Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-16-1993 - VIII-B (2)
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 16, 1993 Action Agenda Item # VIE-B SUBJECT: WATERSHED PROTECTION STANDARDS AND ZONING OF L1ITLE 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' tjovember 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 Staff's 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 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 Stancil, 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: i Front Setback 40 ROAD`DA'T'A. Total Floor Area 1110 Class: Public First Floor Area 1110_ Width (Ft) 18 UTILITY'STRUCTURES/USES: '_ • DRIV .' •: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 C RARACFERIST ICS: Structural Coverage Driveway Road Parcel 12 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 CAIsCtITIQtNRE3ULTS :: . ...: :; ; ... Impervous Surface(SqFt): 3385 Exceeds Maximum ISR: ( 1 )Yes = 1 %Impervious Surface: 6.58% No = 0 Variance from Required ISR: .—058% 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 50—foot right—of—way. ORANGE COUNTY. N.C. ATTACHMENT 2 APPLICATION/PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER WORK 6 ?ARCE_ ' NOMEER MA. ,UR S ZONING i LAND USE WATERSHED CENSUS "ac RMIT a PROPER"!DESCRIPTION 1 WATER SEWER DATE PROPERTY ADDRESS I LAND AREA EH PERMIT a EH PERMIT;r TYPE i PROPERTY OWNER NAME/ADDRESS PHONE PERMIT HOLDER(IF NOT OWNER)/ADDRESS it PHONE LICENSE# GENERAL CONTRACTOR ADDRESS - ! LICENSE M ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR ADDRESS LICENSE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR ADDRESS UCENSE# MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR ADDRESS UCENSE k MH SETUP CONTRACTOR ADDRESS UCENSE B OTHER(SPECIFY) ADDRESS CLASS AREA S.F. HT. TYPE ROOM BDRM BATH PUSS. ELEC. ---� HEAT A/C INSUL. DECK~ FIREPL CONST,COST FLOOD MAP FLOOD ZONE BASE FLD ELEV(FT) 1ST HAS FLR ELEV(FT) BASEMENT STORIES IMPERV SURF S.F. 1/2 MI AGR DIST SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE The undersigned does hereby declare that the information given above is correct and agrees to comply with ordinances and regulations,the N.C.State Building Code,and any restrictions as shown below. The applicant furthermore declares that he/she RECEIPT k TOTAL FEE is the property owner or he/she does truly represent the property owner. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE APPROVAL BY RESTRICTIONS DATE K —•_=•-�° ° 114---. .. -_-7.,-;z,-,-.±7,47,, ,_:„._,-„_:::,,- TYPE RED DATE INSP.DATE ACTION TYPE RED.DATE INSP,DATE ACTION"i. a L-'_ ITS --t .- -.' I. � r - - - -- - .� _ .�-.,Z- ,_- � ,,2.,E,12,2_..,-,-4,-.:-...:°, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r _ ; ,,--,;-::?5"--7.- �,5^ ,.-yes ••_ -' s. ._--- _ _ - +ru .°";c . _ . fir.. �P'.'?st+- - 4 'e'': ���--.• ��'�deg"�"�t 714.!,.47.----`-. _- •� _ _ ;v— ;.,,..T_"T -:`,i•L Y',a. :: e'+..ee�..► .. .eT . `* ' 7 DATE OF APPROVAL 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 conpleted 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 W112% 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% 5.81% 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 ?200 Class: Public First Floor Area 2200 Width (Ft) 20 .UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES• ; DRIVEWAY DA`PA:`..::< 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 CHARA+t''IVRISTICSt . ... ! 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 .CALCULATION RESULTS: 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 — WI 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 PooliTennis 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 CAL CULATION 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: — WI 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) L00 Number of Stories: i Front Setback 40 ROAD DATA. .. Total Floor Area 2200 Class: Public First Floor Area 2200 Width (Ft) 20 .UTILITY:STRUCTURES/USESt . - :DRIVEWAY'bATALt.,.: 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 CHARACIERISTICS:..: . . .-:: - -• *.-• . . 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 70 8 560 150 10 1500•CALCULATTO/titESULT&' .•:* : . ' • .... • • . • 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: — WI 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 Area (Acres) 2.12 Number of Stories: 1 Front Setback 175 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 Storage 12 10 120 Utility Porch 15 6 90 Sidewalk 40 4 160 Patio/Deck Pool/Tennis Other Other Total 370 .IMPERVIOUS SURFACE'C.HARACTERISTIC&:,'... .• 1- 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 CALCULATION IESULTSf Impervous Surface(SqFt): 6465 Exceeds Maximum ISR: 1 )Yes = 1 %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 . • Applicant Name: TWO—ACRE LOT — W/TWO ACRES OUTSIDE RIGHT—OF—WAY Location: — W/TWO—STORY HOUSE CENTERED ON LOT Tax Map Reference: .LOT '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 ;.iittilLDING 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 vrrizry STRUCTURES/USES:: *: - : •:.:**:.: - 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 8URFACE:CRARACTERISTICS::',• • • •':: : • • 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 CALCULATIONRESULTEg :. • .• • : 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 0.ATA..., Total Floor Area 2200 Class: Public First Floor Area 2200 Width (Ft) 20 UTILITY STRUCTURES/:USES: ..DREWAY 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.CHARAC.FIERISTICSt 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) (SgFt) 92370 2200 370 2570 70 8 560 210 10 2095 CALCUI ATIO RESULTS, Impervous Surface(SgFt): 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 FIGJRE 3-2 TRAVEL TIMES TO UNIVERSITY LAKE r-- i le ...I / ♦ NOV l l t / , ,-`� 3\ A - a, ■ { 1 I \ u""'a'r'' `ft-% t t , - .=• 1 2000 0 2000 4000 _V.--_ zr r - auNcc ca C 4AT)4 co. 1�1I*�- J LEGEND TRIBUTARY • - • TRAVEL T1ME CONTOUR JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY Ilm■ WATERSHED BOUNDARY ATTACHMENT #10 16 FIGURE 3-3 CRITICAL MANAGEMENT ZQSS IN WATERSHEDS OF LAKE MICHIE AND LITTLE RIVER RESERVOIR In -1 LEAST CRITICAL ZONE 41._...g.:1_,:::::_-_--- AP - -_ _ . , • 1111, z> - - ; t J 1 _ �:� /��:.:{tilt� � � .Ow —_—.Z#rp- — —— — —- / , ■ IOW • IMIP NM ,-i.'4::::::::-.,...,--_Y -":- .:-.-7:. 11?„----::::-:,-.:-.1::::-.7----- fr;;--:-7:::.::: ----- ) / . '1A-k-t. ... •- J _ _ :r te �` ,' :•..:: .. .:::;. . ;� P -SON_CO. `0"1 i '::: ;::` La ' V eir.::://i.i:;:;;::::::::::!:.::::::1:.:1:11!:::::,.....'.*. • _ 1 • .4• 'i ti Y � :L _V 1 T • •l:r 9s :Iiii;-:::::::::::::;;:::iff.::::::::..;.::::::„...i...;:: a ...:i;.,?iffiiififilifkili! ..Ar,':::',.::::...: : { 4 ., �1 - 1 ::"sr b s h 1 1 ,..„....:•::::....:.:;,::-:'••••::': J . . _ i •�i • wj: "''''TTTTTT°°°°°° i t ,.; �e`•`• LAKE MICHIE ILDEND ''�* •OEUVERY RATIO LITTLE I RIVER , TRAVEL TIME RESERVOIR MOST CRITICAL ZONE 3-30 WlT ^SUPPLY WATER SHE DS w Oranae County. North Caroline 17 �► : co r:e ek Fiat ''vsr. �tB S s n W .; shed �7 Fo lg.WggitlaYliiiiitigg(iiiIaigigi • Ba cKer e o' d t •�.. .. :.^ .r• i # 4 4 4 a x :t::.:;.--':.- r.L �+ti . K ,Q ..' 3c 4 �" I s:'.. ...tom x'.• .;t Ny •� k 4 0a% 'Y � fi t > ro a ms ,�w d i „ eeM. r , 55 of ,,raX: v r + ut yz .., 117 "^''y ..,-� , •q'Q � � _ �.. M: Sino i 1 w �~� �� � � 1N1+ n th lur MI AIL ° t +s ��• Old ATTACHMENT • LEGEND uonks� aI • c o Rd, M k Horne.' Water SuPPIY Watershed lit , c. �- 'C t< 1Ee ; .-- : '"%''::,, •,C `' `1 Water Quality-�. .. �� +� Critical Area• 4 H` c 'l <' r.:� OC..., 2 -,:-..--:-:‘,,-=',....:. :..'., , Vire._.'-:-.' ..n1N,.-„ „lir, . !; « { diet` § � ov: X... r X9n,,,!' �••�*+�asowc.s t .xa"aid( x,1,1- •"" . 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-I1). This classification allows for the construction of non-discharging landfills only. The western portion of the site is not in a protected watershed. OC17 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) Hay{ 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. Sox 366 41111111 Date: , 41193_ Carrboro,NC 27510 OVVASA (919)968-4421 Tlme: 3;,3 d f'/n - To: r'-r.. 'an-t -- r M 1��� I 1��► Representing s *..�_��•:. Fax Number: '0 From: . - 1 ----- Representing 9$44)454 Fax Number: (91 9)968-4421, ask for ext.246(no direct line) Number of pages, including cover sheet $ Should you not receive all pages, please call the sender at(919) 968-4421. 10 'd 12Vt9966I6 '0N AN H 'q'H 'M 'n nn•c T T11.1 ca_c -10 1,1 23 AGENDA ITEM • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO PROTECT THE CANE CREEK WATERSHED PURPOSE • 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 . . . _ • _ • • w .. an 11•.•__ ...J lu...•.. A..��.nw M• ., ALTERNATIVE • Discussion only. • Adopt Resolution. STAFF ( ECOMMENDATTQN • 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 An . , .1LLP.I1AA.n .IO,. ,,.. . u. .w u. u• ow 24 gicAO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY BO COMMISSIONERS RESTATING THE AUTHORITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS sf 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 fill '.! T 7hh0O00 f R 'f1AT VU J ,u 'n •u .0 25 Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jo Ferry Road OWASA P.o. Box nes 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Everett Billingsley FROM: Ed Holland DATE: November 5, 1993 SUBJECT: Cane Creek 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 {s 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 saute strict impervious limits regardless of the residential 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 Gfl ',f T?bbQQRRTR 'nM 1W.f '14 'Q 'N 'to 'n Ib'CT Tug CP_C _ACK! 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 imperviousnesseld_heiniilerlioigerwel 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 Lim= - 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 corwLUent 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 (h)A uniform impervious surface limit of 6 percent, regardless 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 he located outside of stream buffer g or 100 feet from Txre_nnial or in rmitten whichev ,seater. (Buffers are calculated on the basis of slope and vegetation. The maximum butler width in PW Areas is 150 feet; there is no maximum buffer 4(1 '4 I7bbPQRRIR 'flu XH.t 'N'C 'N 'M 'n oh'CT TuJ ca_e _nnu 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 drainfields, resulting in systems being sited on inferior soils that represent more of a water quality threat than a septic system located on bettor sails clam try «+P arre m_ 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 150 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. —. 11:1---4"-- Edward A. Holland, AICP Director of Planning and Development attachment PROVIDE TO BOARD OF DIREITORS APP P 6 DATE//,'"';1,,L Jfl 'J T7hh00Q0Ta '(I1 VI.IJ 'U 'C 'U 'M 'n ei.∎rT I'll I rr r Anil 28 Orange Water and Sewer Authority [awASa © 400.Jones Fer6 ry Road Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 STATEMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1X) 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 respecttlilly 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 On 'J 17h4,0000T0 'nkt VUJ 'LI 'Q 'LJ 'M 'n riC.CT TMJ CO_( _AnKi 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 uses are now permitted. The allowance of up to 70 percent impervious coverage for non-residential development without stortmarter 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, 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-Shale 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 prote tfon 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. An II -ILL/AAA"I' IA11 1111 1 ITT IA 111 I" IA •n-n• ••• • n� In•• NOV 11 '93. 11:36 CARRBORO TOWN HALL P.,1 30 TOWN OF CARRBORO 301 West Stain Street Past Office sox 829 Carrboro, Worth Carolina 27310 • DAM PAZ (919) 968..7737 • so: �lo%a din ' - -- 7'L elk let. 04, , 1-o • . . 81444_4 r . . A. /?4.+4. '1'fL 4 ■ r� • lumber of -pages (including clover sheet) : 'Z— Please call '9 i -1-?EJtS'"`. if there are any problems, question* or concerns regarding this transmission. • NOV 11 '93 11 36 CARREORO TOWN HALL P.2 31. is '+,. TOWN OF CARRBORO • NORTH CAROLIn1A 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 Oranqe 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 Commissioner's 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, Eleanor Kinnaird Mayor cc: John Link, County Manager F.0.NOY£2a • $0,VOW NAIN STRKIrr.CARRRORO. NORTM CAROLINA x71110 • Me)1142.01141 • MAX(DIM 941-77$7 AN IQIJAL OPPORTUNITY EM•L.QYRA