point to the fact that impervious surface ratios can be met,
particularly if addressed during the subdivision design phase. Lots which are limited may be
dealt with through transfers of "surplus" impervious surface. Furthermore, the proposed
watershed standards incorporate a provision contained in the State's model ordinance which
provides for the Board of Adjustment to grant variances of up to 10% to property owners
experiencing difficulty in meeting the impervious surface standards.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, the Planning Staff is altering its
original recommendation. For new subdivisions, developers and property owners must
comply with the 6% impervious surface ratio for two-acre lots and 12%for one-acre lots.
For example, a proposed subdivision located in the Critical Area of a WS-II watershed must
have minimum lot sizes of two acres, and the development as a whole may not exceed an
impervious surface ratio of 6%. For existing lots of record, the current sliding scale would
apply throughout the county.
3. What does the concept of "travel time" mean in terms of watershed protection?
"Travel time" refers to the time it takes pollutants to reach the reservoir once they have
entered streams which drain into the reservoir. Pollutants such as phosphorus and nitrogen
are washed into streams during rainstorms from fields, parking lots, etc.
Travel time is a consideration in watershed protection, since the stream itself may have a
"cleansing" effect through deposition and/or aeration prior to the time the pollutants enter
the reservoir. How much of the pollutant load; e.g., 100%. 75%, 50%, etc., is delivered
to the reservoir is referred to as the "delivery ratio".
ATTACHMENT #3 8
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning & Inspections Department— Orange County, NC
PROJECT DATA;;
Applicant Name: ONE—ACRE LOT — W/40,000 SQ FT OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY
Location: — W/ONE—STORY HOUSE CENTERED ON LOT
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): 5250
Depth (Ft) 290
Area (SqFt): 43750 BUILDING DATA
Area (Acres) 1.00 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 120
ROAD DATA. Total Floor Area 2200
Class: Public First Floor Area 2200
Width (Ft) 20
.UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES
DRIVEWAY DA`I`A_:. Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 135 Structure/Use (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
Poolaennis 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)
43750 2200 370 2570 135 8 1080 150 10 1500
CAICULATIONRESULTS: ....:
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 5150 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 0 )Yes = 1
%Impervious Surface: 11.77% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: 0.23% OR 100.0 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply. 0.99 Acres OR 42917 SqFt
NOTES: (1)Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2) Driveway length includes parking/back—up area plus property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3) Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of 50—foot right—of—way.
ATTACHMENT #4 9
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning& Inspections Department— Orange County, NC
PROJECT DATA..:
Applicant Name: ONE—ACRE LOT — W/40,000 SQ FT OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY
Location: — W/TWO—STORY HOUSE CENTERED ON LOT
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): 5250
Depth (Ft) 290
Area (SqFt): 43750 BUILDING DATA::>..
Area (Acres) 1.00 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 120
ROAD DATA Total Floor Area 2200
Class: Public First Floor Area 1100
Width (Ft) 20
UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES:-
DRIVEWAY DATA. Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 135 Structure/Use (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)
43750 1100 370 1470 135 8 1080 150 10 1500
.CALCUITION RESULTS: _ ;.
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 4050 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 0 )Yes = 1
%Impervious Surface: 9.26% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: 2.74% OR 1200.0 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply. 0.77 Acres OR 33750 SqFt
NOTES: (1)Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2)Driveway length includes parking/back—up area plus property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3) Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of 50—foot right—of—way.
ATTACHMENT #5 10
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning& Inspections Department— Orange County, NC
PROJECT DATA:-
Applicant Name: ONE—ACRE LOT — W/40,000 SQ FT OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY
Location: — W/ONE—STORY HOUSE AT 40—FOOT SETBACK LINE
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): 5250
Depth (Ft) 290
Area (SqFt): 43750 BUILDING DATA:
Area (Acres) 1.00 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 40
ROAD BATA: Total Floor Area 2200
Class: Public First Floor Area 2200
Width (Ft) 20
UTILITY:STRUCTURES/USES.
.DRIVEWAY DATA:7,-. Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 70 Structure/Use (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 W Road
Parcel 1/2
Size Budding Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage Width Area
(SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
43750 2200 370 2570 70 8 560 150 10 1500
CALCULATIQNRESULT*..
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 4630 Exceeds Maximum ISR ( 0 )Yes = 1
% Impervious Surface: 10.58% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: 1.42% OR 620.0 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply: 0.89 Acres OR 38583 SqFt
NOTES: (1)Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2) Driveway length includes parking/back—up area plus property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3)Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of 50—foot right—of—way.
ATTACHMENT #6 11
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning& Inspections Department— Orange County, NC
PROJECT DATA: . .
Applicant Name: TWO—ACRE LOT — W/TWO ACRES OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY
Location: — W/ONE—STORY HOUSE CENTERED ON LOT
Tax Map Reference:
LOT DATA: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE'DATA:
Width (Ft) 210 Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6%
Frontage (Ft): 210 Maximum Impervious Surface Area(SqFt): 5542
Depth (Ft) 415
Area (SqFt): 92370 BUILDING'DATA:
Area (Acres) 2.12 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 175
ROAD DATA, Total Floor Area 2200
Class: Public First Floor Area 2200
Width (Ft) 20
;UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES.
DRIVEWAY'DATA: ..Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 225 Structure/Use (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
IMPERVIODUS SURFACE•CHARACTERISTICSi. -
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)
92370 2200 370 2570 225 8 1800 210 10 2095
CALCUI, TIO JLTS+
P . (� ) ( 1 )Yes = 1
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 6465 Exceeds Maximum ISR:
% Impervious Surface: 7.00% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: —1.00% OR —922.8 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply. 2.47 Acres OR 107750 SqFt
NOTES: (1)Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2)Driveway length includes parking/back—up area plus property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3)Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of 50—foot right—of—way.
ATTACHMENT #7 12
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning& Inspections Department— Orange County,NC
PROJECT"DATA:.
Applicant Name: TWO—ACRE LOT — W/TWO ACRES OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY
Location: — W/TWO—STORY HOUSE CENTERED ON LOT
Tax Map Reference:
LOT DATA;: . IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DATA:
Width (Ft) 210 Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6%
Frontage (Ft): 210 Maximum Impervious Surface Area(SqFt): 5542
Depth (Ft) 415
Area (SqFt): 92370 BUILDING DATA::
Area (Acres) 2.12 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 175
ROAD DATA. Total Floor Area 2200
Class: Public First Floor Area 1100
Width (Ft) 20
UTILITY'STRUCTURES/USES:.
DRIVEWAY DA'T`A..:•! Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 225 Structure/Use (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.C.HARAC"TERISTICS;.
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)
92370 1100 370 1470 225 8 1800 210 10 2095
CATCULATLONAE3[7LTSi» '! ' -
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 5365 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 0 )Yes = 1
%Impervious Surface: 5.81% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: 0.19% OR 177.2 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply: 2.05 Acres OR 89417 SqFt
NOTES: (1)Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2) Driveway length includes parking/back—up area plus property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3) Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of 50—foot right—of—way.
ATTACHMENT #8 13
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1.11.91 Planning & Inspections Department— Orange County, NC
PROJECT DATA::.
Applicant Name: TWO—ACRE LOT — W/TWO ACRES OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY
Location: — W/ONE—STORY HOUSE AT 40—FOOT SETBACK LINE
Tax Map Reference:
LOT DATA: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.DATA:. .
Width (Ft) 210 Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6%
Frontage (Ft): 210 Maximum Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 5542
Depth (Ft) 415
Area (SqFt): 92370 BUILDING DATA..
Area (Acres) 2.12 Number of Stories: 1
Front Setback 40
ROAD DATA Total Floor Area 2200
Class: Public First Floor Area 2200
Width (Ft) 20
UTILI'T`Y STRUCTURES/USES:::<
DRIVEWAY DATA_ .Length Width Area
Length (Ft): 70 Structure/Use (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 Budding Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage Width Area
(SqFt) (SqFt) (SIFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
92370 2200 370 2570 70 8 560 210 10 2095
CALC ULATION:RESULT&
Impervous Surface(SqFt): 5225 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 0 )Yes = 1
%Impervious Surface: 5.66% No = 0
Variance from Required ISR: 0.34% OR 317.2 SqFt
Minimum Lot Size Required to Comply: 2.00 Acres OR 87083 SqFt
NOTES: (1) Utility structures but may be attached to the main building but are calculated separately.
(2) Driveway length includes parking/back—up area plus property line—to—road pavement distance.
(3) Open,wooden decks are not counted as impervious surfaces.
(4)Lot area includes one—half of 50—foot right—of—way.
14
For University Lake watershed (see Attachment #9), CDM assumed a 100% delivery rato,
since all portions of the watershed were within six hours travel time (by streamflow) from
the reservoir. For the Little and Flat River watersheds (see Attachment#10), CDM identified
delivery ratios as follows:
Delivery Ratio Travel Time Management Zone
100% >12 hours Most Critical
50-100% 30-12 hours
Less than 50% <30 hours Least Critical
The implication of delivery ratios is that higher densities could be permitted in the
headwaters of the Little and Flat River watersheds. Nevertheless, CDM recommended a two-
acre minimum lot size with a six percent (6%) impervious surface ratio throughout both
watersheds. In contrast, CDM recommended a five-acre minimum lot six for University Lake
watershed and a four percent (4%) impervious surface ratio.
In the Little and Flat River watersheds, approximately one-third of the total land area (264
square miles) or 88 square miles falls within the "most critical" management zone or 12-hour
travel time contour. When broken down into individual watersheds, about half of the Little
River watershed or 48 square miles is within the 12-hour travel contour. For the Flat River
watershed, about one-fifth of that watershed or 33 square miles is within a similar distance.
In comparison, University Lake watershed contains 30 square miles, all or most of which
is within the 12-hour travel contour. Because Cane Creek watershed is similar in size (29
square miles) to the other three watersheds, travel times for pollutant delivery are expected
to be similar.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff does not feel that travel time is the best means
for justifying an interim five-acre minimum lot size for Cane Creek watershed. Both Little
and Flat River watersheds were recommended for two-acre minimum lot size restrictions by
CDM. In addition, CDM, in the University Lake Watershed Study, recommended a
preliminary two-acre standard since Cane Creek reservoir was larger and deeper, and thus
had a greater assimilative capacity, than University Lake.
4. Where are the proposed landfill sites in relation to the proposed watersheds and what
implications do the proposed standards have for landfill location?
The watershed regulations prohibit new landfills in WS-II and WS-III Critical Areas.
Outside of Critical Areas, only non-discharging landfills are permitted. A non-discharging
landfill is one which does not discharge leachate into a receiving stream. There are no
restrictions in WS-IV watersheds.
Landfill sites 2, 9, 11 and 17 remain under consideration and their general location is shown
on Attachment #11. 0C2 is located on the north side of Hwy. 54, near Morrow Mill Road.
It is not located in a protected watershed.
0C9 is located between NC 86 and NC 57, south of Phelps Road. A small area in the north
portion of the site is in the Little River Watershed (WS-II). This classification allows for
ATTACHMENT #9 15
FIGURE 3-2
TRAVEL TIMES TO UNIVERSITY LAKE
D M«,R
♦ WV
lk
•
- 1 I I
•
tt umw�tr
• '� Y
\ immgammores
I .
2000 0 2000 4000
-A�—
7
•
C14AT}4W c0.
410.ow-
LEGEND
---- TRIBUTARY
TRAVEL TIME CONTOUR
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY
IN■N WATERSHED BOUNDARY
1
ATTACHMENT #10 16
FIGURE 3-3
CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ZONES IN WA TERSFiEDS
OF LAKE MICHIE AND LITTLE RIVER RFSERVC�IR
LEAST CRITICAL ZONE
;0 40' 1 1
qib . i
_,_ Z _ ;yam
• S : �� :i�l.;�1;tif::•:.:,. �;5:7!1:•- • ! O
rte? - P 'SOM ,...\,,• `�1
"CI
1
iL
it i�
r
:-;-.-_-_:-----;-( • ,_ ig...*:.*:..-.*:4::.:',:;•:::•::.::•,...,..: .„ ...kv:;:::::::::Ai...:......1.ft:i.•,1,:.::......•::::....,...,:•••,!.,:.:..
- - yew:
0
1
r
_ 1 •
_ f
L•:
;, ':si
:c
1
-a
b
J
K
•
h
�i
f•�
' 1k 1
.p
_y:
, °:t '''' LAKE
MICHIE
:ie;
DEJVERY RATIO
LITTLE
RIVER
TRAVEL TIME RESERVOIR
MOST CRITICAL ZONE
3-30
YAT yS P P LY WATERSHEDS S. ..:: .
Oranoe County. North Carolina
• 17
6.. �o Cr
flat ver.
il. Natets :s ' fit wed
:,:::::::4.,.: ° .
S� ? tit ., tl a Ii
: \ e
? ;ems
• �� " t< had ��t
t
•
( .t'
i
m ��
rok TT '
' 6 :
. i ? >...a d b 1
�' i I
S r
. ,._.,. 1
, � 'fiver ;•i i?:i3 .i, . ,, t -d �LSBORDU�H "Q "
y..��
:w"h�iM, t s t1.1;.)& t'. r h .�oer �
'.. 2
.Y .
.
ar
yf ^ .�£ F � vti' ` ✓+y
'.a ea v, 7
pp,'
a
tt 1t-� .1Z.501, M: Sin°i R
d.
,s‘e
.: .
iv
� Old ATTACHMENT
S bb
ai � 5 �u�onrs Rc. LEGEND
•
: . + c .p`
=t k Ho m° Rd. T j Water Supply
— m� Watershed
.141(
0,0- 7-,;:r.:, �h : :� '.0 ��`t Water Quality
't,,,-,
, __ 1.1:.:,....*.
r !%— Critical Area
..:,...,....*,,, ,*.i.....ni.:;',:!.,,.1%.:`.:..: ...„ L 7521.j..„..17±5.. r. • N.1••••••,.... ,:.•:...:..1,........: ....:::• •..'."...
S ._sFG k i7 S,t,!.14 a�xt 4 n,y• : ter`
�` .t .dh },, t � rs U
::r �r24w::%.k. w .s��astr •.�i 4,.v t Xs .1,-0-
18
the construction of non-discharging landfills only. The majority of the site is not in a
protected watershed.
OC 11 is located on the east side of Miller Road south of Walker Road. The eastern portion
of the site is located in the portion of the Lower Eno watershed classified as WS-IV. There
are no restrictions pertaining to landfills in this area. The northernmost portion of the site
extends into Little River Watershed (WS-II). This classification allows for the construction
of non-discharging landfills only. The western portion of the site is not in a protected
watershed.
0C17 is located on the north side of Eubanks Road, and is not in a protected watershed.
5. What implications do the watershed standards, particularly impervious surface ratios,
have for the location and development of recycling center sites in the watersheds?
Site acquisition costs are affected by the lot size required in order to comply with the
applicable impervious surface limit and/or provide adequate area for BMPs. Site
development costs are significantly increased if construction of a BMP is required.
Assumptions:
a. Recycling centers are not located outside of Critical Areas.
b. Each recycling center uses one acre of impervious surface.
Total Acreage Requirements:
Upper Eno and Back Creek Watersheds
8.3 acres (without BMP)
OR
1.4 acres minimum, plus additional area as needed for BMP.
Little River. Flat River. South Hyco Creek. University Lake and Cane Creek Watersheds
1.4 acres (no BMP required)
Haw River. Lower Eno. Jordan Lake Watersheds
2.8 acres (without BMP)
OR
1.4 acres minimum, plus additional area as needed for BMP.
6. What are the implications of adopting the State's impervious surface standard (70% for
no more than 5% of the watershed) for other types of nonresidential uses; e.g.,
churches, commercial buildings, etc.?
19
Lot size requirements would be the same as discussed in the item above. The State mandate
subjects any use which is not residential in nature to the non-residential impervious surface
provisions.
7. When will BMP's (wetwater detention basins) be required?
Upper Eno and Back Creek Watersheds
BMPs will be required for:
New residential developments which exceed 1 dwelling unit per acre and 12%
impervious surface.
New non-residential projects which exceed 12% impervious surface
Lower Eno Watershed
BMPs will be required for:
New residential developments which exceed 3 dwelling units per acre and 36%
impervious surface (without curb and gutter).
New residential developments which exceed 2 du/acre and 24% impervious surface
(with curb and gutter).
New non-residential projects which exceed 36% impervious surface(without curb and
gutter).
New non-residential projects which exceed 24% impervious surface (with curb and
gutter).
All Other Watersheds
BMPs will not be required.
8. What advantages and disadvantages result from establishment of an interim five-acre
lot size standard in Cane Creek Watershed?
Advantages
- Greater watershed protection would be provided pending the outcome of the Cane
Creek Study.
_ OWASA and Chapel Hill recommend the higher standards.
- OWASA has made a significant investment in the Cane Creek Reservoir.
20
Disadvantages
Adoption of significantly more restrictive regulations pending completion of a
technical study is inconsistent with the approach to watershed protection used by
Orange County in the past.
Orange County has received no data specific to Cane Creek which indicates a need
for interim standards.
- An average of 8 lots per year have been approved through the Minor Subdivision
process since 1985. Up to five lots can be created with a Minor Subdivision. Since
ULW Standards allow five 2-acre lots to be created before the five acre lot size
applies, it is anticipated that all Minor Subdivisions would be subject to a only a
two-acre minimum. Therefore interim standards would have no affect on Minor
Subdivisions.
Three Major Subdivisions have been approved in the Cane Creek Watershed since
1985, containing an average of 63 acres and 24 lots. Each lot averages 2.7 acres.
Given this trend, one could expect one major subdivision within the next two years,
the time frame within which it is expected that the Cane Creek study will be
completed and recommendations prepared.
If interim standards were adopted, then the "average" subdivision described above
could contain five 2.7-acre lots and ten five-acre lots could be created on the
remainder of the tract, for a total of 15 lots.
Thus it is expected that interim standards would result in nine fewer lots being
created in the watershed than would otherwise occur. The restrictiveness of the 5-
acre interim standard and its impact on individual property owners in disproportional
to the benefit to water quality.
The property-owners in Cane Creek Watershed will not use the water which will be
protected in large part by density restrictions on their land.
9. Given the location of Treyburn, what advantages and disadvantages result from
establishment of a two-acre lot size standard in Little River Watershed?
Wastewater and stormwater from the Treyburn development is pumped out of the watershed,
and it is the opinion of the Durham County staff that there is little impact on the quality of
water in the Little River Reservoir. (Refer to Memorandum from Dave Stancil to
Commissioner Alice Gordon dated October 28, 1994, and distributed with the November 1,
1993 Board of Commissioners Agenda)
Advantages
The two-acre minimum lot size is recommended by a technical study prepared by
Camp Dresser and McKee for Durham. Adoption of recommendations put forth by
21
a technical study is consistent with the approach to watershed protection used by
Orange County in the past.
Durham has adopted a two-acre minimum lot size and 6% impervious surface limit
for new development in its portion of the watershed.
Disadvantages
Orange County was not involved in the review of the technical study.
There is no guarantee that Durham City/County regulations will not be changed in
the future.
The Treyburn development was approved adjacent to the reservoir even though there
was considerable comment and controversy concerning watershed protection.
The property-owners in Little River Watershed will not use the water which will be
protected in large part by density restrictions on their land.
22
Orange Water and Sewer Authority Fax Transmission Cover Letter
400 Jones Ferry Road
P.O, Box 366 Date: Ii/3193
Carrboro,NC 27510 OVVJ l
(919}968-4421 Time: 3 R d P rr+ -
To: e4- '""c
i
Representing *-----�.
I+
Fax Number. - fi 6 -3 00
From: -------
RepresentinQ
kJ 4 s _ -
Fax Number: (919)968.4421, ask for ext.246 (no direct line)
Number of pages, including cover sheet g
Should you not receive all pages, please call the sender at(919) 968-4421.
10 'd I26tRARR IR 'ON AN '14 'q 'H 'M 'fl hh,c t TMM,t CP-C _Mi
23
AGENDA ITEM
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS TO PROTECT THE CANE CREEK WATERSHED
FURPQ$Z
• To review Orange County's proposed response to the Authority's August 23, 1993
position statement to the Orange County Commissioners, and to consider a resolution
restating that position,
BACKGROUND
• On August 23, 1993 the Authority submitted comments to the Orange County Board
of Commissioners regarding proposed changes to countywide watershed protection
requirements.
• After receiving input through public hearing and recommendations by County staff
and Planning Board, the Commissioners are now considering a package of ordinance
changes that fall substantially short of the Authority's adopted position for the Cane
Creek watershed. A staff memo summarizing those differences is attached.
ACTION NEEDED
. _ • _ • • .. .. .. rsn.__ ...1 +... ... a.....�ra. w
ALTERNATIVE
• Discussion only.
• Adopt Resolution.
STAFF RECOMt 1ENDATTQN
• Staff recommends adopting the Resolution and authorizing the Chairman and staff to
pursue the Board's recommendations through appropriate contact with County
officials.
November 11, 1993
24
'R ESOLUT I N AUTHORIZING fiG COMMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY BO '
COMMISSIONERS RESTATING THE AUTHORITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS s F
MEASURES TO PROTECT THE CANE CREEK WATERSHED
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners must adopt certain changes to the
County's watershed protection rules by the State mandated deadline of January 1, 1994; and
WHEREAS, certain measures for protecting the Cane Creek Reservoir are being considered
without the benefits of a specific technical study of that watershed system; and
WHEREAS, On August 23, 1993 Orange Water and Sewer Authority submitted comments
regarding proposed changes to countywide watershed protection requirements; and
WHEREAS,after receiving public input as well as recommendations from their staff and Planning
Board, the Commissioners are now considering ordinance changes that fall substantially short of the
Authority's adopted recommendations for the Cane Creek watershed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority acknowledges the lack of
a technical study on which to base permanent regulations for protecting the Cane Creek Reservoir and
watershed and agrees to undertake such an effort before the end of December, 1993.
2. That, said lack of technical study notwithstanding, the Board urges the Commissioners to put
in place strong interim regulations for the Cane Creek watershed that might later be modified in
conformance with findings of the technical study.
3. That the Board strongly opposes certain measures now under consideration for the Cane Creek
watershed and reaffirms its recommendations presented during the public hearing of August 23, 1993.
4. That the Board hereby authorizes and directs its Chairman and staff to further pursue these
recommendations, as clarified in the OWASA staff memorandum dated November 5, 1993, through
appropriate contact with County officials.
Adopted the 11th day of November, 1993.
Julianne M. Andresen, Chairman
ATTEST:
Riley Wilson
Secretary-Treasurer
hrl 'A T7bHOQRRT0 'rLT VU .rr rV u n ni.nr rr r nn n . .r
25
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
400,tones F
I OWASA Po. Box 66 erry Road
Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 968-4421
MEMORANDUM
TO: Everett Billingsley
FROM: Ed Holland
DATE: November 5, 1993
SUBJECT: Cane Crock Watershed Protection, Proposed Actions by Orange County
On August 23, 1993 the Board of Directors submitted comments to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners regarding proposed changes to water supply watershed protection regulations. A
copy of the Authority's position statement is attached.
At either the November 16 meeting or during their first meeting in December, the Commissioners
will consider County staff and Planning Board recommendations that appear to fall far short of the
Authority's adopted position for the Cane Creek watershed. Outlined below is a brief summary
of those differences.
OWASA Position 1: Continue to prohibit all commercial or industrial land uses throughout
the Cane Creek watershed.
Orange County Response: Allow limited small-scale commercial (not industrial) uses "designed
to provide basic services to residents of the immediate area, and located outside of the watershed
critical area to minimize potential adverse impacts on water quality."
OWASA Staff Comment: Additional County provisions would allow up to 70 percent
impervious coverage on approximately 725 acres of nonresidential development (small scale
commercial plus institutional uses, such as schools, churches, greenbox sites, etc.) in the
watershed. Such high limits are not justified, given alternative provisions elsewhere in the
ordinance for transferring unused impervious allowances from adjacent property.
• The allowance of up to 70 percent impervious coverage on 5 percent of the Cane Creek
PW area should be deleted front the County's proposal.
• All development in the Cane Creek watershed should be subject to the same strict
impervious limits regardless of the re.kh ntlal or nonresidential nature of the project.
OWASA Position 2: Apply the same minimum lot and impervious surface limits to the
entire Cane Creek watershed as proposed for the University Lake watershed, basically 3-acre
minimum lots plus other strong protective measures.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Gn 'a laht,QOaara .nu VN.r 'u 'c 'u .M 'ft ih'cr TXJ ca_c _nn}J
26
Cane Creek Watershed
November 5, 1993
Page 2
Orange County Response: Citing CDM's 1989 University Lake Watershed Study, County staff
recommend rezoning the entire Cane Creek watershed to 2-acre minimum lots. This was based
on the following statement from the CDM report: "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,'
OWASA Starr Comment: Under the County's proposal, 2-acre lots could be developed with up
to 10.5 percent impervious coverage. County staff failed to note that CDM's preliminary analysis
was based on the assumption that im :zu'.0 • w• '. '1+' . t
rather than 10.5 percent proposed by the County. In fact, the lot size which corresponds to 6
percent impervious coverage in the County's own sliding scale is s acres -precisely what the
OWASA Board recommended to the Commissioners on August 23.
• Consistent with CDM's preliminary recommendations in the 1989 University Lake
Watershed Study, and consistent with the Authority's August 23. 1993 statement to the
Commissioners, Interim regulations for the entire Cane Creek watershed 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 percent, regardIess of lot size,
OWASA Position 3: Allow the provision of water and wastewater service only through
individual onsite wells and disposal systems; no municipal or community level wastewater
disposal.
Orange County Response: Municipal level utility service is neither proposed nor feasible for the
Cane Creek area; however, the restrictions on new community scale water and wastewater
systems which already apply in the University Lake watershed are not proposed for Cane Creek.
OWASA Staff Comment:
• The same requirements already in place for water and wastewater services in the
University Lake watershed should be applied throughout the Cane Creek watershed.
OWASA Position: Strong support and appreciation for strict measures to be left in place for
the University Lake watershed.
Orange County Response: Existing County rules require that septic systems and structures be
set back at least 300 and 150 feet, respectively, from all perennial and intermittent streams.
County staff and Planning Board recommend reducing these setback requirements such that septic
systems and structures be located outside of '. offer • U.► k _in - ' •
intermittent sycas whiche
m ver is a ter,. (Buffers are calculated on the basis of slope and
vegetation. The maximum buffer width in PW Areas is 150 feet; there is no maximum buffer
Afl i7bb QRR(R '(111 YN4 'K'C'W 'M 'n O,'cr Tu.r ca_c _renal
27
Cane Creek Watershed
November 5, 1993
Page 3
width in Critical Areas.)
OWASA Staff Comment: The Orange County Health Department notes that the existing 300
foot setback for septic systems sometimes eliminates the most suitable soils from use for septic
system drainfietds, resulting in systems being sited on inferior soils that represent more of a water
quality tl►reat than a septic system located on batter soils QIcs r to thn a►zram_
Perhaps the most urgent concern to OWASA is the reduced protection immediately adjacent to the
Cane Creek and University Lake shorelines and to the stream segments nearest their entry to the
impoundments. The Authority has consistently regarded these environments as the most critical
for water quality protection.
• Existing setback requirements of 300 feet for septic systems and ISO feet for structures
should remain In place along the shorelines of University Lake and the Cane Creek
Reservoir and along the perennial streams discharging to these impoundments.
Edward A. Holland, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
attachment
PROVIDE TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APP IO DATE.//'5";*95,
111 'A T7hh0000 TR YIIJT VI-IJ '12'C' •11 'AA .r) 61, rT T rn r anti
28
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
400 Jones Ferry Road
C)WASA P.O. Box sss
•
Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 968-4421
STATEMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 19) 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 Watct and Sower 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-U
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
an .J T7h110UOOT0 'rut VLIJ 'u 'C'u 'M 'n nest TuJ ce_c _A MI
29
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 user are now permitted. The allowance of up to 70 percent impervious
coverage for non-residential development without stortrotaoter controls on up to 900 acres of Cane
Creek watershed land does not appear to be justifiable, even though consistent with the FMC's
statewide minimum. The Authority strongly urges that, at a minimum, thaw non-residential
allowances be eliminated from further consideration.
The Authority has demonstrated a commitment to maintaining its $20 million dollar investtnent.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.
AA 1 . flii/SAAA.A .A.t ill f . n..A1,., ,ai •• •• • ..• • w ••..
NOV 11 '93 11:36 CARRBORO TOWN HALL P,,1
30
. TOWN OF CARRBORO
301 West Main Street
Post Office Box 829
Carrboro1 Worth Carolina 27310
•
Qs:
FAX (919) 968..7737
so:
4*■■ ■■rebbiE(144Mil/ligrn"74-'
as E �-K am + %yl l4-I tZZZa/
t R 8' .S /, • • AO 11.44.4.161
• U
' eV •
•
fiber Of -pages (including cover sheet) : 42.
Please call � � - ?fl�S"�• if thsr'e are any problems,
guestions or oonotorms regard mg this transmission.
NOV 11 '93 11:96 CARRBORO TOWN HALL P.2
• 31
TOWN OF CARRBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
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 90 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 meeting 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,
14.4rpt:;1.. .0.24P
Eleanor Kinnaird
Mayor
cc: John Link, County Manager
P.0.sox$2* •hog wool MAIN STREIT.CARROORO.NORTH CAROLINA 27510• (914)9494ae41 • KAX(9ISR 944-7747
AN I UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER