Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-28-1990 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990 7 :30 P.M. CARRBORO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUDITORIUM CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the printed agenda (If anyone wishes to speak to matters on the agenda, we would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the printed agenda C. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. D. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING INVOLVES THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD, AND THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF THE TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO. FOLLOWIWG THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL BE REFERRED TO THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO FOR A DECISION AND TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR A Page RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THE PROPOSALS NO SOONER THAN APRIL 2, 1990. 11 1. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text a. Section II - Natural Resources -711.11.I" Page 11 1. Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Text (Continued) b. Section V - Joint Planning Operating Principles c. Section VI - Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area d. Section VII - Overview of Implementation Strategies 11 2. Joint Planning Agreement a. Section 1 .2 - Definitions E. ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING INVOLVES ONLY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL BE REFERRED TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THE PROPOSALS NO SOONER THAN APRIL 2, 1990. • 19 1. Orange County Comprehensive Plan a. Land Use Element Map - Deletion of Water Quality Critical Area from University Lake Watershed 21 2. Orange County Zoning Atlas a. Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District 25 3. Orange County Zoning Ordinance a. Article 4.2 .27 - Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District b. Article 4 .2.28 - Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District c. Article 4.2 .30 - Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) d. Article 4.2 .30 - University Lake Watershed (ULW) District (New) e. Article 6. 15.2 - Interim Development Standards f. Article 6.25 - Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) g. Article 6.25 - Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District h. Article 14 —Site Plan Approval Procedures 45 4. Orange County Subdivision Regulations a. Section IV-B-10 - Cluster Developments b. Section IV-C - Interim Development Standards c. Section V-C - Preliminary Plat d. Section V-D - Final Plat F. ADJOURNMENT - PAGE 1 APPROVED 3/21/90 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 28, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on February 28, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Carrboro Elementary School Auditorium, Carrboro, North Carolina. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell (arrived at 8:30) , Shirley E. Marshall (arrived at 9:00) and Don Willhoit. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor Jonathan Howes and Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, and Arthur Werner. CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN: Mayor Eleanor G. Kinnaird and Adlermen Hilliard Caldwell, Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn M. Gist, Tom Gurganus and Randy Marshall. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: Planning Board Chair Betty Eidenier and members William J. Waddell, Dan Eddleman, Virginia W. Boland and Amanda Carol Cantrell. WELCOME BY CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY. JR. Chairman Carey welcomed the citizens in the audience. He announced that Commissioners Marshall and Hartwell were representing the County at another meeting and would attend this meeting later. Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird welcomed the citizens in the audience and asked that the discussion be one of give and take. Mayor Jonathan Howes welcomed the citizens and stated this meeting culminates a process that has been ongoing for a long time. The Chapel Hill Town Council supports the process by which the intergovernmental work group arrived at its conclusion and look forward to the dialogue tonight. PUBLIC CHARGE AND GROUND RULES Chairman Carey announced the following rules of conduct for the meeting: (1) that presentations be limited to three minutes, (2) yielding of time to another person will not be allowed, (3) people will be called from both sign-up lists, alternating from list 1 to list 2 and (4) only one person may speak at any one time. Chairman Carey read the Public Charge. D. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING 1. JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT a. Section II - Natural Resources b. Section V - Joint Planning Operating Principles c. Section VI - Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area d. Section VII - Overview of Implementation Strategies F • PAGE 2 2. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT a. Section 1.2 - Definitions E. ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING 1. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN a. Land Use Element Map - Deletion of Water Quality Critical Area from University Lake Watershed 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS a. Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District 3. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE a. Article 4.2.27 - Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District b. Article 4.2.28 - Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District c. Article 4.2.30 - Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) d. Article 4.2.30 - University Lake Watershed (ULW) District (New) e. Article 6.15.2 - Interim Development Standards f. Article 6.25 - Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) g. Article 6.25 - Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District h. Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures 4. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS a. Section IV-B-10 - Cluster Developments b. Section IV-C - Interim Development Standards c. Section V-C - Preliminary Plat d. Section V-D - Final Plat THE PRESENTATION WAS MADE BY MARVIN COLLINS. ALL INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE IN THE AGENDA WHICH IS IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND IS MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES BY REFERENCE. A document was distributed entitled "Strategies for Protecting University Lake Watershed". Marvin Collins explained this document with the use of slides. He indicated that the topic is "Choices". In summary Mr. Collins talked about the different options that are available in terms of protecting University Lake Watershed and then he showed how all this fits together in terms of the Land Use Plan that the three jurisdictions have jointly adopted, Orange County's Land Use Plan, its Zoning Map and its Development Standards. He emphasized the importance of University Lake and protection of its watershed. He stated it is important to the people who own property and live in that watershed, important to the students who attend the University, important to the people who visit this area and who live, work and do business in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The basic goal is minimal water quality deterioration in University Lake. The two basic sources of PAGE 3 strategies put forth include (1) the final report of the University Lake Watershed Study completed by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) in March, 1989 and (2) the 13-point Agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group in October, 1989. Six different elements are being considered at this time: 1. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan & Text 2. Joint Planning Agreement 3. Orange County Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Element 4. Orange County Zoning Atlas 5. Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Collins continued with describing the two basic options. Option #1 involves the land use control strategy which involves the 5-acre residential zoning, impervious surface limits and the establishment of stream buffers. Option #2 uses the structural controls strategy which is a combination of 2-acre residential zoning density which the watershed is currently under by way of the rural buffer designation, coupled with wetwater detention ponds. There would also be impervious surface limits and stream buffer requirements. Both of these strategies have been identified by CDM as being able to achieve the water quality goal of minimum degradation in University Lake. Option #1 is described below: Basic Strategy: Minimum lot size of 5 acres Maximum density of 1 dwelling unit/5 acres Existing Lots of Record: (October, 1989) May create up to 5 2-acre lots Remainder divided in accord with "Basic Strategy" Cluster Development: Minimum lot size of 1 acre Density cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit/5 acres Land saved by lot size reduction preserved as permanent open space Collins illustrated the above option showing how it would be applied to a conventional subdivision, an existing lot of record and a cluster subdivision. Option #2 is described below: Basic Strategy: Minimum lot size of 2 acres On-site wetwater detention ponds designed to CDM standards must be provided to trap pollutants Existing lots of record: lots less than 2 acres in size can be developed at current size Cluster Development: Minimum lot size of 1 acre Density cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit/2 acres Land saved by lot size reduction preserved in permanent open space Collins illustrated Option #2 showing how it would be applied to a conventional subdivision. Collins described "Impervious Surface" as any surface which does not absorb rain, including buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and parking areas. Both paved (asphalt, concrete) and unpaved (gravel, crushed stone, soil) surfaces are considered to be impervious. This is a change in the County's definition to coincide with the CDM report. There are two proposals in terms of impervious surface: PAGE 4 Proposal #1 is described below: (put forth by the Watershed Work Group and coincides with the CDM Report) WHERE LOT SIZE IS: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAY NOT EXCEED: 5.0 acres or above 4% 2.0 to 4.9 acres 6% Less than 2.0 acres 12% Proposal #2 is described below: (put forth by the County Planning Staff) 5.0 acres 6% 4.5 acres 7% 4.0 acres 8% 3.5 acres 9% 3.0 acres 10% 2.5 acres 11% 2.0 acres 12% Collins stated that looking at different lot configurations, dwelling types, setbacks of the house from the road, and different road classifications indicated a need for higher impervious limits. Another major element is Stream Buffers. The County already has stream buffer requirements but CDM recommended a different basis for calculating stream buffers than is currently in the Orange County ordinance. Stream buffers accomplish several things: (1) prevent development from encroaching on streams, (2) minimize stream channel erosion and (3) spread rainfall runoff in a "sheetflow" pattern and encourages infiltration into the soil. CDM's recommended buffer standards are based on several factors: (1) slope of the land, and (2) type of ground cover, wooded or grass, within the land adjacent to the tributary present. He illustrated this by showing the University Lake Watershed, the Watershed overlay and the proposed district. In summary, Collins showed on a map all the watersheds in Orange County. He showed on the map the protected watershed area, and the water quality critical area. With reference to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, it is proposed that the categories of protected watershed and water quality critical area be deleted and that a designation called "University Lake Watershed District" he established. Everyone would be placed into a rural buffer zoning district. The overlay district would sit on top of the basic zoning. There are two separate overlay zoning districts in the University Lake Watershed. They would be removed and a new zoning district "University Lake Watershed District" would be put in its place which is also an overlay district. Coupled with that would be the development standards adopted by the Board of Commissioners which relate to the specific options discussed earlier. In terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, there are two options: (1) 5-acre scenarios, and (2) 2-acre zoning with the wetwater detention ponds. The Planning Directors of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro recommend incorporating in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan the recommended 5-acre zoning scenario. Both options are identified in the specific provisions. In terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, they are recommending a small change in that the term "water quality critical area" would be replaced by "University Lake Watershed District". Collins recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners is (1) the application of the University Lake Watershed overlay district, (2) the 5-acre zoning provision, (3) the higher impervious surface limits -- 6% for the 5-acre lots with a sliding scale down to 12% for a 2-acre lot. One other provision addresses utility services and the use of alternative systems. The ordinance provisions as worded now would permit onsite septic disposal systems and that would include low pressure systems for an individual lot. Community alternative systems, whether they are spray irrigation, package plants or low pressure systems would not be permitted until April, 1991. During that interim period, the Orange County Health PAGE 5 Department would be looking at its own program to monitor and inspect such systems. If they found that that program was operating successfully, they would come back to the Board for their consideration on whether or not to allow alternative systems within the watershed. A similar provision is also applicable to public water service. Until April, 1991 no public water extensions would be permitted except to serve an emergency situation. During that interim period there would be a study to determine the advisability of allowing public water extensions within the watershed. With reference to public sewer there are two options. One option is an outright prohibition on sewer extensions except for emergency situations. The other option would not allow any extensions until April, 1991 at which time a study would be done to determine the advisability of allowing public sewer. He suggests wording in these provisions dealing with water and sewer to indicate a continuance of the prohibition indefinitely until the Board of Commissioners make a final decision on whether to allow any or all of the provisions. PUBLIC COMMENTS ALICE GORDON offered three principles that would guide any agreement on watershed protection that may be implemented. The first one is to implement strong measures to protect the University Lake Watershed. For public safety reasons, it is of prime importance to protect the water quality of University Lake and the CDM report is a solid basis for protection measures. The second principle is to address the legitimate concerns of the property owners in the watershed. She feels it important to recognize that these concerns are real and must be taken into account. The third principle is to find a way to purchase critical lands in the watershed. As part of the overall solution to watershed protection, the various jurisdictions and OWASA should cooperate to buy the most critical land such as a quarter mile along the perennial streams and more land around the lake itself. Purchasing the critical lands would permanently protect the lands which are the most important in preserving water quality and would allow more flexible development in lands which are less critical. Assuming the 13-point agreement is an impervious surface coverage of 7.1%, with 19,000 acres in the watershed, 1,349 acres would be covered. Assuming the County staff's proposal gives 7.4% coverage, that would leave about 1,406 acres paved. The difference equals 67 acres. To remove 67 acres of paving, 800-900 acres would need to be purchased. This compares with the 550 acres needed to protect the perennial corridors at 200 feet. She encouraged everyone to work toward finding a solution that will protect the watershed while also protecting the interest of all the landowners. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL ARRIVED. RICHARD HAMMER stated that the biggest decision has already been made. It is not necessary to protect the watershed but approaches have been presented that will protect the watershed. All across America municipalities draw their drinking water from places that are not perfectly clean. Smithfield takes its drinking water out of the Neuse River just downstream from where Raleigh dumps their wastewater. Chicago gets its drinking water out of Lake Michigan. Pittsboro gets its drinking water from the runoff of Chapel Hill. He feels OWASA can use techniques to clean the water without stopping development. He feels there are alternatives that have not been disclosed. He is concerned that the decision has been made to protect the watershed offering the public a variety of that decision. He feels it important to protect the environment but feels that everything does not need to be perfectly pure. He stated that Chapel Hill should not be entitled to pure water at someone else's expense. All other cities take their drinking water and clean it up enough to drink. THOMAS JORDAN spoke against the watershed protection measures. He feels that it is PAGE 6 OWASA's responsibility to clean the water. GEORGE BRUMLEY, developer in Orange County, stated his major grievance is the issue of changing the rules in the middle of the game. They develop property and they develop according to the rules as they were written at the time they began the development. They are now faced with an impervious surface restriction that would actually change the rules during the period in which they no longer have a choice of whether to make the decision to proceed or not. If this impervious restriction is approved, he will have to change the type of development originally approved. VERLA INSKO, Chair of the OWASA Board, read a prepared statement. This statement is attached to these minutes as EXHIBIT "A" . RANDY FEW feels this is an issue of fairness and practicality. He feels the financial burden of clean drinking water should not be on those who receive no benefits from it. Those who say that a reduction of allowed impervious surface will not affect the value of land are wrong. The value of the land in Chapel Hill will rise due to the quality of life, benefits they will receive from the reduction of density surrounding the town and the increase in the quality of water. It is an unfair transfer of wealth. He stated that quality drinking water is a goal that must be achieved but he asked that the County not make those in the way of an expanding Chapel Hill and Carrboro pay the price. He asked that a way be found to spread the cost among those who will benefit from it. He feels that passing this ordinance will render many lots nonconforming. He supports Mr. Collins' proposal. PHILIP SZOSTAK spoke as a supporter of the work group that developed the watershed protection measures. What became evident during the discussion was that a stricter consistent amendment to the Land Use Plan and Development Ordinance must be put into practice. It also became clear that the CDM study was a good beginning but could not be used to scientifically justify planning restrictions. Accountability of data was the major issue of discussion. The development model was so simplified it did not take into account roadways, right-of-ways, parklands, or other undeveloped land. It did not take into account the greater reduction of possible density that would occur if septic tanks were the only method of wastewater distribution. It did not take into account the standard or required development practices such as the State's Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinances which require that each development allow stormwater runoff to a velocity and volume that exist prior to construction. Detention basins (BMP's) would have to be installed. All development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro must further illustrate this compliance with a computerized model as part of the final approval process. He recommended that Section II Natural Environment, subsection B on water resources, reflect two acre zoning with on-site detention ponds. Concerning Section V, Joint Land Use Operating Principles. He suggested that public water and sewer service be offered as the most reliable method of protecting our water resources. Concerning Section V, Land Use Joint Planning Areas, he recommended Option II as presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. Concerning Section VI - Overview of the Implementation Strategies, he recommended that a study be done on public water and sewer extensions. With the EPA change in water quality guidelines, he recommended that a permanent watershed task force be establish to continuously monitor and recommend strategies to protect this water. DAVID CARR. Partner of Oak Value Properties, stated they are developing Oak Crest Subdivision and are following the rules put in place by the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. They are environmentally sensitive developers trying to work per the rules laid out. He opposed the rules changing half-way, in the game. He asked that the developers be considered in any decision made and to consider the people whose sole PAGE 7 investment and livelihood is in the property they own. He asked that the people be treated fair and that the burden and the benefit be balanced with the benefit going to the people who drink the water. The people in the watershed cannot drink the water nor can they use the sewage system that OWASA provides. He feels the issue of compensation should be addressed. The loss of value must be taken into consideration. It could be done through the transfer of development rights. He asked that the impervious surface ratios come close to where they were when they began their development. He commended the County Planning Staff for the job they do. B. R HACKNEY, resident in the watershed, spoke against the proposed regulations. His family has lived on this land for six generations. He feels that rural residents have no political representation on OWASA, on the Orange/Chatham Work Group, Orange County Commissioners or the Planning Board. He feels the rural residents will receive no benefit nor compensation for these restrictions. The costs are being transferred from the users of OWASA services to those who do not and cannot use those services. The main goal is protection of water quality and no one knows what water quality is. There is no provision for improvement of water quality. CDM clearly indicates that the only measure to improve the water quality would be the implementation of regional detention ponds maintained by an official body -- not the onsite units maintained by developers as recommended by Orange County. This contradicts CDM which recommended a regional approach and detention ponds. The land use controls would at best maintain the status of the present quality. This has not been given enough attention. University Lake has a safe yield of 3mgd during the rainy season and is not the main water supply. Cane Creek provides lOmgd. He made reference to the Rural Character Study and the fact that the report has not yet been finalized. JOHNNY KENNEDY stated that there are a lot of poor people going to be pushed out of this County, home, land and everything they have worked for. He feels that the County Commissioners and OWASA want to take the easy way out on about everything they do. He did a study on the overview of the CDM report. To implement the structural controls to protect the drinking water, it would cost each customer .0003 cents per gallon which he feels is no cost. He suggested that the University of North Carolina pay part of this cost instead of putting all the restrictions on all the citizens in Orange County who are depending on the land for their livelihood. DANIEL A. OKUN, an engineer in the water supply field, stated that protection of the water supply is not unique to Orange County but is happening everywhere in the United States. He prefers the recommendation of the five acres without structural controls because the consulting engineers did not use as an objective a non-degradation approach. They recognized that there would be some continued degradation. The primary principle used by all water agencies in protecting the water supply is that the water supply should be taken from the best available source and every effort should be made to protect it. Treatment technology is not a substitute for protection of the source. He recognizes their are problems and complaints about changing the rules in the middle of the game. Unfortunately, those who drink the water are having to change in the middle of the game. Those who are responsible for providing drinking water for communities are themselves facing changing requirements. The Smithfields are the very cities in trouble. He realizes that this is a divided issue. Those who have stated that there will be an economic impact have not been studying what is actually occurring. In every court case where the developer has sued because of a loss of value, the courts have concluded that not only do jurisdictions have the right to protect the public health but that there has been no loss in value. MARGARET HOLTONs advocate for the protection of water, endorsed the statements made by Mr. Okun. She read a prepared statement which is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT B". PAGE 8 NOTE: COMMISSIONER MARSHALL ARRIVED. VICTOR TRIPP stated that OWASA has millions of dollars they can raise to express their side of the issue. All the watersheds are important. He asked that OWASA explain why the sludge from OWASA could not be dumped into University Lake Watershed if it is harmless and if it is not harmless they should stop dumping it in the other watersheds because people in those watersheds like clean water also. He feels that the property owners should not foot the bill for cleaner water that is not used by them but should be required to trap pollutants from the water on their lots which could possibly pollute their water. He asked that the decisions be fair for all watersheds and the restrictions on the use of the property be decided using the principles this country was established. He made reference to a family who has owned property in the watershed for over 200 years who feels they are being run out of the county. He feels it is the duty of the County to come up with a compromise. MOSES CAREY ENTERED INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM MR. GORDAN NAVLE, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE. NANCY MUELLER has lived in the watershed since 1969. They bought in the watershed because they did not want to live in an area where there would be development. She is in favor of option one as presented by the Orange County Planning Board. She does not understand the problem and opposition to fresh, clean water. LIZ MCGEACHY spoke as a representative of the Orange County Greens. She stated that both sides are right. Those that drink water from the reservoirs require a clean protected water supply and those who have lived their lives for perhaps generations in Orange County deserve a measure of security for themselves and their decedents. It is not the people of Orange County who put these needs in conflict but rather the economic system which does not value environmental or social well being. It is a challenge to come together to solve the problems creatively in a manner that respects the needs of all citizens. The extent of environmental degradation in the 90's is vast and requires the Greens to air on the side of over protection. The Greens support the original or modified Orange County work group option calling for impervious surface limits and limited two acre lot subdivision. The Greens call on the County Commissioners to bring citizens together countywide to determine how to address the economic needs of the less developed parts of the County in an ecological sustainable and socially responsible manner. MARTY MANDELL, resident of Carrboro, stated that CDM found that with the development that was already in the watershed the water supply could not be made any better. To keep the lake as it is would mean a halt to all development. Water quality is in direct proportion to the amount and density of development. At the end of the study the issue became levels of degradation, a compromise for not being able to improve the lake's water quality. Other suggestions made since then have increased the level of degradation up to as much as 36% which is too much. She asks that there be a compromise. Orange County has 99,345 people of which 55,000 are OWASA's customers. University Lake happens to be the first watershed, the others will follow. She urged that minimum degradation be supported as proposed by the CDM study. ROY STROWD stated he supports quality water. The joint committee recommended individual septic tanks and is refusing to use private waste treatment systems. He feels it would be easier to monitor one treatment system than numerous individual septic systems and a discharge from a treatment system would present less hazard than an individual septic system. He feels that extending water and sewer to the watershed area would give greater protection to the watershed than individual septic tanks. He does not understand why PAGE 9 smaller parcels of land can enjoy higher densities than larger tracts of land. He feels the runoff would be just as contaminated from small tracts as from larger tracts. In the five acre recommendation, there appears to be no consideration for variation in soil types, typography, or types of vegetation that would affect the absorption or runoff. He expressed two concerns that need a decision: (1) this issue has been around for years and people need to know how they can use their property, and (2) he is opposed to the governmental bodies sharing the cost of any legal costs -- the damages and cost of legal fees should be paid by OWASA. BILL KALKHOF spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill. He read a statement which is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT C". ROBERTA BLACK, president of the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement. That statement is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT D". TED LATTA stated that the landowners in University Lake are not opposed to protecting the watershed. The only thing they are asking is that the County be fair and equitable. Five acre restrictions with no compensation, in their eyes, is totally unfair. Because of the impervious surface ratio, a person with a large lot can only have a house, a yard and a driveway. JUDITH WEGNER emphasized that the work done by the Orange/Chatham Joint Planning Work Group was designed to try to air all the issues that had been raised by everyone. A great deal of effort was put into studying the CDM report and trying to figure out some solutions to the environmental issues and the equity issues that have been raised. The complexity of the issue requires careful balancing and judgment relating to the equity of the situation. The density of the impervious surface recommendations by the work group were very closely linked and needs to be thought of in those terms. The proposal that there be a 4% impervious surface requirement for five acre lots and a six percent impervious requirement for two acre lots was based on careful review of staff recommendations and on some judgment of the feasibility of applying those impervious surface requirements taking into account existing patterns of development. It is especially important that the model Marvin Collins put forward be looked at to insure there are not judgements made about the infeasible application of those standards without thinking through it completely. The committee felt that taking into account the roads and the location of roads could be done and still the size and shape of the lots could be worked out to make these feasible limits. She asked that the governmental bodies go beyond the regulatory provisions that are recommended tonight and be sure and review the other recommendations for purchase of development rights and creation of a loan program to deal with the equitable concerns of those who may be affected by these regulations. EDWIN DUNCAN feels he has inadequate information to make a decision on the watershed issues being discussed. He asked that there be a focal point where people can express their individual problems. He feels the County is not listening to the people. He stated that without some kind of cost benefits he does not see how a decision can be reached. He stated that half of the land will not perk. Without sewer access that land is worthless. For the land that will be developed, it will cost an additional $2,000 to develop. ERICH HAAS spoke as a representative of Little River Township. He spoke about the hazards of wet detention ponds. By constructing these ponds, it creates another point of collection or concentration of pollutants that could slow down the deterioration of the University Lake Reservoir but in the process raise the risk of decreasing the quality of water for the rural area residents who don't drink city water and who own their own wells. To construct, operate and maintain 72 regional wet detention ponds would cost the PAGE 10 taxpayers at the end of the 31 year buildout $31,000,000. He feels more emphasis should be placed on treatment of the water where the primary responsibility is at the plant. GREG GANGI, spoke as a member of the Sierra Club. They passed a resolution which supports that of Dr. Okun. He stated that the elected bodies are asked to choose between the rights of the property owners to use their property as they choose and the rights of people to clean water and good health. He hopes the elected bodies will choose to protect the rights of clean water and good health. University Lake and the watershed are very fragile because of their characteristics including shallow depth, extensive agricultural activities and high potential for increased development and traffic. He feels that instead of making the water as bad as Smithfield's, we should pity them and learn from their mistakes. Many developers have indicated this will decrease the value of their land. With pretty good assurance, development in Chapel Hill is running out of space. Land prices may drop initially but only for a short while. A concern that the Commissioners can meet without jeopardizing the quality of water is that when the price of property increases, poor residents may be displaced because of rising taxes. ALLEN SPALT, resident of Carrboro and actively involved in protecting the watershed, stated that the CDM report is a good basis to start with but government officials need to recognize that it does have a very serious flaw. It started with an assumption that there should be a goal of minimal degradation of the water. It does not propose what it would take to maintain or improve the water quality. All the recommendations would result in at least a 10% degradation of the water. He is concerned that some of the provisions talked about now on impervious surface would result in the degradation of the water of at least one third or 35 to 40%. The recommendations presented by Marvin Collins seem to be solid in all respects. He supports a sliding scale for impervious surface but not a scale that goes from six to twelve percent. That is much too high. Community systems should be prohibited; water and sewer extensions with very limited exceptions should be prohibited. If there are BMP's under any of the plans, it is essential that they be publicly maintained. This zoning decision in the not so very long run will result in increased values for everyone concerned. In the short run, it may not. This is not a taking or a confiscation and the governmental bodies should not be afraid that it is considered such. TOM SHAHADY, resident of Carrboro, stated that any development that is put in the watershed will be reflected in the Lake. Any pollutants will directly reflect the water quality. He supports any protection that can be given to this watershed. HAROLD MCKEEL spoke in support of watershed protection. He owns land in the watershed and urged the acceptance of the Planning Director's recommendation. Other water supplies were destroyed before people began paying attention to water quality. Orange County has the unique opportunity to enjoy water that is clean and it makes sense to protect it. LIVY LUDINGTON expressed her concern for the polarity and divisiveness in this County when discussing drinking water. Everyone deserves to drink safe clean water. What the county decides to do in the watershed will affect the health of children and their children. This should not be an issue that divides people. They should be working together for the community. If the rivers and streams that comprise the watersheds are not clean, then the drinking water is not safe. People in this county who oppose the proposed zoning in the watershed will someday be concerned about their drinking water. Then those who approve these restrictions will help them fight for clean water because everyone is in this together. What is unique to Orange County is that the headwaters of the streams that comprise the watersheds are here within the boundaries of this County. What happens to the drinking water is totally up to the County. The landowners in the University Watershed have concerns that need to be listened to carefully. Her concern is that in PAGE 11 trying to make the landowners happy, the water quality is slowly but surely being eroded. If, the recommendations are adopted from the CDM report, the quality of the water will be degraded by seventeen percent. Add the recommendations of the task force and it is degraded by 28% and the new impervious surface recommendations and it is degraded by 37%. If there are too many compromises and cuts, they will no longer be talking about clean water. Once heavy metals and toxins enter the lake, they cannot be removed. She requested that the elected officials start their consideration with these percentages in mind. Select a percentage they think University Lake should be degraded. She feels 17% is too high. Safe drinking water should be the first priority. After deciding the percent of degradation, then decide how to address the concerns of the landowners. Do not confuse the two issues but deal with them separately. Compromise will only result in unhealthy water. The equity issue will need to be addressed. Perhaps an appraisal of the land will help determine its value if it were to be zoned in five acre lots. As the Triangle grows, everyone's property will increase in value. This is an attractive area where the quality of life is excellent. If safe drinking water is not available, property values will decrease. BILL BURCH, member of the Landowners Association, stated that clean water is the issue. What needs to be considered are other alternatives than those listed in the CDM report. He would like for the County to find other ways to protect the watershed and keep the restrictions away from the property owners. He talked about the handicapped and their inability to live in a three story house. He asked that the County look at the N.C. Environmental Health and Natural Resources guidelines. He had a conversation with Mr. Alan Klimek who stated that the County did not need five acres to protect the water system but that two acres would be sufficient in the WSI watershed. He did not say that detention ponds would be required on two acres as CDM indicates. He said the impervious ratio of six percent has created a lot of problems in Wake County. Mr. Klimek stated that as long as it was a single family dwelling, there was no need for very strict impervious ratios. This takes the rights away from the people to construct swimming pools, tennis courts, a barn for a horse and a basketball goal. MARY BUSHNELL urged the elected officials to consider undertaking the land use control strategies as specified in the CDM Study. The essential question is how best to protect the water in the University Lake Watershed. In the CDM report, non-structural strategies allow for some degradation but it is minimal. The chart of other land use scenarios shows increasing degradation rather dramatically. The fragility, the small size of the watershed makes it very important that caution and great caring in how it is protected be used. The maintenance cost of the detention ponds need to be considered. The growth in this area that is expected in the next decade could be enormous and more water will be used. The decisions made now will have ramifications all the way down the line for the future. It would be very useful if the issue of establishing water protection standards could be separated from the issue of how to implement those standards and equitably share the cost and responsibility for implementing them as two separate items. The priority needs to be the protecting of the water. ERWIN DANZIGER stated that as a landowner he feels he needs some protection for the water. He supports Mr. Collins' recommendation. SARAH CARTER, rural resident of Orange County, expressed her concern for her family. She is heir to twenty acres that is to be divided between seven children. They are farmers and have always had clean water. She asked that they be allowed to divide this parcel using the two acre lot minimum instead of the five acre requirement. She asked that the rules not be changed in the middle of the game. O PAGE 12 Commissioner Willhoit stated that the Planning Director's recommendation would permit dividing a twenty acre parcel into seven lots. Chair Carey suggested Mrs. Carter go to the County Planning Office and ask how these changes affect her individual property. Town Council Member Hilliard Caldwell made comments about the complexity of the report. CATHY CARROLL spoke in support of Option 2 as presented by Marvin Collins. She agrees that everyone needs clean drinking water and that it should be achieved through the most responsible and fair means possible. It is possible to work with two acre lots and detention ponds with attention to details. MARK O'NEILL of Flat River Properties asked that as many options as possible be provided so that the individual landowner can apply those options in the most environmentally sound and in the most economically sound manner. He supports Option 2 with two exceptions. He feels that water and sewer extension with some properties makes sense and the option of community water systems need to be looked at. He feels that the process has been going on for so long that the basic economic model of supply and demand that creates value in land is out of kilter. There is so much risk that the people forced to sell their property are losing money. By finalizing the rules, it is hoped that the supply and demand model will coihe back into kilter. ROBERT GREENBERG is a resident of the University Lake Watershed. He spoke as a pediatrician and urged them to choose the most restrictive options for development in University Lake Watershed. Unfortunately any development will lead to deterioration. That can't be prevented. They are learning regularly of adverse health affects from low level pollutants -- pollutants that can't be measured. The latest one is low level lead that has long term affects on the development of young children. The children are most vulnerable to pollutants and they are the ones that will drink the water for the longest period of time and will be the ones that will suffer the most. If public health is a priority, the best solution is no development. If that can't be done, then a decision needs to be made to determine how much risk can be taken and how much deterioration can be tolerated. Restrictions must be adopted to keep the water from deteriorating and then address as a separate issue the problem of costs for those people who want to develop the land. Public health is the most important thing. He urged them to adopt the most restrictive options. There is no going back. Technology does not provide a filter to remove everything. He would like to see it more restrictive than the five acres. He asked that the impervious options not be changed. ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, Vice-President of the Alliance of the Chapel Hill Neighborhoo4Fand Associate Professor of English at the University of North Carolina, expressed appreciation for the attention given to both sides of this issue. He made reference to a story and stated that he does not know the magic formula to do what is best for everyone and also create a happy balance between the legitimate claims of private property rights and the rights of public well being. There is no way of knowing what is best for all. The engineering reports and public health studies show that the water supply of the future will be damaged if property rights in this case takes absolute precedence over public well being. He urged them to protect the watershed by the maximum allowed by the options available while endangering property rights as little as possible. If the damage to the watershed is allowed to make the property of all citizens unsafe, then property rights in the future will have very little meaning. BETTY MULTABY stated that it seems there is a group of citizens of this community whose needs are not being addressed often enough here. These are the citizens who have already been priced out of affordable housing. There will be a loss of affordable housing because s PAGE 13 of the five acre limitation. She asked that as the governing bodies make these decisions that they remember that other issues such as affordable housing are directly affected. BILL BURCH asked about the buffer widths and stated that the state guidelines for buffer widths is fifty feet plus the slope times four which equals 110 feet. The County recommendation is double that figure. He asked for an explanation stating that if 110 feet will protect the water system, the governing boards should consider that. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. BOARD ACTION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer all items under "D" to the governing boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for a decision and to refer all the items considered at this public hearing to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 2, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With no further comments, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Monday, March 5 at 7:30 in the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 01 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY/CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 240, 323 and 343; Article 20, Sections 20. 5 and 20 . 6, and Articles 2 .2 . 12 and 2 .2 . 13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; Section VIII of the Subdivision Regulations; and Article 2 of a Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro; notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at the Carrboro Elementary School on Shelton Street in Carrboro, N.C. on February 28, 1990 at 7 : 30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items : JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT The proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text are as follows: 1. Amend Section II . Natural, Environment by rewriting subsection B. Natural Resources to include a description of the strategies recommended for the protection of University Lake watershed. These strategies include a land use control approach with a five-acre lot size requirement, and a structural approach, with a two-acre lot size requirement and regional and/or on-site stormwater detention ponds . 2 . Amend Section V. Joint Planning Operating Principals and Section VI. Future Land Use = Joint Planning Area to delete an existing reference to a Town of Carrboro policy statement regarding the preferred development pattern and method of water and sewer service in University Lake watershed. The existing policy is inconsistent with that currently under consideration. Also included is a description of a new land use category designated "University Lake Watershed Area" rather than the current designation of "Water Quality Critical Area" . Two alternative descriptions are proposed which reflect strategies recommended forr the protection of University Lake watershed. These strategies include a land use control approach with a R \ 02 five-acre lot size requirement, and a structural approach, with a two-acre lot size requirement and regional and/or on-site stormwater detention ponds . Either of the descriptions or some combination of the two may be used, depending upon the implementation strategy selected for use in the watershed. 3. Amend Section VII . Overview of Implementation Strategies by providing a description of current Orange County policies regarding public water and sewer extensions permitted in the Rural Buffer and University Lake watershed. Proposed refinements to the policies, including temporary or permanent restrictions on such extensions, are also described. 4. Amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map by deleting the current "Water Quality Critical Area" surrounding University Lake and designating the entire watershed as a new overlay district known as the "University Lake Watershed Area" . JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT The proposed amendment to the Orange County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement is as follows : 1 . Amend Section 1 .2 Definitions by revising the definition of "Rural Buffer" to include reference to a new overlay district designated "University Lake Watershed Area" rather than the current designation of "Water Quality Critical Area" . ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is as follows : 1 . Amend the Land Use Element Map by deleting the current "Water Quality Critical Area" surrounding University Lake. This would leave the entire watershed designated only as a "Water Supply Watershed" on the Land Use Element Map. ORANGE COUNT? -ZONING ATLAS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas is as follows: ' I 1 . Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District Currently, all property within the boundaries of University Lake Watershed are designated as and subject to the requirements of one of two overlay zoning districts-the Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District or 03 1 the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District. The proposed amendment would remove these designations from the property and replace it with a new overlay zoning district designation - the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1 . Amend Article 4 .2 .27 Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District and Article 4.2 .28 Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District by deleting existing references to University Lake watershed, thus eliminating that watershed from the requirements of the PW-II and WQCA overlay zoning districts . 2 . Amend Article 4 .2 . 30 Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District by renumbering the Article to 4 .2 . 31, thus providing space for a new Article 4 .2 .30 which establishes the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. 3 . Amend Article 4 by adding a new article 4.2 . 30 which establishes a new overlay zoning district entitled the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District for the purpose of preventing significant water quality deterioration in University Lake. This goal may be achieved through either of two separate options or by some combination of the two. The two options include: ( 1) the application of land use controls (five-acre zoning) to reduce pollution; and (2 ) structural controls, including existing two-acre zoning and the installation of on-site stormwater detention ponds to trap pollution. 4 . Amend Article 6 . 15.2 Interim Development Standards Approved by establishing a new set of temporary development standards applicable within University Lake watershed. Under the proposed standards, community alternative treatment systems and public water extensions would not be permitted in the watershed until April 30, 1991 . For public sewer extensions, two options are proposed: ( 1) temporary restrictions through April 30, 1991 except to remedy a public health emergency; and (2) a permanent prohibition on extensions except to remedy a public health emergency. In the case of the temporary restrictions, studies would be undertaken during the interim period to determine the advisability of allowing such systems/services in the watershed. 5. Amend Article 6.25 Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor IMTC) District by renumbering the Article to 6.26, thus providing space for a new 04 Article 6 .25 which sets forth the development standards applicable within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. 6 . Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. Two separate options are proposed, including a set of land use controls which establish a minimum required lot size of five ( 5) acres and a density of no more than one ( 1) unit per five (5) acres. Compliance with impervious surface standards for roads, driveways, and structures is required as well as the provision of stream buffer zones . The second option requires the installation of on-site stormwater detention ponds but permits minimum lot sizes of two (2) acres . Either of the options or some combination of the two may be selected for implementation in the watershed. 7 . Amend Article 14 Site Plan Approval Procedures by requiring that single-family dwellings and duplexes, and accessory buildings for such uses be subject to site plan approval procedures. Individual land owners would be permitted to prepare their own site plans. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as follows: 1. Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments by adding a new subsection g which would require cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to comply with the development standards set forth in Article 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster, Developments, subsection c, to permit cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to have a minimum lot size of one (1) acre with an overall density of one ( 1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land. 3 . Amend Section IV-C Interim Development Standards by establishing a new set of temporary development standards applicable in University Lake watershed. The standards would be identical to those described above for inclusion in Article 6 . 15 .2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4 . Amend Section V-C preliminary Plat, subsection 6, by requiring that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as required by Article 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning 05 Ordinance be shown on a preliminary subdivision plat. 5. Amend Section V-D Final Plat, subsection 5-d, by requiring that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as required by Article 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be shown on a final subdivision plat or provided in a separate document recorded with the final plat. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, evidence and comments presented will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the proposals advertised which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department in the Planning & Agricultural Building at 306-F Revere Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8 :00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday-Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough) , 688-7331 (Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill) . Please ask for Extension 350 or 359 . You will be directed to a staff person who will answer your question. Marvin Collins Planning Director Publish: February 14, 1990 February 21, 1990 • 06 ,•• 1 07 Dear Property Owner: A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Carrboro Elementary School Auditorium on Shelton Street in Carrboro, N.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to land use plans and development regulations which would, if approved, implement recommended actions for protecting University Lake Watershed. The items to be considered at the public hearing are listed below. Specific proposals may affect your property directly or you may be being notified because your property adjoins affected property. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS. Currently, all property within the boundaries of University Lake Watershed is designated as and subject to the requirements of one of two overlay zoning districts -the Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District or the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District. The proposed amendment would remove these designations from the property and replace it with a new overlay zoning district designation - the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1. A proposal to establish a new overlay zoning district entitled the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District for the purpose of preventing significant water quality deterioration in University Lake. This goal may be achieved through a new set of permanent development standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. Two separate options are proposed: (1) a set of land use controls to reduce pollution by establishing a minimum required lot size of five acres and a density of no more than one unit per five acres; and (2) the installation of on-site storm water detention ponds to trap pollution with minimum lot sizes of two acres. Compliance with impervious surface standards for roads, driveways, and structures is required as well as the provision of stream buffer zones. Either of the options or some combination of the two may be selected for implementation in the watershed. Under Option #1, property owners with existing lots of record (as of October 2, 1989) less than five acres in size may develop the lots at the current size. Larger lots of record may be subdivided to create up to five lots of not less than two acres in size. The remaining land must be developed in accordance with the five-acre zoning standards above. 2. A proposal to establish a new set of temporary development standards applicable within University Lake Watershed. Under the proposed standards, community alternative treatment systems and public water extensions would not be permitted in the watershed until April 30, 1991. For public sewer extensions, two options are proposed: (1) temporary restrictiems through April 30, 1991 except to remedy a public health emergency; and (2) a permanent prohibition on extensions except to remedy a public health emergency. In the case of the temporary restrictions, studies would be undertaken during the interim period to determine the advisability of allowing such systems/services in the watershed. 3. A proposal to require that single-family dwellings and duplexes, and accessory buildings for such uses be subject to current site plan approval procedures. Individual land owners would be permitted to prepare their own site plans. In addition to the above, minor technical amendments are proposed for the purpose of incorporating the new provisions into the Zoning Ordinance. ORANGE COUNTY SUED VISION REGULATIONS O 8 The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as follows: 1. A proposal to permit cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to have a minimum lot size of one acre with an overall density of one dwelling unit per five acres of land. 2. A proposal to establish a new set of temporary development standards applicable in University Lake Watershed. The standards would be identical to those described above for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A proposal to require that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites be shown on a preliminary subdivision plat and recorded in a separate document with the final plat. Amendments to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement are also being proposed which will add descriptions of the University Lake Watershed Area and the recommended protection strategies. Questions regarding specific lots or land parcels and the affect of the proposed amendments may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Orange County Agricultural & Environmental Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 350 or 359. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Directly above the name on the mailing label is a number that references the property or properties affected. Please refer to this number if you contact the Planning Department with questions regarding the proposed amendments. Marvin Collins Planning Director Orange County BULK RATE Planning & Inspections Dept. US POSTAGE PAID 306F Revere Road HILLSBOROUGH, NC Hillsborough, NC 2727$0 PERMIT NO. 110 • i ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 09 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 b` wF' P �,M M� M• CERTIFICATE OF MAILING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING ORDINANCE AND ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Marvin Collins, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about February 14, 1990, I mailed, by first class mail, a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on proposed revisions to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Atlas regarding recommended protection measures for University Lake Watershed. The notice was mailed to each property owner as required by Article 20, Section 20. 6.3, and Article 2, Section 2 .2 . 14 . 3, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and specified the date, time, place, and subject of the public hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 23rd day of February, 1990 . 19.11.04:10. 2041APV0 Marvin Collins Zoning Officer . 10 • 11 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 Action Agenda Item # 1) 14'2 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan/Text - Joint Planning Agreement DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: ,X_Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 346 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan/Text and Agreement. The proposed amendments are being made to implement, in part, recommended strategies for the protection of University Lake Watershed. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, 1989 . Following the release of the Final Report, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide recommended strategies for its implementation. In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed 13..point agreement on University Lake watershed protection. To implement the recommended strategies for watershed protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify needed changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan/Text and Agreement. The following amendments are proposed: 1 . A proposed amendment which incorporates descriptions of the basic strategies for protecting 1 12 University Lake watershed as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee. Two options are presented for consideration. Option #1 is based on the land use control strategy recommended by CDM and the Joint Watershed Work Group. The basic provision of Option #1 includes a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a maximum density of one ( 1) unit per five (5 ) acres for, any development. Option #2 is based on the structural best management practice approach recommended by CDM. It includes a minimum lot size of two (2 ) acres and a maximum density of one ( 1) unit per two (2) acres . In addition, on-site stormwater detention basins or ponds are recommended to trap pollutants on the site rather than allowing them to travel through drainage tributaries to the University Lake reservoir. 2 . A proposed amendment providing for a new land use plan overlay category - the University Lake Watershed Area - and alternative development patterns based on the recommended options contained in the University Lake Watershed Study. 3 . A proposed amendment to reflect current County water and sewer extension policies and identify refinements being contemplated by the Joint Planning Area jurisdictions . 4 . A proposed amendment to provide consistency between the wording of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Text and Agreement by deleting the reference to the "overlay district designated Water Quality Critical Area" and substituting "overlay district designated University Lake Watershed Area" . A full description of the proposed changes is included in the attached information. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Directors of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro recommend approval of the proposed amendments, including Option #1, the recommended land use control strategy. Option #2 is not preferred, since it would result in a proliferation of on-site (and possibly regional) wet water detention ponds which are expensive to build and maintain. 13 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text. If adopted, the amendments would implement, in part, the strategies for watershed protection identified in the Final Report -University Lake Watershed Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989. Two options are presented for consideration. Option 11 is based on the land use control strategy recommended by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) , the consultants who prepared the University Lake Watershed Study, and the Joint Watershed Work Group. The basic provisions of Option #1 include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a maximum density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres for any development. Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed as well as the creation of a limited number (5) of two- acre lots. Option la is based on the structural best management practice approach recommended by CDM. Option #2 includes a minimum lot size of two (2) acres and a maximum density of one (1) unit per two (2) acres. In addition, on-site stormwater detention basins or ponds are recommended to trap pollutants on the site rather than allowing them to travel through drainage tributaries to the University Lake reservoir. Both Option #1 and Option #2 are being presented at a special public hearing on February 28, 1990. The presentation of the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text, and Joint Planning Agreement will be made to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board, and the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Following the presentation and receipt of public comment, the public hearing will continue but involve only the Board of Commissioners and consideration of proposed amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas (Map) , Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. Because the proposals involve amendments to Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text, they require the approval of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Upon completion of the public hearing, and following receipt of the deq.sions of the Towns. of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the Orange County Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the two. Under the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement, however, the concurring vote of all three jurisdictions is required for approval. The specific wording proposed for various sections of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Text is listed below. Explanatory comments appear after the proposals in [italics] . The proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan map 14 would delete the land use category "Water Quality Critical Area" adjacent to University Lake. In itsplace, the entirety of the watershed in Orange County's planning and zoning jurisdiction would be denoted. A. Amend Section II Natural Environment by rewriting the subsection entitled "B. Water Resources" to read as follows : Residents of southeast Orange, County obtain water from two sources: groundwater (wells) or reservoirs. However, the most reliable source of water for urban use is a reservoir. Until recently, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the surrounding areas relied exclusively on University Lake. That source was recognized as inadequate as a long-term water source, and Cane Creek reservoir west of the Joint Planning Area has been constructed and is now operational. The two reservoirs should provide a raw water supply adequate for the next 20 years . In addition, the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan has identified possible future reservoir sites to the north of Chapel Hill. The link between land use planning and water resources in the Joint Planning Area lies in protecting water quality by limiting development in University Lake watershed. In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, 1989 . Because the consultants did not find improving water quality to be a practical objective, they recommended preventing significant future water quality deterioration in University Lake as a primary goal. The CDM report presented two fundamental ways of meeting the University Lake water quality goal. Nonstructural management practices, such as controlling land use through local zoning and subdivision regulations, could reduce the pollution generated from future development by controlling the amount and location of impervious surfaces and other pollution-causing activities. Structural practices, such as stormwater detention ponds, would not reduce the amount of pollution generated but prevent substantial portions of it from reaching University Lake by trapping pollutants near their point of origin. The report recommended nonstructural methods as the preferred approach to watershed protection. Basic elements of the proposed nonstructural plan included large lot (five-acre) residential zoning, limits on impervious surfaces, and the preservation of stream buffers along, streams . The advantages of the nonstructural approach included the lower amount of pollution generated and its reduced risk of entering the lake, the elimination of construction and maintenance costs for stormwater devices, and the ability to provide wastewater disposal through individual septic systems rather than risky community wastewater systems . 15 The CDM report did find that the water quality goal could be achieved through adopted land use plans and regulations (two-acre zoning) and the construction of a significant number of stormwater detention ponds. While the approach would provide for continued growth in the watershed, the high public and private costs associated with a system of 72 larger regional detention ponds or an indeterminant number of smaller individual-development- detention ponds and intensive on-going maintenance requirements were noted as disadvantages . In addition, there would be no way to convert back to a nonstructural control strategy if a structural program resulted in unsatisfactory watershed protection. [The proposed amendment incorporates descriptions of the basic strategies for protecting University Lake watershed as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee into the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. ] B. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by deleting the following wording from the subsection entitled "Initial List . of Principles - University Lake Watershed" : NOTE: The Town of Carrboro supports low-density development in the watershed but proposes that it be accomplished through cluster development served by central water and sewer. [The existing wording is inconsistent with proposed restrictions regarding public water and sewer extensions into the watershed. ] C. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by deleting the table which identifies the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Categories and substituting the following: JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES Major Land Use Plan Class Subclass Category Resource Protection Public-Private Open Space Suburban Residential Transition Urban Residential TRANSITION Transition I Office-Institutional Transition II Future UNC Development Retail Trade Light Industrial Disposal Use University Lake Watershed Resource Protection RURAL Public-Private Open Space Rural Buffer Agricultural CONSERVATION Rural Residential Retail Trade Extractive Use 16 [The proposed amendment deletes a category entitled "Water Quality Critical Area" and substitutes "University Lake watershed Area" in its place. ] D. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by rewriting the last sentence of the subsection "Rural Buffer and Conservation" to read as follows : The Rural Buffer consists of the following Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan categories: Rural Residential; Agricultural; Public- Private Open Space; Resource Conservation; Extractive Use; and the overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area. In addition, the subsection "Water Quality Critical Area" is deleted and, in its place, the following new subsection is substituted: OPTION 11 The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to exceed one dwelling unit per five acres of land. OPTION #2 The University, Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a watershed protection strategy of structural controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to exceed one dwelling unit per two acres of land. A series of regional and/or on-site stormwater detention ponds is associated with such development to trap pollutants and prevent their deposition in the reservoir. [The proposed amendments provide for a new land use plan overlay category - the University Lake Watershed Area - and alternative development patterns based on the recommended options contained in the University Lake Watershed study. ] E. Amend Sectior .VI Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area by rewriting the first paragraph of the subsection "The Rural Buffer Area" to read as follows: Seven categories of Rural Buffer land use have been depicted on the Land Use Plan. These categories include Resource Protection Areas, Public-Private Open Space Areas, Agricultural Areas, Rural Residential Areas, Retail Trade Areas, Extractive Uses, and the overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area. In addition, the subsection "Water Quality Critical Area" is 17 deleted and, in its place, the following new subsection is substituted: OPTION #1 University Lake Watershed Area The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to exceed one dwelling unit per five acres of land. OPTION 12 University Lake Watershed Area The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Based on a watershed protection strategy of structural controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low-density residential uses are permitted at densities not to exceed one dwelling unit per two acres of land. A series of regional and/or on-site stormwater detention ponds is associated with such development to trap pollutants and prevent their deposition in the reservoir. A final change recommended for Section VI involves the subsection "Rural Residential" and redrafting the third paragraph to read as follows: OPTION 11 To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also expected in University Lake watershed. However, only low-density residential uses developed at densities of one dwelling unit per five acres of land or greater are anticipated. For this reason, residential development will continue to rely on wells and septic tanks for water supply and sewage disposal . OPTION #2 To the west gf.. Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also expected in University Lake watershed. However, only low-density residential uses developed at densities of one dwelling unit per two acres of land or greater are anticipated. For this reason, residential development will continue to rely on wells and septic tanks for water supply and sewage disposal purposes. Associated with such development will be a system of regional and/or on-site stormwater detention ponds for watershed protection purposes. (The proposed amendments are generally identical to those recommended under amendment "D" and provide for a new land use 18 plan overlay category - the University Lake Watershed Area - and alternative development patterns based on the recommended options contained in the University Lake Watershed Study. ] F. Amend Section VII Overview of Implementation Strategies by rewriting the last paragraph of the subsection "Sewer and Water Extension Policy" to read as follows: The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) is the provider of water and sewer in the Joint Planning Area. OWASA policy is to extend water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies of the applicable local governments . Current Orange County policy is to approve water and sewer extensions generally only to recognized Transition Areas, and, outside of Transition Areas, to approve extensions of water or sewer systems only to provide service to an essential public service, such as a school, or to remedy a public health emergency, such as a failing septic tank or failing package treatment plant. Refinements to this policy have been recommended as part of Joint Planning Area implementation strategies . Under consideration currently is a temporary prohibition on public water extensions in University Lake watershed until a study can be undertaken of the advisability of extending such service. Furthermore, either an out-right prohibition or a temporary prohibition on public sewer extensions appears likely, excepting sewer service extensions to remedy a public health emergency. If a temporary prohibition is adopted, the provision of sewer service in the watershed would be reconsidered following a study regarding the advisability of such extensions . [The proposed amendment is provided to reflect current County policy and identify refinements being contemplated by the Joint Planning Area jurisdictions. ] The proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement is as follows: 1 . Amend the definition of "Rural Buffer" in Section 1 .2 Definitions by deleting the reference to the "overlay district designated Water Quality Critical Area" and substituting "overlay district designated University Lake Watershed Area" . [The proposed amendment provides consistency between the proposed wording of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Text as described above and the Joint Planning Agreement. ] 19 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 Action Agenda Item # ELI SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Orange County Comprehensive Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X_Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director - Extension 346 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of The Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is being made to implement, in part, recommended strategies for the protection of University Lake Watershed. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, 1989 . Following the release of the Final Report, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide recommended strategies for its implementation. In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed 13-point agreement on University Lake watershed prptection. To implement the recommended strategies for watershed protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify needed changes to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Only one change was found to be necessary - amend the Land Use Element Map by deleting the current "Water Quality Critical Area" surrounding University Lake. The amendment would leave the entire, watershed designated as a "Water Supply Watershed" on the Land Use Element Map, providing consistency with the Joint Planning Area 20 Land Use Plan and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 21 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 Action Agenda Item # MZ SUBJECT: Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _XYes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Location Maps Planning Director - Extension 346 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the proposed rezoning of approximately 15, 385 acres from Protected Watershed II (PW-II) and Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) to a proposed new zoning district classification, the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, 1989 . Following the release of the Final Report, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide recommended strategies for its implementation. In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed 13-point agreement on University Lake watershed prptection. While a specific zoning designation was not recommended by the Work Group, it is the intent of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to apply a set of development standards which would protect the watershed by preventing pollution generated by future development from reaching University Lake. It is the development standards which the Work Group addressed during its deliberations. The standards are to be considered as a separate agenda item - see proposed Zoning Ordinance 22 text amendments . The proposed ULW district would overlay other zoning districts established by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the existing overlay zoning districts (PW-II and WQCA) would be removed and the new ULW district would be applied. The underlying zoning district designation of Rural Buffer (RB) would remain unchanged. The ULW zoning district designation would apply to all land located in University Lake Watershed within Orange County's jurisdiction (see attached map) . An overlay approach is proposed to provide consistency with that used for other watersheds in Orange County and with the Rural Buffer concepts embodied in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas. • UNIVERSITY LAKE IfATsxED 23 :.. .. ill .....,.......,... _ iki. • w- P ° CTED WATERSHED ., 0 ER AY I . TRICT (Existing) 41,111111, 4w ..,..,.,....,„.....,. .... .„.„ •„•••,•• • ,, . .,.. ... „ ....„ .. . • ,. ... ..,,.. , ,,. . .„ „.....,:...„....,••••:,, ,,,.:,::::..4: .,,,,..s.,,,,:..,.;...„:...,:::....,,,.,. .,....::•...., _ . .. .... .;...:.2,..i.',..i1:,,::'1,:::::::,::.!;;,;:.,:',...i.,::!:..:...'.:.:',..',.:':,::;:...:'.."'•'.....,!....',,',;:::::,.';',.1•,'....!..,;',..::::,:;::,:..',...•.;":"..::',...,•'...::::'•,!;...,....-f:2.::::........',.'::::•.."...:•;,,i;:::::::....,.. II . . • ... • Y a - i 4h •�% 51�� M� Y VV ....- - - - • : ids.. tRCFX f -i, . 1. . .c'r ..,,,,....,....,.'....:'..,:',F:'.....:.,..:-...:.;,..... ....•::.;'7,',.%.•i•:',,i;;.';,.:4•ti;,...";:..'..,.A.:••••••:-•::::.'/•:....;.•:•••:••••••:•:'•••••:••.:,••••ic•:.....i.:•,•:,-,, :frAlh,0 /ply - 7 M v ?h D. t • a ......:.:.. ,. r �r e' ' w y 4 K rs 6 I I tis:..;..(.'..„,r .i r'1,; ';.:. C. - �M f %p � rN i.S - . --II, <A: lua Q r:.y. j ii':f r Y”" 1 .:f• J•�k'riy5 !:5fs• SI • ---..5 l�f 5 ri � N• .F r Di v MiliEW I �'3r' V 'fr°� " Sv ys I 3YrC: ,. CO, rt`{ `is:� fir. a;j�; 9, f. .i•..S'r, qy ,,gg 9l.kt.F: ai5:::`. ,..3 „” r W E L Y ULW :;,:k : :: A ITICAL AREA UNIVERSITY ' _ -` `` 0 ERLAY DISTRICT ��,��, _:�'`�;�� "`����i' CT (Existing) WATERSHED 0 :.;.,nr"A,,t DISTRICT (Prop• r..,..,:::::e§,..-...... a: '° :.-';rye'."' RB — RURAL BUFFER UNDERLYING DISTRICT•(Existing) • 24 25 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 Action Agenda Item # g3 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Orange County Zoning Ordinance DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: X_Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 346 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments are being made to implement, in part, recommended strategies for the protection of University Lake Watershed. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, 1989 . Following the release of the Final Report, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide recommended strategies for its implementation. In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed 13-point agreement on University Lake watershed protection. To implement the recommended strategies for watershed protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify needed changes to existing development regulations. Two options are presented for consideration. Option 11 is based on the land use control strategy recommended by CDM and .the Joint Watershed Work Group. The most basic provisions of Option #1 include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a 26 maximum density of one ( 1) unit per five (5) acres for any development. Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one ( 1) acre are also allowed as well as the creation of a limited number (5) of two-acre lots . As an alternative to the latter provision, the number of new two-acre lots which can be created may be limited to two (2 ) in order to maintain higher water quality levels . Development standards for impervious surface coverage; stream buffers; placement of streets, driveways, and buildings; and water supply/sewage disposal facilities are also proposed. The CDM study recommended a four percent (4%) impervious surface limitation for five-acre lots, while the proposed 13-point agreement of the Watershed Work Group included a four percent (4%) limit for five-acre lots, six percent (5%) for two to five-acre lots, and twelve percent ( 12%) for lots smaller than two acres. A more workable six percent ( 6%) ratio has been proposed by the Orange County Planning Department for five-acre lots. To account for lots larger than five acres, existing lots of less than five acres, and the limited number of two-acre lots which may be created, a sliding scale of impervious surface ratios is proposed, ranging from four percent (4%) for six-acre lots to fifteen percent ( 15%) for half-acre lots . Option 42 is, based on the structural best management practice approach recommended by CDM. The provisions of Option #2 are similar to Option #1 except that a minimum lot size of two (2 ) acres and a maximum density of one (1 ) unit per two (2 ) acres is allowed. A twelve percent ( 12%) impervious surface limitation has been proposed by the Orange County Planning Department for two-acre lots in lieu of the six percent ( 6%) limit recommended by CDM. In the case of the Orange County Planning Department proposal, the same sliding scale for lots larger than or smaller than two acres as proposed above would be applicable. Rather than providing for regional stormwater detention ponds as recommended by CDM, Option #2 would require the provision of on-site facilities to trap pollutants . g. A full description of the proposed changes is included in the attached information. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed amendments, including the following: 1 . Approval of Option #1 (five-acre zoning strategy) ; and 2 . Approval of the sliding scale of impervious surface 27 ratios, ranging from four percent (4%) for six-acre lots to fifteen percent ( 15%) for half-acre lots. 28 29 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. If adopted, the amendments would implement the strategies for watershed protection identified in the Final Report - University, Lake Watershed Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989. Two options are presented for consideration. Option 11 is based on the land use control strategy recommended by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) , the consultants who prepared the University Lake Watershed Study, and the Joint Watershed Work Group. The most basic provisions of Option #1 include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a maximum density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres for any development. Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed as well as the creation of a limited number (5) of two- acre lots. As an alternative to the latter provision, the number of new two-acre lots which can be created may be limited to two (2) in order to maintain higher water quality levels. Development standards for impervious surface coverage; stream buffers; placement of streets, driveways, and buildings; and water supply/sewage disposal facilities are also proposed. The CDM study recommends a four percent (4%) impervious surface limitation for five-acre lots, while the proposed 13-point agreement of the Watershed Work Group included a four percent (4%) limit for five- acre lots, six percent (5%) for two to five-acre lots, and twelve percent (12%) for lots smaller than two acres. In addition to the Work Group proposal, a more workable six percent (6%) ratio has been proposed by the Orange County Planning Department for five-acre lots. To account for lots larger than five acres, existing lots of less than five acres, and the limited number of two-acre lots which may be created, a sliding scale of impervious surface ratios is proposed, ranging from four percent (4%) for six-acre lots to fifteen percent (15%) for half-acre lots. Option lZ is based on the structural best management practice approach recommended by CDM. The provisions of Option #2 are similar to Option #1 except that a minimum lot size of two (2) acres and a maximum density of one (1) unit per two (2) acres is allowed. A twelve percent (12%) impervious surface limitation has been proposed by the Orange County Planning Department for two-acre lots in lieu of the six percent (6%) limit recommended by CDM. In the case of the Orange County Planning Department proposal, the same sliding scale for lots larger than or smaller than two acres as proposed above would be applicable. Rather than providing for regional stormwater detention ponds as recommended by CDM, Option #2 would require the provision of on-site facilities to trap pollutants. Both Option #1 and Option #2 are being presented at a special public hearing on February 28, 1990. The proposals involve amendments to Orange County's Zoning Ordinance and require only the approval of the 30 Board of Commissioners. Upon completion of the public hearing, and following receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the two. The specific wording proposed for various sections of the Zoning Ordinance is listed below. Explanatory comments appear after the ordinance proposals in [italics] . A. Amend Article 4.2 .27 Protected Watershed II (PW-II), District by rewriting subsection b) 1 . to read as follows: 1. This district will be applied to the zoned portions of Cane Creek and the Upper Eno watersheds as designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [The proposed amendment does not apply the provisions of the PW-II district to any additional watershed areas. Rather, it deletes an existing reference to "University Lake" watershed, thus removing •University Lake from the requirements of the PW-II district. ] B. Amend Article 4.2 .28 Water Quality Critical Area (WOCA) District by rewriting subsection b) 1 . to read as follows: 1 . This district will be applied to the zoned portions of Cane Creek and the Upper Eno watersheds as designated on the Comprehensive Plan. [The proposed amendment does not apply the provisions of the WQCA district to any additional watershed areas. Rather, it deletes an existing reference to "University Lake" watershed, thus removing University Lake from the requirements of the WQCA district. ] C. Amend Article 4.2 . 30 Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District by renumbering, the Article to 4.2 . 31 . [The proposed amendment provides space for a new Article 4.2. 30 establishing the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ] D. Amend Article 4 by adding a new Article 4.2 . 30 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to read as follows: a. Intent The purpose of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to prevent significant future water quality deterioration in University Lake, a reservoir supplying drinking water to the people of southeastern Orange County. Based on a study entitled Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study and dated March, 1989, the lake already exhibits some water quality deterioration. Unless additional protective actions are taken, University Lake is vulnerable to additional pollution from eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) , toxicants, and sedimentation. 31 OPTION 11 FIVE-ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZES The intent of the University Lake Watershed (ULw) District is to apply a set of regulations involving land use management practices which protect the watershed by reducing the pollution generated by future development. Since a major source of toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops, and driveways, land use management practices involving minimum lot size and impervious surface restrictions control the amount and location of such surfaces. OPTION 42 TWO-ACRE LOTS WITH STORMWATER DETENTION PONDS The intent of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to apply a set of regulations involving the use of structural devices which protect the watershed by preventing substantial portions of the pollution generated by future development from reaching University Lake. Since a major source of toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops, and driveways, structural devices such as stormwater detention ponds trap pollution near the point of origin. b. Application Criteria The University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with those regulations applicable to the underlying zoning districts as well as the requirements of the ULW district. Where the regulations of the ULW district differ from those of the underlying districts or from other development standards contained in this ordinance, the more restrictive shall apply. 1 . This district will be applied to all land located within the University Lake Watershed as designated in the Lard.Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. [The proposed amendment creates a new overlay zoning district - the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District - and sets forth the reasons for establishing the district. An overlay district is proposed to provide consistency with the overlay approach used for other watersheds and with the Rural Buffer concepts embodied in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. ] E. Amend Article 6. 15.2 Interim Development Standards Approved by rewriting subsection a to read as follows: 32 a. University Lake Watershed 1 . Area Affected -These standards shall apply to the University Lake Watershed. 2 . Nature and Duration of Standards - The following interim development standards shall apply: a) Community alternative treatment and disposal systems will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 . During this period, a pilot program for monitoring and inspecting such systems as operated by the Orange County Health Department will be evaluated to determine the advisability of permitting such systems in the watershed. b) Public water service will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 . During this period, a study will be conducted to determine the advisability of making public water services available within the watershed. c-1) [Alternative #1] Public sewer service will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed except to address a public health emergency as determined by the Orange County Health Department. c-2) [Alternative #2] Public sewer service will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991, except to address a public health emergency as determined by the Orange County Health Department. During this period, a study will be conducted to determine the advisability of making public sewer services available within the watershed. [The proposed amendments incorporate temporary restrictions on the use of community alternative wastewater treatment systems and the extension of public water in the watershed until certain tasks are accomplished. Two alternatives are provided regarding public sewer extensions. Alternative #1 is an out-right restriction on such extensions except to serve a public health hazard. Alternative #2 is a temporary restriction until it is determined (via a study) that such extensions can be permitted without encouraging higher densities and threatening the goal of minimizing water quality deterioration. ] F. Amend Article 6 .25 Extra Requirements, for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District by renumbering the Article to 6.26. (The proposed amendment provides space for a new Article' establishing development standards applicable within the 33 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ] G. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6 .25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to read as follows: OPTION 11 FIVE-ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZES 6.25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, significant water quality deterioration may be prevented by land use controls which reduce the pollution from future development. For this reason, the new use of any land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with the following development standards: 6 .25. 1 Minimum Lot Size Regulated The minimum required lot size for any use in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall be five (5) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6 .25.2 or Article 6 .25. 3. In addition, no residential development shall exceed a density of one ( 1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6.25.2 . 6 .25 .2 Existing Lots of Record a. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 can be subdivided to create up to five (5) lots of not less than two (2) acres in size; provided, however, the remaining land shall be developed with a minimum lot size of at least five (5) acres for each lot and at a density not to exceed one ( 1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land area. [OR] a. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 can be subdivided to create up to two (2) lots of not less than two (2). acres in size; provided, however, the remaining land shall be developed with a minimum lot size of at least five (5) acres for each lot and at a density not to exceed one ( 1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land area. b. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 that are less than five (5) acres in size and which cannot be further subdivided can be developed by the owner at the current lot size. 34 6 .25. 3 Cluster Alternative Cluster developments are permitted, provided the minimum lot size for each lot in the development is not less than one (1) acre, and the overall density of the development, including the land area saved by lot size reductions, does not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres . All land area saved by lot size reductions shall be reserved as permanent open space. If cluster open space is not dedicated for public use, it shall be subject to approved arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation. Such arrangements may include, but not be limited to, the conveyance of the open space to a local or regional land conservancy or a homeowners association, provided the subdivider shall record a declaration of covenants and restrictions which prohibits further subdivision of the open space as well as its use for development purposes. If needed to control pollution loadings resulting from the runoff from impervious surfaces in a cluster development, on-site wet detention basins or ponds may be required. Where required, the design of such facilities shall be based on the criteria set forth in the Final Report - University Lake Water Study dated March, 1989 . Provision shall also be made for the public inspection and maintenance of such facilities. 6.25 .4 Impervious Surface Regulated An impervious surface is a surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include both paved and unpaved surfaces, including, but not limited to, streets and parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and structures which cover the land. In order to promote the infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil and to minimize direct and immediate runoff into streams and University Lake reservoir, impervious surface ratios shall be required as provided in the Table of Impervious Surface Ratios for University Lake Watershed - Section 6.25 .4 . Impervious surface calculations for an individual lot shall be cumulative, including the original construction and any subsequent additions thereto. The calculation of impervious surface coverage for an individual lot shall also include one-half of the street surface on which the lot fronts or abuts; provided, however, the impervious surface calculation 35 will not include the surface of any street existing on April 2, 1990 unless the street is upgraded to a greater width. In such cases, only the additional width shall be included in calculating the impervious surface coverage. It is the intent of this section that the impervious surface limitations specified herein shall apply to the entire tract to be developed. Therefore, if the subdivision involves the creation of any street or other impervious surface outside the boundaries of the lots so created, then the total impervious surface allocation may be determined as follows: a. The total area of permissible impervious surface for the entire subdivision shall be calculated, applying the percentage limitations set forth in Table 6 .25 .4. b. From the total area calculated pursuant to a. above, there shall be subtracted the impervious surface area within streets and other areas outside of the individual lot boundaries. c. Following the calculation set forth in b. above, the remaining permissible impervious surface shall be allocated equally to each lot by the subdivider or as may be approved by the Zoning Officer. The allocation shall be indicated on a separate document recorded together with the final subdivision plat. For conventional subdivisions to be developed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.25. 1 and cluster subdivisions to be developed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 .25. 3, an impervious surface limitation of four percent (4%) [or six percent (6%) ] shall apply to the entire tract to be developed. For an existing lot of record to be developed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.25.2b. , the full range of impervious surface ratios specified in Table 6.25.4 is applicable. 6.25.5 Steam puffers Required The effective use of buffer zones along streams can increase the overall factor of safety associated with a watershed protection plan. By preventing development from encroaching on streams, buffer zones can help minimize stream channel erosion downstream of development. If properly situated and kept in undisturbed natural vegetation, buffer zones will receive sheetflow runoff; i.e. , runoff which flows slowly in a spread out pattern rather than being 36 ALTERNATIVE 01: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT WATERSHED WORK GROUP. TABLE 6.25.4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS FOR UNVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS WHERE THE SURFACE MAY LOT SIZE IS: NOT EXCEED: 5.0 acres or above 4.0% 2.0 to 4.9 acres 6.0% Less than 2.0 acres 12.0% An impervious surface is a surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water, into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include any paved or unpaved surfaces comprised of asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, compacted soil or other similar material. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, streets and driveways, sidewalks, patios, garages, dwellings, and similar structures which cover the land. 37 ALTERNATIVE #2: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. TABLE 6.25:4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS FOR UNVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED THE TOTAL THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS WHERE THE SURFACE MAY WHERE THE SURFACE MAY LOT SIZE IS: NOT EXCEED: LOT SIZE IS: NOT EXCEED: 6.0 acres or above 4.0% 3.0 acres 10.0% 5.9 acres 4.2% 2.9 acres 10.2% 5.8 acres 4.4% 2.8 acres 10.4% 5.7 acres 4.6% 2.7 acres 10.6% 5.6 acres 4.8% 2.6 acres 10.8% 5.5 acres 5.0% 2.5 acres 11.0% 5.4 acres 5.2% 2.4 acres 11.2% 5.3 acres 5.4% 2.3 acres 11.4% 5.2 acres 5.6% 2.2 acres 11.6% 5.1 acres 5.8% 2.1 acres 11.8% 5.0 acres 6.0% 2.0 acres 12.0% 4.9 acres 6.2% 1.9 acres 12.2% 4.8 acres 6.4% 1.8 acres 12.4% 4.7 acres 6.6% 1.7 acres 12.6% 4.6 acres 6.8% 1.6 acres 12.8% 4.5 acres 7.0% 1.5 acres 13.0% 4.4 acres 7.2% 1.4 acres 13.2% 4.3 acres 7.4% 1.3 acres 13.4% 4.2 acres 7.6% 1.2 acres 13.6% 4.1 acres 7.8% 1.1 acres 13.8% 4.0 acres 8.0% 1.0 acres 14.0% 3.9 acres 8.2% 0.9 acres 14.2% 3.8 acres 8.4% 0.8 acres 14.4% 3.7 acres 8.6% 0.7 acres 14.6% 3.6 acres 8.8% 0.6 acres 14.8% 3.5 acres 9.0% 0.5 acres or less 15.0% 3.4 acres 9.2% 3.3 acres 9.4% 3.2 acres 9.6% 3.1 acres 9.8% An impervious surface is a surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include any paved or unpaved surfaces comprised of asphalt, corete, crushed stone, compacted soil or other similar material. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, streets and driveways, sidewalks, patios, garages, dwellings, and similar structures which cover the land. 38 concentrated in a swale, from adjoining development and achieve reductions in pollution discharges . Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, an area of land or buffer zone along perennial and intermittent streams shall be required to remain in its natural state, unless the area is subject to serious erosion, in which case an erosion resistant vegetative cover shall be established and maintained. Perennial streams are those streams shown in solid blue on the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County. Intermittent streams are those streams shown by broken blue lines on the same maps. 6.25.5. 1 Calculation of Buffer Zone Width Width; i.e. , distance from the stream bank to the edge of the buffer, is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a buffer zone. An equally important determinant in pollutant removal in a buffer zone is travel time; i.e. , the greater the time allowed for runoff to travel through a buffer, the greater the opportunities for pollutant removal through sedimentation, filtration, absorption, and seepage into the soil profile. Monitoring studies of highway runoff have shown that pollutant removal in grass swales is at a maximum after a 15-minute travel time. Based on this standard, Table 6.25 .5 was derived to provide a sliding scale for buffer zone widths based on slope and vegetative cover. TABLE 6.25.5 REQUIRED BUFFER ZONE WIDTHS ALONG PERENNIAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED Type of Groundcover Grass Woods Slope (Ft) (Ft) -.. 2% to 4.9% 100 50 5% to 6.9% 150 100 7% to 9 .9% 150 100 10% to 14.9% 200 100 15% or greater 250 150 39 The required stream buffer zone shall start at the stream bank and be measured away from the stream for a distance depending upon the slope and the vegetative cover near the stream. The slope shall be calculated by measuring a distance of 250 feet from the stream bank, determining the rise in elevation in that distance, and dividing the rise in elevation by the distance of 250 feet. Based on the resulting slope calculation and the type of vegetative cover near the stream, the applicable buffer zone width may be determined from Table 6 .25.5. Slope shall be determined .from the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County, by on-site measurements or by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor. The required stream buffer zone shall not be limited to one calculation but shall be based on calculations made at points where topographical and ground cover . conditions change based on an analysis of the site. In addition to the buffer zone resulting from the above calculations, a stream buffer shall include any portion of a floodplain as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor or by alluvial soils as designated in the Orange County Soils Survey. 6 .25.5.2 Buffer Zones Included As Part Of Minimum Lot Size Stream buffer zones can be used as part of the required lot area or lot size established as part of these development standards . 6.25.5. 3 Existing Vegetation in Buffer Zones Existing forested areas and other vegetation in a healthy condition cannot be removed from or disturbed in a stream buffer zone. Diseased and/or dead vegetation may be removed and replaced with vegetation resulting a comparable stormwater runoff velocity and quantity. 6.25.5.4 Permitted Uses Within Buffer Zones Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, no impervious surface shall be located in or closer than twenty (20) feet to the nearest edge of a designated buffer zone, except that the Zoning Officer may authorize the crossing of a designated buffer zone and the presence of impervious surface therein by or for: a. A public or private street where the crossing is .perpendicular to the stream and is .justified in that: 40 1 . Without such a crossing, over fifty percent (50%) of the land area would be without access and therefore undevelopable; or 2 . It allows a design that would clearly result in less damage to the watershed than would result if the property were developed without such a crossing. b. Above ground and buried utility lines for the distribution of electricity, gas, telephone, and cable television service where: 1 . It is practicably unavoidable if the subject property and adjoining property are to be served or potentially served by a public service, and an alternate design would result in greater damage to the watershed; and 2 . The system, as a whole, emphasizes placement outside designated buffer zones; and 3 . To the extent practical, the direction of the line crossing is perpendicular to the stream. 6.25 . 6 Placement of Streets, Driveways, and Buildings Streets, driveways, and buildings or other impervious structures shall be located, to the extent reasonably possible, so as to take full advantage of the absorptive capacity of the soils on which they are to be situated and to avoid the following environmentally sensitive areas: a. Stream buffer zones as required by Article 6 .25 .5 above; b. Floodplains as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor or by alluvial soils as designated in the Orange County Soils Survey and which are not part of a required stream buffer zone; c. c. Wetland areas as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; d. Land with slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%) ; and e. Natural areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats sff Orange County, N.C. 41 To avoid the creation of lots that will be difficult to build upon in a manner that complies with the standards set forth in this Article, the preliminary plat for the subdivision of land shall show proposed building envelopes and approximate driveway locations for all lots within such subdivisions . Thereafter, no zoning compliance permit may be issued for the construction of buildings or driveways outside the areas so designated on the preliminary plat unless the Zoning Officer makes a written finding that the proposed location complies with the provisions of this Article. 6.25 .7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities Required Every principal use and every lot within a subdivision shall be served by a water supply and sewage disposal system that is adequate to accommodate the needs of such use or subdivision lot and that complies with all applicable regulations of the Orange County Health Department. Notwithstanding the above provisions, water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to individual wells and on-site septic systems or individual on-site alternative disposal systems . The use of community alternative wastewater disposal systems and public water and sewer service is restricted as specified in Article 6. 15.2 .a. of this Ordinance. No new septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located within a designated stream buffer zone or within one hundred (100) feet of a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County, whichever is the greater distance. OPTION la TWO-ACRE LOTS WITH STORMWATER DETENTION PONDS 6.25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed JULW) District Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, significant water quality deterioration may be avoided by preventing substantial portions of the pollution generated by future development from reaching University Lake. Since a major source of toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops, and driveways, structural devices such as stormwater detention ponds can trap pollution near the point of origin. For this reason, the new use of any land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with the following development standards: 6.25. 1 Minimum Lot Size Regulated 42 The minimum required lot size for any use in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall be two (2) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6. 25.2 or Article 6 .25 . 3 . In addition, no residential development shall exceed a density of one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6.25.2 . 6.25.2 Existing Lots of Record Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 that are less than two (2) acres in size can be developed by the owner at the current lot size. 6.25 . 3 Cluster Alternative, Cluster developments are permitted, provided the minimum lot size for each lot in the development is not less than one ( 1) acre, and the overall density of the development, including the land area saved by lot size reductions, does not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres. All land area saved by lot size reductions shall be reserved as permanent open space. If cluster open space is not dedicated for public use, it shall be subject to approved arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation. Such arrangements may include, but not be limited to, the conveyance of the open space to a local or regional land conservancy or a homeowners association, provided the subdivider shall record a declaration of covenants and restrictions which prohibits further subdivision of the open space as well as its use for development purposes. 6 .25.4 Stormwater Detention Devices Required On-site wet detention basins or ponds shall be required to control pollution loadings resulting from the runoff from impervious surfaces. The design of such facilities shall be based on the criteria set forth in the Final Report -University Lake Water Study, dated March, 1989 . Pro vision shall also be made for the public inspection and maintenance of such facilities. 6.25.4 Impervious Surface Regulated (Same as for Option #1. ) 6.25.5 Stream Buffers Required (Same as for Option #1. ) 43 6 .25. 6 Placement of Streets, Driveways, and Buildings (Same as for Option #1. ) 6.25. 7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal, Facilities Required (Same as for Option #1. ) H. Amend Article 14 Site Plan Approval Procedures by revising Article 14. 1 a. to read as follows: a. Single-family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to those residential uses; provided, however, when such uses are located in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, site plan approval shall be required. [The proposed amendment would require that single-family dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to those uses comply with the provisions of Article 14 regarding site plan approval . ] I . Amend Article 14 Site Plan Approval Procedures by revising Article 14.2 . 1 to include the following: c. Single-family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to such uses when located in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. [The proposed amendment exempts single-family dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to such uses from the requirement of having a registered engineer, landscape architect, architect or land surveyor prepare the site plan. The owner may prepare his/her own site plan. ] J. Amend Article 14 Site Plan Approval Procedures by rewriting Article 14.2 .3.g. to read as follows: g. Maximum and proposed impervious surface and required stream buffers in the PW-II, WQCA, and ULW districts (see Articles 6.23, 6.24, and 6.25, respectively) . [The proposed amendment requires that the maximum and proposed impervious surface as required by Article 6.25 be denoted on a site plan where applicable. ] 44 45 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 28, 1990 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments - Orange County Subdivision Regulations DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X_Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 346 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The proposed amendments are being made to implement, in part, recommended strategies for the protection of University Lake Watershed. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, 1989 . Following the release of the Final Report, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group review the study and provide recommended strategies for its implementation. In October, 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed 13-point agreement on University Lake watershed protection. To implement the recommended strategies for watershed protection, the Work Group directed staff to identify needed changes to existing development regulations. The following amendments are recommended: 1 . Cross reference development standards of the Zoning Ordinance which are applicable to cluster subdivisions in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. 46 2 . Allow cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to comply with the development standards (one-acre minimum lot size) set forth the Orange County Zoning Ordinance rather than require compliance with the permitted reduction of fifty percent to 2 .5-acre minimum lot sizes (based on five-acre zoning) specified in the Subdivision Regulations . 3 . Incorporate temporary restrictions on the use of community alternative wastewater treatment systems and the extension of public water in the watershed until feasibility studies are completed. Two alternatives are provided regarding public sewer extensions . Alternative #1 is an out-right restriction on such extensions except to serve a public health hazard. Alternative #2 is a temporary restriction until it is determined (via a, study) that such extensions can be permitted without encouraging higher densities and threatening the goal of minimizing water quality deterioration. 4 . Require that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as required by the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District be shown on a preliminary subdivision plat. 5 . Require that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as required by the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District be shown on a final subdivision plat or on a separate document recorded with the final plat. A full description of the proposed changes is included in the attached information. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed amendments, including an option for dealing with restrictions on the use of alternative systems and t h e extension of public water and sewer lines . Consideration should be given to requiring a prohibition on alternative systems and public water/sewer extensions, except to address a public health emergency. The prohibition would remain in effect until a decision is made by the Joint Planning Area jurisdictions regarding the advisability .of allowing such systems/extensions. The decision would be based on studies undertaken during the prohibition period. The study results must be presented to the 47 jurisdictions by April 30, 1991 . 48 49 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. If adopted, the amendments would supplement proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to implement strategies for watershed protection identified in the Final Report -University Lake watershed Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989. For a complete understanding of the proposals, reference should also be made to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments are being presented at a special public hearing on February 28, 1990. The proposals involve amendments to Orange County's Subdivision Regulations and require only the approval of the Board of Commissioners. Upon completion of the public hearing, and following receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the two. The specific wording proposed for various sections of the Subdivision Regulations is listed below. Explanatory comments appear after the ordinance proposals in [italics]. 1 . Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments by adding a new subsection g) to Section IV-B-10-b to read as follows: g) Cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall comply with the development standards as set forth in Article 6 . 25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. [The proposed amendment cross references the development standards applicable to cluster subdivisions in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ] 2 . Amend Section IV-B--10 Cluster Developments by rewriting the introductory paragraph of Section IV-B-10-c to read as follows: For lots created as part of a cluster development, minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article 4. 1 .2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth below. For lots created as part of a cluster development in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, the minimum lot size may be reduced as specified in Article 6.25 of the Zoning Ordinance. [The proposed amendment would allow cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to comply with the development standards (one-acre minimum lot size) set forth in Article 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance rather than require compliance with the permitted reduction of fifty percent to 2.5-acre minimum lot sizes specified in Section IV-B-10-c. ] 50 3 . Amend Section IV-C Interim Development Standards by rewriting subsection IV-C-2 .a. to read as follows : a. University Lake Watershed 1 . Area Affected - These standards shall apply to the University Lake Watershed. 2 . Nature and Duration of Standards - The following interim development standards shall apply: a) Community alternative treatment and disposal systems will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991 . During this period, a pilot program for monitoring and inspecting such systems as operated by the Orange County Health Department will be evaluated to determine the advisability of permitting such systems in the watershed. b) Public water service will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991. During this period, a study will be conducted to determine the advisability of making public water services available within the watershed. c-1) [Alternative #i] Public sewer service will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed except to address a public health emergency as determined by the Orange County. Health Department. c-2) [Alternative #2] Public sewer service will not be permitted in the University Lake watershed until April 30, 1991, except to address a public health emergency. During this period, a study will be conducted to determine the advisability of making public sewer services available within the watershed. [The proposed amendments incorporate temporary restrictions on the use of community alternative wastewater treatment systems and the extension of public water in the watershed until certain tasks are accomplished. Two alternatives are provided regarding public sewer extensions. Aiternative #1 is an out-right restriction on such extensions except to serve a public health hazard. Alternative #2 is a temporary restriction until it is determined (via a study) that such extensions can be permitted without encouraging higher densities and threatening the goal of minimizing water quality deterioration. ] 4. Amend Section V-C Preliminary Plat by rewriting subsection V-C-6 as follows: V-C-6 Floodway and Watershed Data 5.1 The boundaries for both the floodway and floodway fringe areas shall be designated and labeled on the plat as required by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. For subdivisions located within a water supply watershed of regional and/or local importance, the following information shall be designated and labeled on the plat: (a) Impervious surface data as required by Articles 6.23, 6 .24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; (b) Stream buffers as required by Section IV-B-9-b of this Ordinance or Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and (c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes as required by Section IV-B-9-c of this Ordinance, the Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance or Articles 6.23, 6.24, and/or 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. [The proposed amendment requires that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as required by Article 6.25 - University Lake Watershed (ULW) District - of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be shown on a preliminary subdivision plat. ] 5. Amend Section V-D Final Plat by rewriting subsection V-D-5-d as follows : V-D-5-d Floodway, and Watershed Data The boundaries for both the floodway and floodway fringe areas shall be designated and labeled on the plat as required by the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. For subdivisions located within a water supply watershed of regional and/or local importance, the following information shall be designated or referenced on the Final Plat: (a) Impervious surface data as required by Article 6.23, 6 .24 and/or 6.25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be provided in a separate document to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The Deed Book and Page reference of the document shall .be noted on the Final Plat. (b) Stream buffers as required by Section IV-B-9-b of 5 1 this Ordinance or Articles 6 .23, 6 .24, and/or 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be noted on the Final Plat. Development restrictions within the buffer shall be specified in a separate document to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The Deed Book and Page reference shall be noted on the Final Plat. (c) Stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes as required by Section IV-B-9-c of this Ordinance and/or Articles 6 .23, 6 .24, and/or 6 . 25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance shall be labeled on the Final Plat. Any restrictions or requirements associated with the detention/retention sites shall be specified in a separate document to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The Deed Book and Page reference shall be noted on the Final Plat. [The proposed amendment requires that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites as required by Article 6.25 - University Lake Watershed (ULW) District- of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance be shown on a final subdivision plat or on a separate document recorded with the final plat. ] T • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 30, 1990 SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES COPIES: Attached are the February 28, 1990 public hearing minutes, including written documents submitted by citizens at that time. Because of the combined presentation at the hearing and the amount of information received, they are provided as a separate enclosure. 4L OALIAAD Marvin Collins Planning Director PAGE 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 28, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on February 28, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Carrboro Elementary School Auditorium, Carrboro, North Carolina. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell (arrived at 8:30) , Shirley E. Marshall (arrived at 9:00) and Don Willhoit. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor Jonathan Howes and Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, and Arthur Werner. CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN: Mayor Eleanor G. Kinnaird and Adlermen Hilliard Caldwell, Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn M. Gist, Tom Gurganus and Randy Marshall. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: Planning Board Chair Betty Eidenier and members William J. Waddell, Dan Eddleman, Virginia W. Boland and Amanda Carol Cantrell. WELCOME BY CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY. JR. Chairman Carey welcomed the citizens in the audience. He announced that Commissioners Marshall and Hartwell are representing the County at another meeting and will attend this meeting later. Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird welcomed the citizens in the audience and asked that the dicussion be one of give and take. Mayor Jonathan Howes welcomed the citizens and stated this meeting culminates a long process that has been ongoing for a long time. The Chapel Hill Town Council supports the process by which the intergovernmental work group arrived at its conclusion. They look forward to the dialogue tonight. PUBLIC CHARGE AND GROUND RULES Chairman Carey announced the following rules of conduct for the meeting: (1) that presentations be limited to three minutes, (2) yielding of time to another person will not be allowed, (3) people will be called from both sign-up lists, alternating from list 1 to list 2 and (4) only one person may speak at any one time. Chairman Carey read the Public Charge. D. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING 1. JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT a. Section II - Natural Resources b. Section V - Joint Planning Operating Principles c. Section VI - Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area d. Section VII - Overview of Implementation Strategies IDA! PAGE 2 2. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT -41.p21 a. Section 1.2 - Definitions E. ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING 1. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN a. Land Use Element Map - Deletion of Water Quality Critical Area from University Lake Watershed 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS a. Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District 3. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE a. Article 4.2.27 - Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District b. Article 4.2.28 - Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District c. Article 4.2.30 - Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) d. Article 4.2.30 - University Lake Watershed (ULW) District (New) e. Article 6.15.2 - Interim Development Standards f. Article 6.25 - Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District (Existing) g. Article 6.25 - Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District h. Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures 4. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS a. Section IV-B-10 - Cluster Developments b. Section IV-C - Interim Development Standards c. Section V-C - Preliminary Plat d. Section V-D - Final Plat THE PRESENTATION WAS MADE BY MARVIN COLLINS. ALL INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE IN THE AGENDA WHICH IS IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND IS MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES BY REFERENCE. A document was distributed entitled "Strategies for Protecting University Lake Watershed" . Marvin Collins explained this document with the use of slides. He indicated that the topic is "Choices" . In summary Mr. Collins talked about the different options that are available in terms of protecting University Lake Watershed and then he showed how all this fits together in terms of the Land Use Plan that the three jurisdictions have jointly adopted, Orange County's Land Use Plan, its Zoning Map and its Development Standards. He emphasized the importance of University Lake and protection of its watershed. He stated it is important to the people who own property and live in that watershed, important to the students who attend the University, important to the people who visit this area and who live, work and do business in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The basic goal is minimal water quality deterioration in University Lake. The two basic soirees of n DRAFT PAGE 3 strategies put forth include (1) the final report of the Universi r._ ake Watershed Study completed by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) in March, 1989 and (2) the 13-point Agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group in October, 1989. Six different elements are being considered at this time: 1. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan & Text 2. Joint Planning Agreement 3. Orange County Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Element 4. Orange County Zoning Atlas 5. Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Collins continued with describing the two basic options. Option #1 involves the land use control strategy which involves the 5-acre residential zoning, impervious surface limits and the establishment of stream buffers. Option #2 uses the structural controls strategy which is a combination of 2-acre residential zoning density which the watershed is currently under by way of the rural buffer designation, coupled with wetwater detention ponds. There would also be impervious surface limits and stream buffer requirements. Both of these strategies have been identified by CDM as being able to achieve the water quality goal of minimum degradation in University Lake. Option #1 is described below: Basic Strategy: Minimum lot size of 5 acres Maximum density of 1 dwelling unit/5 acres Existing Lots of Record: (October, 1989) May create up to 5 2-acre lots Remainder divided in accord with "Basic Strategy" Cluster Development:, Minimum lot size of 1 acre Density cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit/5 acres Land saved by lot size reduction preserved as permanent open space Collins illustrated the above option showing how it would be applied to a conventional subdivision, an existing lot of record and a cluster subdivision. Option #2 is described below: Basic Strategy: Minimum lot size of 2 acres On-site wetwater detention ponds designed to CDM standards must be provided to trap polluntants Existing lots of record: lots less than 2 acres in size can be developed at current size Cluster Development: Minimum lot size of 1 acre Density cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit/2 acres Land saved by lot size reduction preserved in permanent open space Collins illustrated Option #2 showing how it would be applied to a conventional subdivision. Collins described "Impervious Surface" as any surface which does not absorb rain, including buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and parking areas. Both paved (asphalt, concrete) and unpaved (gravel, crushed stone, soil) surfaces are considered to be impervious. This is a change in the County's definition to track with the CDM report. There are two proposals in terms of impervious surface: 'RAFT FAGE 4 Proposal #1 is described below: (put forth by the Watershed Wroup and tracks with the CDM Report) WHERE LOT SIZE IS: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAY NOT EXCEED: 5.0 acres or above 4% 2.0 to 4.9 acres 6% Less than 2.0 acres 12% Proposal #2 is described below: (put forth by the County Planning Staff) 5.0 acres 6% 4.5 acres 7% 4.0 acres 8% 3.5 acres 9% 3.0 acres 10% 2.5 acres 11% 2.0 acres 12% Collins stated that looking at different lot configurations, dwelling types, setbacks of the house from the road, and different road classifications indicated a need for higher impervious limits. Another major element is Stream Buffers. The County already has stream buffer requirements but CDM recommended a different basis for calculating stream buffers than is currently in the Orange County ordinance. Stream buffers accomplish several things: (1) prevent development from encroaching on streams, (2) minimize stream channel erosion and (3) spread rainfall runoff in a "sheetflow" pattern and encourages infiltration into the soil. CDM's recommended buffer standards are based on several factors: (1) slope of the land, and (2) type of ground cover wooded or grass within the land adjacent to the tributary present. He illustrated this by showing the University Lake Watershed, the Watershed overlay and the proposed district. In summary, Collins showed on a map all the watersheds in Orange County. He showed on the map the protected watershed area, and the water quality critical area. With reference to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, it is proposed that the categories of protected watershed and water quality critical area be deleted and that a designation called "University Lake Watershed District" he established. Everyone would be placed into a rural buffer zoning district. The overlay district would sit on top of the basic zoning. There are two separate overlay zoning districts in the University Lake Watershed. They would be removed and a new zoning district "University Lake Watershed District" would be put in its place which is also an overlay district. Coupled with that would be the development standards adopted by the Board of Commissioners which relate to the specific options discussed earlier. In terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, there are two options: (1) 5-acre scenarios, and (2) 2-acre zoning with the wetwater detention ponds. The Planning Directors of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro recommend incorporating in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan the recommended 5-acre zoning scenario. Both options are identified in the specific provisions. In terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, they are recommending a small change in that the term "water quality critical area" would be replaced by "University Lake Watershed District" . Collins recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners is (1) the application of the University Lake Watershed overlay district, (2) the 5-acre zoning provision, (3) the higher impervious surface limits -- 6% for the 5-acre lots with a sliding scale down to 12% for a 2-acre lot. One other provision addresses utility services and the use of alternative systems. The ordinance provisions as worded now would permit onsite septic disposal systems and that would include low pressure systems for an individual lot. Community alternative systems, whether they are spray irrigation, package plants or low pressure systems would not be permitted until April, 1991. During that interim period, the Orange County Health PAGE 5 Department would be looking at its own program to monitor and inspect h systems. If they found that that program was operating successfully, they would come back to the Board for their consideration on whether or not to allow alternative systems within the watershed. A similar provision is also applicable to public water service. Until April, 1991 no public water extensions would be permitted except to serve an emergency situation. During that interim period there would be a study to determine the advisability of allowing public water extensions within the watershed. With reference to public sewer there are two options. One option is an outright prohibition on sewer extensions except for emergency situations. The other option would not allow any extensions until April, 1991 at which time a study would be done to determine the advisability of allowing public sewer. He suggests wording in these provisions dealing with water and sewer to indicate a continuance of the prohibition indefinitely until the Board of Commissioners make a final decision on whether to allow any or all of the provisions. PUBLIC COMMENTS ALICE GORDON offered three principles that would guide any agreement on watershed protection that may be implemented. The first one is to implement strong measures to protect the University Lake Watershed. For public safety reasons, it is of prime importance to protect the water quality of University Lake and the CDM report is a solid basis for protection measures. The second principle is to address the legitimate concerns of the property owners in the watershed. She feels it important to recognize that these concerns are real and must be taken into account. The third principle is to find a way to purchase critical lands in the watershed. As part of the overall solution to watershed protection, the various jurisdictions and OWASA should cooperate to buy the most critical land such as a quarter along the perennial streams and more land around the lake itself. Purchasing the critical lands would permanently protect the lands which are the most critical in preserving water quality and would allow more flexible development in lands which are less critical. Assuming the 13-point agreement is an impervious surface coverage of 7.1%, with 19,000 acres in the watershed, 1,349 acres would be covered. Assuming the County staff's proposal gives 7.4% coverage, that would leave about 1,406 acres paved. The difference equals 67 acres. To remove 67 acres of paving, 800-900 acres would need to be purchased. This compares with the 550 acres needed to protect the perennial corridors at 200 feet. She encouraged that everyone work to find a solution that will protect the watershed while also protecting the interest of all the landowners. RICHARD HAMMER stated that the biggest decision has already been made. It is not necessary to protect the watershed but approaches have been presented that will protect the watershed. All across America municipalities draw their drinking water from places that are not perfectly clean. Smithfield takes its drinking water out of the Neuse River just downstream from where Raleigh dumps their wastewater. Chicago gets its drinking water out of Lake Michigan. Pittsboro gets its drinking water from the runoff of Chapel Hill. He feels OWASA can use techniques to clean the water without stopping development. He feels there are alternatives that have not been disclosed. He is concerned that the decision has been made to protect the watershed offering the public a variety of that decision. He feels it important to protect the environment but feels that everything does not need to be perfectly pure. He stated that Chapel Hill should not be entitled to pure water at someone else's expense. All other cities take their drinking water and clean it up enough to drink. THOMAS JORDAN spoke against the watershed protection measures. He feels that it is OWASA's responsibility to clean the water. GEORGE BRUMLEY, developer in Orange County, stated his major grievance is the issue of • DRAPT PAGE 6 changing the rules in the middle of the game. They develop property and they develop according to the rules as they were written at the time they began the development. They are now faced with an impervious surface restriction that would actually change the rules of the game during the period in which they no longer have a choice of whether to make the decision to proceed or not. If this impervious restriction is approved, he will have to change the type of development originally approved. VERLA INSKO, Chair of the OWASA Board, read a prepared statement. This statement is attached to these minutes as EXHIBIT "A" . RANDY FEW feels this is an issue of fairness and practicality. He feels the financial burden of clean drinking water should not be on those who receive no benefits from it. Those who say that a reduction of allowed impervious surface will not affect the value of land are wrong. The value of the land in Chapel Hill will rise due to the quality of life, benefits they will receive from the reduction of density surrounding the town and the increase in the quality of water. It is an unfair transfer of wealth. He stated that quality drinking water is a goal that must be achieved but he asked that the County not make those in the way of an expanding Chapel Hill and Carrboro pay the price. He asked that a way be found to spread the cost among those who will benefit from it. He feels that passing this ordinance will render a 1ot of lots nonconforming. He supports Mr. Collins' proposal. PHILIP SCOSTAK spoke as a supporter of the work group that developed the watershed protection measures. What became evident during the discussion was that a stricter consistent amendment to the Land Use Plan and Development Ordinance must be put into practice. It also became clear that the CDM study was a good beginning but could not be used to scientifically justify planning restrictions. Accountability of data was the major issue of discussion. The development model was so simplified it did not take into account roadways, right-of-ways, parklands, or other undeveloped land. It did not take into account the greater reduction of possible density that would occur if septic tanks were the only method of wastewater distribution. It did not take into account the standard or required development practices such as the State's Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinances which require that each development allow stormwater runoff to a velocity and volume that exist prior to construction. Detention basins (BMP's) would have to be installed. All development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro must further illustrate this compliance with a computerized model as part of the final approval process. He recommended that Section II Natural Environment, subsection B on water resources, reflect two acre zoning with on-site detention ponds. Concerning Section V, Joint Land Use Operating Principles. He suggested that public water and sewer service be offered as the most reliable method of protecting our water resources. Concerning Section V, Land Use Joint Planning Areas, he recommended Option II as presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. Concerning Section VI - Overview of the Implementation Strategies, he recommended that a study be done on public water and sewer extensions. With the EPA change in water quality guidelines, he recommended that a permanent watershed task force be establish to continuously monitor and recommend strategies to protect this water. DAVID CARR Partner of Oak Value Properties, stated they are developing Oak Crest Subdivision and are following the rules put in place by the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. They are environmentally sensitive developers trying to work per the rules laid out. He opposed the rules changing half-way in the game. He asked that the developers be considered in any decision they make and to consider the people whose sole investment and livelihood is in the property they own. He asked that the people be treated fair and that the burden and the benefit be balanced with the benefit going to the people who drink the water. The people in the watershed cannot drink the water nor can they use the sewage system that OWASA provides. He feels the issue of compensation should r PAGE 7 be addressed. The loss of value must be taken into consideration. It cou be done through the transfer of development rights. He asked that the impervious surface ratios come close to where they were when they began their development. He commended the County Planning Staff for the job they do. B. R. HACKNEY, resident in the watershed, spoke against the proposed regulations. His family has lived on this land for six generations. He feels that rural residents have no political representation on OWASA, on the Orange/Chatham Work Group, Orange County Commissioners or the Planning Board. He feels the rural residents will receive no benefit nor compensation for these restrictions. The costs are being transferred from the users of OWASA services to those who do not and cannot use those services. The main goal is protection of water quality and and noone knows what water quality is. There is no provision for improvement of water quality. CDM clearly indicates that the only measure to improve the water quality would be the implementation of regional detention ponds maintained by an official body -- not the onsite units maintained by developers as recommended by Orange County. This contradicts CDM which recommended a regional approach and detention ponds. The land use controls would at best maintain the status of the present quality. This has not been given enough attention. University Lake has a safe yield of 3mgd during the rainy season and is not the main water supply. Cane Creek provides 10mgd. He made reference to the Rural Character Study and the fact that the report has not yet been finalized. JOHNNY KENNEDY stated that there are a lot of poor people going to be pushed out of this County, home, land and everything they have worked for. He feels that the County Commissioners and OWASA want to take the easy way out on about everything they do. He did a study on the overview of the CDM report. To implement the structual controls to protect the drinking water, it would cost each customer .0003 cents per gallon which he feels is no cost. He suggested that the University of North Carolina pay part of this cost instead of putting all the restrictions on all the citizens in Orange County who are depending on the land for their livelihood. DANIEL A. OKUN, an engineer in the water supply field, stated that protection of the water supply is not unique to Orange County but is happening everywhere in the United States. He prefers the recommendation of the five acres without structural controls because the consulting engineers did not use as an objective a non-degradation approach. They recognized that there would be some continued degradation. The primary principle used by all water agencies in protecting the water supply is that the water supply should be taken from the best available source and every effort should be made to protect it. Treatment technology is not a substitute for protection of the source. He recognizes their are problems and complaints about changing the rules in the middle of the game. Unfortunately, those who drink the water are having to change in the middle of the game. Those who are responsible for providing drinking water for communities are themselves facing changing requirements. The Smithfields are the very cities in trouble. He realizes that this is a divided issue. Those who have stated that there will be an economic impact have not been studying what is actually occurring. In every court case where the developer has sued because of a loss of value, the courts have concluded that not only do jurisdictions have the right to protect the public health but that there has been no loss in value. NOTE: COMMISSIONER HARTWELL ARRIVED. MARGARET HOLTON, advocate for the protection of water, endorsed the statements made by Mr. Okun. She read a prepared statement which is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT B". NOTE: COMMISSIONER MARSHALL ARRIVED. DRAFT PAGE 8 VICTOR TRIPP stated that OWASA has millions of dollars they can raise to express their side of the issue. All the watersheds are important. He asked that OWASA explain why the sludge from OWASA could not be dumped into University Lake Watershed if it is harmless and if not stop dumping it in the other watersheds because people in those watersheds like clean water also. He feels that the property owners should not foot the bill for cleaner water that is not used by them but required to trap pollutants from the water on their lots which could possibly pollute their water. He asked that the decisions be fair for all watersheds and the restrictions on the use of the property be decided with the very principles this country was established. He made reference to a family who has owned property in the watershed for over 200 years who feels they are being run out of the county. He feels it is the duty of the County to come up with a compromise. MOSES CAREY ENTERED INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM MR. GORDAN NAVEL, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE. NANCY MUELLER has lived in the watershed since 1969. They bought in the watershed because they did not want to live in an area where there would be development. She is in favor of option one as presented by the Orange County Planning Board. She does not understand the problem and opposition of fresh, clean water. LIZ MCGEACHY spoke as a representative of the Orange County Greens. She stated that both sides are right. Those that drink water from the reservoirs require a clean protected water supply and those who have lived their lives for perhaps generations in Orange County deserve a measure of security for themselves and their decedents. It is not the people of Orange County who put these needs in conflict but rather the economic system which does not value environmental or social well being. It is a challenge to come together to solve the problems creatively in a manner that respects the needs of all citizens. The extent of environmental degradation in the 90's is vast and requires the Greens to air on the side of over protection. The Greens support the original or modified Orange County work group option calling for impervious surface limits and limited two acre lot subdivision. The Greens call on the County Commissioners to bring citizens together countywide to determine how to address the economic needs of the less developed parts of the County in an ecological sustainable and socially responsible manner. MARTY MANDELL, resident of Carrboro, stated that CDM found that with the development that was already in the watershed the water supply could not be made any better. To keep the lake as it is would mean a halt to all development. Water quality is in direct proportion to the amount and density of development. At the end of the study the issue became levels of degradation, a compromise for not being able to improve the lake's water quality. Other suggestions made since then have increased the level of degradation up to as much as 36% which is too much. She asks that there be a compromise. Orange County has 99,345 people of which 55,000 are OWASA's customers. University Lake happens to be the first watershed, the others will follow. She urged that minimum degradation be supported as proposed by the CDM study. ROY STROWD stated he supports quality water. The joint committee recommended individual septic tanks and is refusing to use private waste treatment systems. He feels it would be easier to monitor one treatment system than numerous individual septic systems and a discharge from a treatment system would present less hazard than an individual septic • ): RAFT PAGE 9 system. He feels that extending water and sewer to the watershed area would give greater protection to the watershed than individual septic tanks. He does not understand why smaller parcels of land can enjoy higher densities than larger tracts of land. He feels the runoff would be just as contaminated from small tracts as from larger tracts. In the five acre recommendation, there appears to be no consideration for variation in soil types, typography, or types of vegetation that would affect the absorption or runoff. He expressed two concerns that need a decision: (1) this issue has been around for years and people need to know how they can use their property, and (2) he is opposed to the governmental bodies sharing the cost of any legal costs -- the damages and cost of legal fees should be paid by OWASA. BILL KALKHOF spoke on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill. He read a statement which is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT C" . ROBERTA BLACK, president of the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement. That statement is attached to these minutes as "EXHIBIT D". TED LATTA stated that the landowners in University Lake are not opposed to protecting the watershed. The only thing they are asking is that the County be fair and equitable. Five acre restrictions with no compensation, in their eyes, is totally unfair. Because of the impervious surface ratio, a person with a large lot can only have a house, a yard and a driveway. JUDITH WEGNER emphasized that the work done by the Orange/Chatham Joint Planning Work Group was designed to try to air all the issues that had been raised by everyone. A great deal of effort was put into studying the CDM report and trying to figure out some solutions to the environmental issues and the equity issues that have been raised. The complexity of the issue requires careful balancing and judgment relating to the equity of the situation. The density of the impervious surface recommendations by the work group were very closely linked and needs to be thought of in those terms. The proposal that there be a 4% impervious surface requirement for five acre lots and a six percent impervious requirement for two acre lots was based on careful review of staff recommendations and on some judgment of the feasibility of applying those impervious surface requirements taking into account existing patterns of development. It is especially important that the model Marvin Collins put forward be looked at to insure there are not judgements made about the infeasible application of those standards without thinking through it completely. The committee felt that taking into account the roads and the location of roads could be done and still the size and shape of the lots could be worked out to make these feasible limits. She asked that the governmental bodies go beyond the regulatory provisions that are recommended tonight and be sure and review the other recommendations for purchase of development rights and creation of a loan program to deal with the equitable concerns of those who may be affected by these regulations. EDWIN DUNCAN feels he has inadequate information to make a decision on the watershed issues being discussed. He asked that there be a vocal point where people can expressed their individual problems. He feels the County is not listening to the people. He stated that without some kind of cost benefits he does not see how a decision can be reached. He stated that half of the land will not perk. Without sewer access that land is worthless. For the land that will be developed, it will cost an additional $2,000 to develop. ERICH HAAS spoke as a representative of Little River Township. He spoke about the hazards of wet detention ponds. By constructing these ponds, it creates another point of collection or concentration of pollutants that could slow down the deterioration of the University Lake Reservoir but in the process raise the risk of decreasing the quality of DRAFTPAGE 10 the rural area residents who don't drink city water and who own their own wells. To construct, operate and maintain 72 regional wet detention ponds would cost the taxpayers at the end of the 31 year buildout $31,000,000. He feels more emphasis should be placed on treatment of the water where the primary responsibility is at the plant. GREG GANGI, spoke as a member of the Sierra Club. They passed a resolution which supports that of Dr. Okun. He stated that the elected bodies are asked to choose between the rights of the property owners to use their property as they choose and the rights of people to clean water and good health. He hopes the elected bodies will choose to protect the rights of clean water and good health. University Lake and the watershed are very fragile because of their characteristics including shadow depth, extensive agricultural activities and high potential for increased development and traffic. He feels that instead of making the water as bad as Smithfield's, we should pity them and learn from their mistakes. Many developers have indicated this will decrease the value of their land. With pretty good assurance, development in Chapel Hill is running out of space. Land prices may drop initially but only for a short while. A concern that the Commissioners can meet without jeopardizing the quality of water is that when the price of property increases, poor residents may be displaced because of rising taxes. ALLEN SPALT, resident of Carrboro and actively involved in protecting the watershed, stated that the CDM report is a good basis to start with but to recognize that it does have a very serious flaw. It started with an assumption that there should be a goal of minimal degradation of the water. It does not propose what it would take to maintain or improve the water quality. All the recommendations would result in at least a 10% degradation of the water. He is concerned that some of the provisions talked about now on impervious surface would result in the degradation of the water of at least one third or 35 to 40%. The recommendations presented by Marvin Collins seem to be solid in all respects. He supports a sliding scale for impervious surface but not a scale that goes from six to twelve percent. That is much too high. Community systems should be prohibited; water and sewer extensions with very limited exceptions should be prohibited. If there are BMP's under any of the plans, it is essential that they be publicly maintained. This zoning decision in the not so very long run will result in increased values for everyone concerned. In the short run, it may not. This is not a taking or a confiscation and the governmental bodies should not be afraid that it is considered such. TOM SHAHADY, resident of Carrboro, stated that any development that is put in the watershed will be reflected in the Lake. Any pollutants will directly reflect the water quality. He supports any protection that can be given to this watershed. HAROLD MCKEEL spoke in support of watershed protection. He owns land in the watershed and urged the acceptance of the Planning Director's recommendation. Other water supplies were destroyed before people began paying attention to water quality. Orange County has the unique opportunity to enjoy water that is clean and it makes sense to protect it. LIVY LUDINGTON expressed his concern for the polarity and divisiveness in this County when discussing drinking water. Everyone deserves to drink safe clean water. What the county decides to do in the watershed will affect the health of children and their children. This should not be an issue that divides people. They should be working together for the community. If the rivers and streams that comprise the watersheds are not clean, then the drinking water is not safe. People in this county who oppose the proposed zoning in the watershed will someday be concerned about their drinking water. Then those who approve these restrictions will help them fight for clean water because everyone is in this together. What is unique to Orange County is that the headwaters of the streams that comprise the watersheds are here within the boundaries of this County. What happens to DRAFT PAGE 11 the drinking water is totally up to the County. The landowners in the University Watershed have concerns that need to be listened to carefully. Her concern is that in trying to make the landowners happy, the water quality is slowly but surely being eroded. If the recommendations are adopted from the CDM report, the quality of the water will be degraded by seventeen percent. Add the recommendations of the task force and it is degraded by 28% and the new impervious surface recommendations and it is degraded by 37%. If there are too many compromises and cuts, they will no longer be talking about clean water. Once heavy metals and toxins enter the lake, they cannot be removed. She requested that the elected officials start their consideration with these percentages in mind. Select a percentage they think University Lake should be degraded. She feels 17% is too high. Safe drinking water should be the first priority. After deciding the percent of degradation, then decide how to address the concerns of the landowners. Do not confuse the two issues but deal with them separately. Compromise will only result in unhealthy water. The equity issue will need to be addressed. Perhaps an appraisal of the land will help determine its value if it were to be zoned in five acre lots. As the Triangle grows, everyones property will increase in value. This is an attractive area where the quality of life is excellent. If safe drinking water is not available, property values will decrease. BILL BURCH, member of the Landowners Association, stated that clean water is the issue. What needs to be considered are other alternatives than those listed in the CDM report. He would like for the County to find other ways to protect the watershed and keep the restrictions away from the property owners. He talked about the handicapped and their inability of living in a three story house. He asked that the County look at the N.C. Environmental Health and Natural Resources guidelines. He had a conversation with Mr. Alan Klimek who stated that the County did not need five acres to protect the water system but that two acres would be sufficient in the WSI watershed. He did not say that detention ponds would be required on two acres as CDM indicates. He said the impervious ratio of six percent has created a lot of problems in Wake County. Mr. Klimek stated that as long as it was a single family dwelling, there was no need for very strict impervious ratios. This takes the rights away from the people to construct swimming pools, tennis courts, a barn for a horse and a basketball goal. MARY BUSHNELL urged the elected officials to consider undertaking the land use control strategies as specified in the CDM Study. The essential question is how best to protect the water in the University Lake Watershed. In the CDM report, non-structural strategies allow for some degradation but it is minimal. The chart of other land use scenarios shows increasing degradation rather dramatically. The fragility, its small size of the watershed makes it very important that caution and great caring in how it is protected be used. The maintenance cost of the detention ponds need to be considered. The growth in this area that is expected in the next decade could be enormous and more water will be used. The decisions made now will have ramifications all the way down the line for the future. It would be very useful it the issue of establishing water protection standards could be separated from the issue of how to implement those standards and equitably share the cost and responsibility for implementing them as two separate things. The priority needs to be the protecting of the water. ERWIN DANZIGER stated that as a landowner he feels he needs some protection of the water. He supports Mr. Collins' recommendation. SARAH CARTER, rural resident of Orange County, expressed her concern for her family. She is heir to twenty acres that is to be divided between seven children. They are farmers and have always had clean water. She asked that they be allowed to divide this parcel using the two acre lot minimum instead of the five acre requirement. She asked PAGE 12 DIRA P241 that the rules not be changed in the middle of the game. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the Planning Director's recommendation would permit dividing a twenty acre parcel into seven lots. Chair Carey suggested Mrs. Carter go to the County Planning Office and ask how these changes affect her individual property. Town Council Member Hilliard Caldwell made comments about the complexity of the report. CATHY CARROLL spoke in support of Option 2 as presented by Marvin Collins. She agrees that everyone needs clean drinking water and that it should be achieved through the most responsible and fair means possible. It is possible to work with two acre lots and detention 'onds with attention to details. MARK O'NEILL of Flat River Properties asked that as many options as possible be provided so that the individual landowner can apply those options in the most environmentally sound and in the most economically sound manner. He supports Option 2 with two exceptions. He feels that water and sewer extension with some properties makes sense and the option of community water systems need to be looked at. He feels that the process has been going on for so long that the basic economic model of supply and demand that creates value in land is out of kilter. There is so much risk that the people forced to sell their property are losing money. By finalizing the rules, it is hoped that the supply and demand model will come back into kilter. ROBERT GREENBERG is a resident of the University Lake Watershed. He spoke as a pediatrician and urged them to choose the most restrictive options for development in University Lake Watershed. Unfortunately any development will lead to deterioration. That can't be prevented. They are learning regularly of adverse health affects from low level pollutants -- pollutants that can't be measured. The latest one is low level lead that has long term affects on the development of young children. The children are most vulnerable to pollutants and they are the ones that will drink the water for the longest period of time and will be the ones that will suffer the most. The best solution is no development if thinking about public health. If that can't be done, then a decision needs to be made of how much risk can be taken and how much deterioration can be tolerated. Restrictions must be adopted to keep the water from deteriorating and then address as a separate issue the problem of costs for those people who want to develop the land. Public health is the most important thing. He urged them to adopt the most restrictive options. There is no going back. Technology does not provide a filter to remove everything. He would like to see it more restrictive than the five acres. He asked that the impervious options not be changed - don't allow more. ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, Vice-President of the Alliance of the Chapel Hill Neighborhood and Associate Professor of English at the University of North Carolina, expressed appreciation for the attention given to both sides of this issue. He made reference to a story and stated that he does not know the magic formula to do what is best for everyone and also create a happy balance between the legitimate claims of private property rights and the rights of public well being. That is a valuable goal because it is impossible. There is no way of knowing what is best for all. The engineering reports and public health studies show that the water supply of the future will be damaged if property rights in this case takes absolute precedence over public well being. He urged them to protect the watershed by the maximum allowed by the options available while endangering property rights as little as possible. If the damage to the watershed is allowed to make the property of all citizens unsafe, then property rights in the future will have very little meaning. BETTY MUTZABY stated that it seems there is a group of citizens of this community whose 27) APYPAGE 13 needs are not being addressed often enough here. These are the ci zens who have already been priced out of affordable housing. There will be a loss of affordable housing because of the five acre limitation. She asked that as the governing bodies make these decisions that they remember that other issues such as affordable housing are directly affected. BILL BURCH asked about the buffer widths and stated that the state guidelines for buffer widths is fifty feet plus the slope times four which equals 110 feet. The County recommendation is double that figure. He asked for an explanation stating that if 110 feet will protect the water system, the governing boards should consider that. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. BOARD ACTION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer all items under "D" to the governing boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for a decision and to refer all the items considered at this public hearing to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 2, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With no further comments, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Monday, March 5 at 7:30 in the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk A. GORDON NEVILLE 2120 GLENALDEN DRIVE EAST MEMPHIS, TN 38138 February 22, 1990 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County Planning & Inspection Dept. 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: As Orange County landowners (7 . 115 . . 9A) , my family and I are most concerned about the proposed new University Lake Watershed rezoning from two acre lot sizes to five acre lot sizes . The Nevilles have owned 281 acres west of Carrboro for over 200 years and even before the University was founded in 1798 . Our ancestors gave land to the original University campus . Now, the University and/or the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Aldermen/City Councilmen are trying to run us entirely out of the county. It appears that they would prefer us to sell our active farms to a developer who will build high density apartments and shopping centers . Then, all that paved-over land would really have some polluted run-off plus far less green space/tree environment. This new zoning law will erode the future value of all Southern Orange County farmland and totally eliminate the incentive for young sons and daughters to return to the farms to make a living and continually provide for your natural rural buffer zone. Because we are so near Chapel Hill, we have always made our farm available for UNC students, professors and sight-seeing school children to enjoy the rural setting for picnics, outdoor parties, and just scenic beauty. Do you want to destroy these rural opportunities? This new approach of continually changing the zoning laws does not allow or encourage farm families to make long-tern investment decisions . Farmers have to plan buildings, fencing, and livestock enterprises in 30-40 year increments . These changes which occur too fast, become dictatorial ! ! Many long-term farmers have a total feeling of "helplessness" because a majority of the political decision-makers are not farmers and have a difficult time understanding the farmer' s plight and economic future. It seems that the Planning Commission is much more concerned about trying to maintain a rural look than how farmers will make a living. Numerous small farmers (under 30 acres) will not be able to provide their children with land to build on in Orange County. That ' s a sad Page -2- commentary on Orange County ' s governmental processes and is totally un-American! In summary, this action appears to reflect a battle between newcomers who now have political clout and the original settlers and their descendents who helped make this county a delightful place to live and raise a family. Hopefully, you will listen to our pleas and STOP this unrealistic zoning proposal before it does irreparable damage to Orange County! Thank you for reading these comments into the February 28, 1990 Public Hearing minutes . Sincerely A. Gordon Neville CC: Mrs. Elizabeth Neville Mrs. Christine C. Lloyd Mr. Toy C. Cheek A: 0220AGN.LTk (AGN. 2 ) Orange Water and Sewer Authority EX11/8'T ,A M y dSe 400 Jones Ferry Road I OWASA I P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 COMMENTS TO THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION Carrboro Elementary School Carrboro, North Carolina February 2B, 1990 Presented by Verla C. Insko, Chairman Orange Water and Sewer Authority GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS VERLA INSKO. I' M SPEAKING AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY. A COPY OF THESE COMMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT: THE JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING. AS YOU KNOW, OWASA OWNS THE 570 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER IN UNIVERSITY LAKE. WE SUPPLY MORE THAN 55, 000 PEOPLE IN OUR SERVICE AREA. AT THE REQUEST OF CARRBORO, CHAPEL HILL, AND ORANGE COUNTY, OWASA ENGAGED THE FIRM OF CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE TO PROVIDE A RELIABLE BASIS ro MPLEMENTING LAND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS IN THE WATERSHED. THE FINAL CDM REPORT WAS SUBMITTED IN MARCH 1989. THE OWASA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DF THAT CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE REPORT, AND ENCOURAGES THE TOWNS AND COUNTY TO USE IT AS THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM. THE BOARD REAFFIRMS ITS COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY DRINKING WATER THROUGH A COMBINATION OF WATERSHED PROTECTION AND WATER TREATMENT. THE PREFERRED AND SAFEST WAY TO PROTECT WATER (CONTINUED) An Equal Opportunity Employer 3 • PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS 2 FEBRUARY 28, 1990 DUALITY IS TO USE REASONABLE MEANS TO LIMIT POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS FROM ENTERING UNIVERSITY LAKE. REGARDING SPECIFIC WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES, THE BOARD ENDORSES THE "13 POINT AGREEMENT" ADOPTED BY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORK GROUP LAST OCTOBER. THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT APPEARS TO BE A WORKABLE CONSENSUS OF TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE WATER DUALITY GOAL OF "MINIMAL DEGRADATION OR PREVENTING SIGNIFICANT FUTURE DETERIORATION IN WATER QUALITY. " IN ADDITION TO THESE COMMENTS, I AM SUBMITTING SEVERAL SUPPORTING EXHIBITS: A. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ENDORSING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED STUDY, MARCH, 1989. (A COPY OF THE REPORT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED BY REFERENCE. ) B. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND DISCUSSION PAPER APPROVED BY THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING THE 13 POINT PROPOSED AGREEMENT OF THE JOINT ORANGE-CHATHAM COOPERATIVE PLANNING WORK GROUP. C. CORRESPONDENCE, WITH ATTACHMENTS, FROM OWASA' S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER REGARDING OWASA' S STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY' S SLIDING SCALE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS PROPOSED ON FEBRUARY 5, 1990. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ON OWASA STAFF FOR ANY FURTHER INFORMATION YOU MAY NEED BEFORE THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. .Anlbll H RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TEE CAMP DRESSER A MCKEE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED STUDY, MARCH, 1989 • WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has granted to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) a leasehold on University Lake and ownership of the water contained therein, which the Authority holds in public trust; and WHEREAS, it is now and has been for many years the established practice of OWASA and the public water supply industry in general to rely both on source protection and treatment technology to assure the quality of its product; and WHEREAS, OWASA employs a dependable and proven technology at its treatment plant, but relies upon local governments for protection of water quality in University Lake; and WHEREAS, OWASA engaged the nationally recognized consulting firm of Camp Dresser & McKee to provide the local governments with a reliable and technical information basis for selecting and implementing land management controls in the watershed; and WHEREAS, Camp Dresser & McKee submitted its final report entitled University Lake Watershed Study, March, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . That the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority endorses and supports the- findings and recommendations of Camp Dresser & McKee's University Lake Watershed Study, March, 1989. 2. That the Authority reaffirms its commitment to provide high quality drinking water through a combination of source protection and water treatment, and hereby considers the preferred and safest way to protect water quality is to use reasonable means to limit possible contaminants from entering the water reservoir. 3. That the Authority encourages Orange County, Chatham County, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill to use the Camp Dresser & McKee report as the technical basis for a comprehensive University Lake watershed protection program. Adopted this 11th day of October, 1989. (11-4-440. Verla C. Insko, Ch irman ATTEST: / r Riley WA-on Secreta Treasurer EXHIBIT B Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 NOV Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 November 9, 1989 HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Judith Wegner, Chairman Orange-Chatham Cooperative Planning Work Group 301 West Main Street Carrboro, NC 27510 Dear Ms. Wegner: SUBJECT: PROPOSED AGREEMENT - UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION OTECTION Per your October 19 letter, the OWASA Board of Directors reviewed Work Group's proposed University Work Group's 10 y Lake watershed protection agree chose to /13/89. Rather than adopting protection endorse the p g a resolution, the OWASA staff, attached discussion paper, drafted by as the Board's response to the Proposed Agreement. We appreciate the Work Grou 's a University Lake p many hours of effort in formulating implementation. protection plan, and look forward to its Yours very truly, 5;2;t.e_40(4) Verla Insko, Chairman OWASA .Board of Directors Enc. • An Equal Opportunity, UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSED AGREEMENT OF TEE JOINT OR -CRATHAM COOPERATIVE >'LA>MiNIWG WORK GROUP A Discussion Paper Approved by the OWASA Board of Directors - November 8, 1989 Eackgrouad In November, 1987, Orange Count In Noon Agreement. y+ Carrboro, and Chapel Hill entered into a Joint Planning g Among other items commission a stud it included a request for OWASA to Y of University Lake watershed's additional development. All additional and not to seek or approve water "carrying any portion for watershed and not to period of 90 days after agreed not to annex .any portion of the pp and sever service extensions into the watershed jointly discuss watershed days of planning completion of the stud to which might be incorporated into local ordinances or the Joint study. They also agreed protection standards and regulations After completion of the Camp nt Planning Agreement. p Dresser & McKee study in March, 1989, of the Orange-Chatham Cooperative Planning Work the three jurisdictions and Chatham County began a series of meetings a coordinated hatha protection program g ork Group. g under the auspices participated as o observer and technical finical ari out The goal was it formulate be carried out by each locality. OWASA resource. On October 12, 19$9 the Work Group reached Carrboro Alderman Judith Wegner "Proposed a consensus that was transcribed by Watershed Alderman manion Judith as the A Agreement g University Lake This document of been transmitted iew an o the local governing boards and the OWASA Board before the Work Group's final meeting scheduled for November 15. the OWASA Board instructed staff to prepare a discussion view and comment the meeting, a which time the Board would On October 26, resolution requested by Ms. Wegner. discuss the content orofitA November possible _ant; on The Overall A reement The Proposed Agreement appears to be a workable copse issues that, if implemented, will achieve CDM's recommended watt of "minimal degradation or preventing significant f consensus of technical and policy of "minimal water quality goal future deterioration in water It is noteworthy that all parties followed closely Joint Planning Agreement, and have used OW the process Joint Planning n the technical tool and ASA's CDM study prescribed in ded watershed policy-making y for its intended protection program. The Proposed A g basis for a University Lake the Work Group closely Agreement and the deliberations of formulation of a water y paralleled the fundamental approach of the CDM report: . structural versus nonstructural goal, runoff acoatrolboptions, . and wastewater disposal strategies, by a systematic clustered red developmn of clustered development, v - a 2 The Basic Strategy of 5-acre minimum lot size, impervious surface limits and individual on-site septic systems is consistent with the CDM recommendations for a nonstructural program. The Cluster Alternative is a variation of CDM's cluster configuration proposed to the Work Group by local and OWASA staff. The proposed grandfathering of existing lots, the provision for a limited number of smaller lots, and Chatham County's 2-acre density were evaluated by OWASA staff using the CDM computer model, and yielded water quality estimates consistent with the goal of minimal degradation. All impervious surface limits specified in the Proposed Agreement are the same as those modeled. The CDM model provided a valuable and appropriate technical tool for testing scenarios generated through the political process. The Proposed Agreement also represents a thoughtful - and thoroughly debated - sharing of responsibility for watershed protection among all three local parties, as well as OWASA. Orange County and Carrboro would exercise responsibility for land use controls, but Chapel Hill would share any legal and compensatory costs if a court found that the watershed regulations constituted a taking (5.b) . OWASA's public stewardship role is recognized through a proposal to fund certain watershed protection and conservation activities (5.d) . Specific Items Involving OWASA Three elements of the Proposed Agreement pertain specifically to OWASA, and should be considered by the Board of Directors. Item 5.d requests OWASA "to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in particularly sensitive land, or take other appropriate steps to encourage preservation of water quality within the county." This is consistent with OWASA's stewardship role of managing a valuable community resource held in public trust, and is much more appropriate than earlier suggestions that OWASA underwrite a guarantee of private property values in the watershed. The stewardship role - and use of OWASA funds - would logically include the Authority's existing agricultural cost-share program with participating farmers in University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds, and might extend to water quality monitoring and other special technical or educational activities. Creation of a specific Watershed Protection Fund could be addressed through OWASA's budget and CIP cycle next Spring. Item 7 requests OWASA "to conduct a study of the advisability of making public water services available within the University Lake watershed," and "to report to the joint ,planning jurisdictions by April 30, 1991 on its findings and recommendations." This element arose from concerns about the fairness of regulating the property of residents who might not be allowed to use the drinking water that the regulations were intended to protect. OWASA could commission or conduct a special study similar to CDM's watershed study - with advisory participation by local citizens, elected officials, and technical/legal experts. Such an effort would, by necessity, consider related issues of sewer service. For example, would water • service stimulate a greater demand for sewer extensions, either through accelerated development pressure or through a higher rate of septic system 3 failures caused by increased residential water use? Could conventional sewer service to an area where it provides water? OWASA What other r ti for wastewater disposal might be available? Overall, would the extension water . legally deny service compromise the goals of watershed protection? of options If OWASA were to conduct such a study, the Board of Directors might have a further extension of its "Interim Policy on Water and Sewer Service to University Lake Watershed." a to ban on service extensions was re-adopted i in April, 1989, and expire.this interim 1990 unless otherwise acted upon by the Board. Pyre in April, Unlike the previous elements, Item 8 does not specifically address OWASA,that "public sewer will not be extended into the University Lake watershed to address a public health hazard or upon agreement by all joint ' but jurisdictions." If this provision is acceptable to the local ed should be incorporated explicitly joint use plans, zoning, y into the Joint Planning Agreement sandtthes'land $, and subdivision ordinances of Carrbor and Orange County. OWASA's Mission and Goals Statement, adopted in December, 1988, includes commitment "to be guided by the land management plans approved in the area the Authority serves." PProved by the the government commitment, those units must be clear and unequivocal i n OWASA their land umanagement le plans. The decision to prohibit sewer service in certain areas is a management policy rightfully executed by local jurisdictions with authority - not by land y oWASA. land management It appears, therefore, that Items 5.d and 7 are the only elements of the Proposed that directly affect OWASA. The Board of Directors could, to the exte nt legally feasible, commit to these items. Posed Sun�ar' The Proposed Agreement appears to be a workable consensus of technical and oli issues that, if implemented, will acbieve CDM's recommended water qualit of "minimal degradation or � policy University Lake's water quality. The CDM study and watershed model were cable aids in reaching the Proposed Agreement. Specific elements of P re valuable appear to be consistent with the Authority's Mission and Goals, ands can OWASA be accommodated within OWASA's overall program. It a establish a Watershed Protection Fund and institute a stud that the Is s o f y providing water service to the University Lake watershed. By necessity, such a of the issues of study would consider various options available for wastewater disposal. Any decision to prohibit sewer service in University Lake watershed should explicitly incorporated into the land management plans of Carrboro and Orange County. be nf li.:.ii I %.r jr-"'""\ Orange Water and Sewer Authority • • • 400 Jones Ferry Road LOWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro. NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Moses Carey Mayor Jonathan Haves Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird FROM: Everett Billingsley DATE: February 15, 1990 SUBJECT: University Lake Water Quality At its February 14, 1990 meeting, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority's Board of Directors discussed the contents of the attached letter of February 12, 1990, from Everett Billingsley to John Link. The Board voted unanimously in agreement with the concepts of the letter especially the points regarding the application of the Camp Dresser & McKee's model and the degradation of University Lake water quality. The Board instructed that the letter be promptly forwarded to the Intergovernmental Work Group and the leadership of the County and the Towns as an official statement of concern regarding University Lake water quality parameter concerns. Everett Billingsley Executive Director mw Enc. cc: (w/enc.) Mr. John Link, Jr. (w/enc.) Ms. Sonna Loewenthal (v/enc.) Mr. Robert Morgan An Equal Opportunity Employer Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road [ OWASA J P.Q. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 February 12, 1990 Mr. John Link, Jr. Orange County Manager Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear John: Marvin Collins provided to Ed Holland the County's proposed impervious surface standards for the University Lake watershed. Ed has analyzed this proposal along with other scenarios that have been suggested since last year. The projected impacts on water quality in University Lake have been charted. The results are of serious concern. As various modifications have been proposed to accommodate one or another land use concern, the movement has been progressively away from the objective of preserving water quality in University Lake at an acceptable level of further degradation. It is important to revisit the CDM report both as to the model that was developed and the land use criteria the study suggested, 1 :. The latest County alternative departs from the universe of alternatives that can be directly examined by the CDM model. The land use concerns that are being mitigated under the recent proposal deserve attention. However, it is important to realize that once a scenario is proposed, and possibly approved, that is outside the responsiveness of the CDM model, the foundation of the scenario is uncertain and further departures may be subjectively made. Therefore, I urge a return to the use of the model which was developed from the CDM study. Secondly, the CDM report assumed a level of further degradation of University Lake water quality. I have always ben uneasy about the acceptability of even the CDM proposed level of degradation. During certain climatological and hydrological situations algae in University Lake become prominent and obnoxious. Water taste and odor are adversely affected and water treatment is more difficult and expensive. Even with more intense operating attention, finished water quality diminishes. With this existing experience, if we are. at a threshold level, further degradation may have a much greater adverse impact than has been anticipated. In summary, I suggest that ( 1) the CDM model be used to evaluate scenarios in order to provide as reliable a decision basis as available and (2) that increasing degradation levels beyond that An Equal Opportunity Employer • Mr. John Link, Jr. February 12, 1990 Page 2 suggested as acceptable by CDM may create pollution of University Lake that jeopardize the use of the lake as a water supply during certain periods of the year. Very y yours, Everett Billingsley Executive Director daw cc: Ed Holland Board of Directors • Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road I OWASA 1 P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors FROM: Everett Billingsley DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: University Lake Watershed Study The attached memorandum of February 9, 1990 from Ed Holland analyzes a series of proposals that have been made for revised land use regulations on the University Lake watershed. This systematic comparison shows, particularly in the graphs, the degradation impact of the various scenarios. With the extensive involvement and representation of the staffs and elected officials in the development of the Camp Dresser & McKee study, it seems tardy to suggest changes that would allow such major increases in degradation of projected water quality as does the most recent proposal by the Orange County Planning Department. Since the County's proposal cannot be evaluated as diiectil- by the CDM model as other scenarios, it creates a particularly tenuous situation. If a scenario outside this modeling capability is chosen, the decision basis is substantially weaker and further proposals for either relaxing or tightening standards are more difficult to evaluate technically. Assuming that investigated alternatives for land use scenarios will be kept within the CDM model capability, particular attention is warranted in examining the projected degrees of water quality degradation for each scenario. The CDM recommendation for basic 5-acre density assumed a continuous but constrained degradation of water quality. All other scenarios that have been proposed accelerate the degradation of the community water supply. It is important to reflect again on bow the CDM model and recommended scenarios were developed, the pertinence of the CDM model as a planning tool, and the degree of departure each proposed alternative scenario represents from the consultant's recommendation. . An Equal opportunity Employer Board of Directors February 12, 1990 Page 2 I suggest this item be discussed in the February 14, 1990 agenda because of two upcoming meetings. On February 15, 1990, the Intergovernmental Work Group will meet at 7:30 P.M. in the Lincoln Center. On February 28, 1990, there vill be a Public Hearing on amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan and to the County's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, at 7:30 P.M. in the Carrboro Elementary School. - • A Everett Billingsley 4 Executive Director my Encs. cc: Mr. John Link, Jr. Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 ones F 1owAsAI .irR0ad Carrboro. NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Everett Billingsley FROM: Ed Holland DATE: February 9, 1990 SUBJECT: University Lake Watershed, Impervious Surface Standards Proposed by Orange County, February 5, 1990 These comments and data represent a more systematic review of the water quality implications of Orange County' s proposed impervious limits than was available when Marvin Collins called on me during the February 5 Commissioners' meeting. Orange County Findings Marvin analyzed a large number of hypothetical development configurations for different 57_ 2-acre parcels. Results showed that only 60 percent of- the design configurations for 5- acre lots would comply with a 4% impervious limit, and only .30 percent of the 2-acre patterns would comply with a 6% limit. The average, imperviousness of the 5-acre configurations was 4. 03%; the 2-acre average was 7%. County staff have recommended a sliding scale of impervious limits for different lot sizes. The maximum would be 6% for 5- acre lots, and 12% for 2-acre lots, rather than the 4% and 6% recommended by Camp Dresser i McKee and by the October 1989 13- Point Agreement. Additionally, the County proposes stricter site design standards that will require roads, homesites, and septic tank fields to be located outside of stream buffers. Effects on University Lake Water Quality In its present form, the CDM watershed model cannot directly predict the water quality effects of the County' s proposal, because the model contains built-in assumptions of imperviousness and lot size that differ from the County' s. The model does provide an indirect estimate. Table 1 lists total impervious coverage and chlorophyll concentrations predicted by the CDM model for a variety of land An Equal Opportunity Employer Memorandum 2 Impvervious Limits February 9, 1990 use scenarios. Except for Scenario (7) , which is the County' s new proposal, all were calculated with the lot size/impervious surface associations used previously (4% for 5-acres, 6% for 2- acres, etc. ) . As noted in the _ Table, total imperviousness for Scenario (7) was computed with the corresponding averages reported by the County. Chlorophyll concentrations for that scenario were not computed directly, but were interpolated from the graph in Figure 2. Figure 1 is a plot of these same data points, except for Scenario (7) , which was omitted for the reasons cited above. All were calculated directly with the CDM model. The figure is a good illustration of the general relationship between imperviousness and water quality: degradation (chlorophyll ) increases with imperviousness. ` Figure 2 is an expanded view of a portion of Figure 1. It shows the regressive effects on water quality resulting from incremental changes to CDM' s original 5-acre recommendation. It also provides an estimate of the water quality effects of the County' s proposed higher impervious limits. The 26+ ug/L- chlorophyll interpolation is based on two assumptions: 1. A direct relationship between total imperviousness 'and - chlorophyll in the range displayed by Figure 2; and, 2. Linearity between the two data points bracketing the "FEB PLAN. " Given the consistent pattern of Figures 1 and 2, that shows chlorophyll increasing with imperviousness, the estimate for Scenario (7) appears to be reasonable. What Does It All Mean? As noted in the CDM report, all future land use scenarios will degrade University Lake. Figure 3 shows deterioration in terms of the lake' s present condition, as represented by chlorophyll. University Lake is substantially worse than the Cane Creek Reservoir. Even the original 5-acre CDM recommendation (Scenario 3) represents a 17 percent deterioration in water quality - a level that is supposed to represent the "minimal degradation" goal. After adjusting the original 5-acre recommendation to reflect Chatham County' s 2-acre zoning, grandfathering all existing lots of record, allowing property owners to create up to 5 two-acre lots, and finally mitigating the administrative and political burden of stringent impervious limits, the "February Plan" (Scenario 7) represents a future water quality that is 36 percent Memorandum 3 Impvervious Limits February 9, 1990 worse than today' s. Figure 2 shows that imperviousness and chlorophyll levels associated with the February Plan are closer to the 2-acre development scenario than to the original 5-acre recommendation. CDM staff advise that the watershed model' s margin of error is about 10 to 15 percent. In other words, predicted water quality differences of less than 10 or 15 percent say not be "real. " Incremental differences between successive land use scenarios in Figure 3 are probably not real in a statistical sense, but the apparent difference between the "February Plan" (Scenario 7) and the original 5-acre CDM recommendation (Scenario 3) is . notable. As stewards of the community' s water supply, can we responsibly endorse a plan that the CDM model indicates will produce twice as such deterioration than the report originally recommended? 2V1 Edward A. H o l l and, A I CP -- Research & Planning Administrator :Am: TABLE 1. LAND USE, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, AND PREDICTED CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CHLOROPHYLL LAND USE SCENARIO (% OF TOTAL WATERSHED) (UG/L) ( 1 ) ALL FOREST 0. 5 10. 8 (2) EXISTING LAND USE 3. 6 19. 2 (3) 5-ACRE LOTS, PER CDM 6. 3 22. 4 (4) 5-ACRE LOTS, 2 ACRES IN CHATHAM 6. 4 22. 7 (5) EXISTING LOTS GRANDFATHERED 6. 7 23. 4 ("CDM PLUS") (6) PLUS 5 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 7. 1 24. 5 (THE "OCTOBER PLAN" ) (7) INCREASED IMPERVIOUS LIMITS 7. 4 26. 2 . (THE- "FEBRUARY PLAN") (8) ALL 2-ACRE LOTS 7. 6 27. 4 (9) CURRENTLY APPROVED L. U. PLANS 8. 1 28. 2 (10) ALL 1-ACRE LOTS 11. 9 32. 4 NOTES: (1 ) Assumes no development in watershed; 95. 5% forest, 0. 5% roads. (2) Actual land use, as estimated by CDM, using characteristic impervious coverage with each land use: 4% for 5-acre lots, 6% for 2-acre, 12% for 1-acre, etc. (3) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 5 acres. (4) Same as (3) , except that Chatham County develops at 1 unit per 2 acres. (Continued) Table 1 Notes Continued (5) Same as (4) , except that existing lots scalier than 5 acres are developed at their platted densities. (6) Same as (5) , except that owners may create up to 5 2-acre lots from existing parcels. (This scenario was proposed in the October 1989 13-Point Agreement. ) (7) Same as (6) , except that average impervious coverage is increased from 6 to 7% for two-acre lots, and decreased from 20 to 15% for half-acre lots, as proposed by Orange County on February 5, 1990. Chlorophyll concentrations were interpolated from values derived with the CDM model. (8) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 2 acres. (9) Assumes 90% buildout according to currently approved local land use and zoning plans. ( 10) Assumes 90% buildout at density of 1 unit per acre. • a) 1.- O J _ N W +� C N o a _ W 0 o � ° w Co r y ❑O l•— • _�1 cn 0 /' W CO / O `` w i UO 4 `2 %�I L.G. W / 1- Q H 1- w CC d O I - o 1 r L- h�j r 0 0 O .J 0 - - } O c ` 0 I ? n � 0 o � _ xQ a 0 W J J - I 0 ~ N T CO 1= 0 O W r LL J 1..1..E .J a I T I I I I 0 U) 0 !!f 0 U7 0 LA 0 F) F) N N .- 1 C1/on) V 11a.Hdoao1H3 W J Z � _ . 7 a.....1 co oZ 1 - t W OJ Wa rX Z VW LA W r m Q CC .•� V N y )1' ••••• W CC O D = - Z 2 U C 0 M H O = _J ra LJ¢ 0 _, O a 0WO N 4.LI N Q wd S• . M.. 1n ...... Cl) CL N ~ ^ It M Irl J 0 = :e — a3 N 7 a - • CC > ‘C' CO� . o X •J cn J • >- _= o I -J m cc L1. a Q us w 0 I . _ v! c.) — Q cn I - I3. U I CI "' to • N a 1A - U. I I T i i i , 10 G1 m N iD in w I') N I- N N N N N N N N N C1/on) v 11AHdOaO1HO 4.t i�.•i�.•ii.• • i 0 •I.�.i co • 4k. a. 0 . +11. a. A• ° a cw 0- - - et 0 Si .• • ,N !./.�4! \ J FA< L ❑z e + .*t a W• W �-. ill. �-I, ❑ ❑ D J z . 0 a + +...e.4 c7 '�`�`�,, to W ce W > Q o • z ~ F LaJ . IL 0 Y tx U. V W z hhh. 6 1 1 0 CO tD tt N 0 m tD Nt N 0 CO tD it N 0 ro N N N N N r r r v- r (1/0 1) 11J.Hd0a01H0 • (As Presented to Intergovernmental Work Group February 15, 1990) TABLE 2. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED As Estimated by CDM and Orange County Planning Department Methods (*) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LAND USE SCENARIO (% OF TOTAL WATERSHED) CDM ORANGE COUNTY ( 1 ) ALL FOREST 0. 5 0. 5 (2) EXISTING LAND USE 3. 6 3. 6 (3) 5-ACRE LOTS, PER CDM 6. 3 6. 3 (4) 5-ACRE LOTS, 2-ACRES IN CHATHAM 6. 4 6. 4 (5) EXISTING LOTS GRANDFATHERED 6. 7 6. 7 ( "CDM PLUS" ) PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL 2-ACRE LOT 6. 8 7. 0 PER FAMILY OR TWO 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 6. 9 7. 1 OR THREE 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 7. 0 7. 2 (6) OR FIVE 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 7. 1 7. 4 ("OCT PLAN") ( "FEB PLAN") (7) ALL 2-ACRE LOTS 7. 6 8. 3 (B) CURRENTLY APPROVED L. U. PLANS 8. 1 8. 7 (9) ALL 1-ACRE LOTS 11. 9 1 1. 9 NOTES: (*) The Orange County method increases CDM' s assumed impervious coverage on 2-acre lots from 6% to 7%, and decreases the coverage on half-acre lots from 20% to 15%. Average coverage for 5- and 1-acre lots remains at 4% and 12%, respectively, in both methods. ( 1 ) Assumes no development in watershed ; 95. 5% forest, 0. 5% roads. (CONTINUED) Table 2 Notes 2 Continued (2) Actual land use, as estimated by CDM, OWASA, and local staff. (3) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 5 .acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 5 acres. (4) Same as (3) , except that Chatham County develops at 1 unit per 2 acres. (5) Same as (4) , except that existing lots smaller than 5 acres are developed _ at their platted densities. (6) This scenario was proposed in the October 1969 13—Point Agreement. (7) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 2 acres. (B) Assumes 90% buildout according to currently approved local land use and zoning plans. (9) Assumes 90% buildout at density of 1 unit per acre. i RN a6z• + I• k . . . ci. Z + ��=: s etiCO ",r 0 ♦,I j��♦,I�y�� , a r F-- I'�'� - VQ V, � �`� •• Q X + �j� ' ��e4 O X o 0 II WCO .7.J 0 %. .‘L cloi ;Fie z Wy W U Vii. \ ¢o u 0 3 co e , 2J to k de W 0 + •�4 Ner W ��► W w A &X1 ¢O 0 D-.I L:l N I m oa \ j0¢ o p Cr) d N ~W X 1 + L. +a" Z • 1A • 3 .1 mod € � m � � X ' • 406, • b. . X 1 i 1 + I- to i I 1 i i o to O O� a ro N O ❑ rt (esDa..IDui 11XLIcloJcbtwo %) NOIIVCIY803O i 41"5/7 6.015 - r Feb. 28 Public Hearin iN, ORANGE COUNTY - Hearing on Proposed Revisions To And To The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas , Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County, N.C. To The Orange County Commissionsers : Thank you for this Public Hearing in order to speak out Alill. • � . on the Protection of the University Lake Watershed. , - * 1 ' I am Margaret Holton, a citizen of Orange County and Chapel ' Hill , who has been studying and working/Eo protect water since the early 1980 ' s so that clean water will be here for the next generation. Two months ago citizens had understood that this PUBLIC HEARING was called on Protection of the University Lake Water- shed for comments on the agreement of the Joint Orange-Chatham Work Group who worked for two years on the pros and cons of how to protect University Lake. This Group came to consensus on a 13-W nt Agreement which was based on information from the 1988"s'tudy by Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) of University Lake Watershed. I suppor thit 13- oint Agreemen o the Inte governmental Work Groupa— C -x - i.,, .-4 University Lake is the pri cipal source o drin ing wa7- ' for the 55 , 000 citizens that Orange Water and Sewer Autho-it B" (OWASA) serves in southern Orange County which includes Cha l Hill/Carrboro as well as the University of North Carolina(you know that Cane Creek water is piped into a tributary that feeds into University Lake. ) During the past two months the reports through the media of the Orange County Commissioners meetings and hearings , as well as the suggestions from the Orange County Planning Staff, have left the citizens somewhat confused. Luckily I learned on Sunday that you had a notice of a Public Hearing for tonight on Land-Use Amendments in the newspaper. Now this is a big zoning issue hearing that is presenting alternatives , and these changes seem to be moving away from the Camp, Dresser, McKee study recommendations . We do understand that the study recommends land-use controls such as density and that structural controls can be used as a last resort. This Public Hearing needed to be centered on Drinking Water Protecti244e5.. n alternatives. I wish to comment on the pposed revisions under the Orange County Zoning Ordinance concerning changes on the overlay . P' zoning district recommended o be changed to University Lake4440,p..- Watershed(ULW) District, .< '! , _ e �,4 1 . There still needs to be a critical Areas signation y extending at least one-half mile from the water ' s edge. e'The word critical makes the public aware of the need to achieve the goal of pollution prevention that close to water source of the ULW District. Within this Critical Area structural controls for stormwater runoff should not be allowed, neither should community alternative wastewater treatment systems. When commenting on alternatives, one should call attention to the fact that community alternative wastewater systems in N.C. have had a history of a high number of failures ,and ship n t be allowed an where in the watershed._ k . . Jry -...)79 , I . i ' r."44.-1 ' PUBLIC HEARING. cont. Feb. 28, 1990 Carrboro Elementary School ' 2. When discussing options the Commissioners should look at the overall picture of pro- tecting University Lake Watershed. Former 2-acre and 5-acre lots would be grandfathered. in but the recommendations of the 13-point Agreement should hold on impervious sur- face requirements as well as buffer zones. Please note that the Public Hearing Notice has omitted information on Impervious Surface Requirements as well as Buffer Zones. 3. Cluster developments need to be defined not only with density but with distance from the water source, either main tributaries or University Lake water line, not in the Critical Area. 4. In deciding on options for stormwater control, if you do, please state that the option of 2 acre lots with structural controls not be allowed in Critical Area, the designation you left out. Detention ponds have a history of poor maintenance. Mandate that they be publicly maintained and that homeowners pay a fee for public oversight. of Note: Some of you know that I serve as Water/Natural Resources Director the LWV of North Carolina and have been working statewide since 1985 bringing infoation to citizens. Tonight I speak to you as a local citizen and for my community, but with information from state agencies. 5. In 1986 the Environmental Management Commission passed new classifications (voluntary) for Water Supply Watersheds with WS-I being the highest classification which Gr1ASA applied for and received in 1988. The Division of Environmental Management of the new Department of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources is now proposing classifications which the new State Watershed Advisory Council is considering in order to follow the mandate of HB156 on Water Sup 1;y Watershed Protection. New WS-I would be undeveloped and uninhabited watershed/ s forest land, and our present classification would be WS-II on a five item scale. The density requirement is one dwelling per 5 acres in both critical area and remainder of the watershed. No engineered controls are allowed. Classification deadline is Jan. 1, 1992, If you decide on the options instead of sticking with the 13-point Agreement you are lowering the protection level of University Lake and we would be down a class on the state scale of protection. The sources of clean water for drinking purposes in our area are particularly limited. Orange County has been in the forefront for Watershed Protection and has been a model since its passage of the Watershed Ordinance in 1981 and then updated in 1984. OWASA has taken its responsibility of stewardship by getting the WS-I Classification and having the Camp, Dresser and McKee Study, in order to protect the drinking water for the 55,000 people that it serves. You Commissioners as elected officials are charged with protecting the public health and safety of the citizens. Please continue with strong regulations on the prevention of pollution into University Lake. Margaret Holton 411 Holly Lane Chapel Hill, N.C., 27514 DEWS RECOMMENDATION TO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION ADVISORY COUNCIL u tilaSc t OE basri G ARD PROPOSED Ii1TEt SOPPtt rr.ASSITICATIONS Exisitib0 DisdarQers Oonpoiat Source Proposed Discherpart $oopOint Source Class. Control* Class. Controls tS-I Rope Dndeveloped & uninhabited . vatersbed (old A-I) iS-I None except Predominantly im- fa None except predrxaineatlt un- avliiaing pool \developed vatersbad; svitntog pool developed voter- f ilter back- local lima lesnageaeat filter beck- abed; local land Vesta (.0131) ,program for atoewater wash (.0131) ennegeeent; no engineered con- ' troll iS-I1 Dcdostic or non- Lot to inderetely dev- MS-Ill No rear di Obarge Loa to ioderate process industrial eloped teatBrsbed; local in critical area; developed Pater wastewater land manegement program liiited dolomitic abed; local land for stot +ater or non-process immement & res- industrial remain- possible for der of Oaterebed engineered con- trols tS-IV No nee S.Ddu trial Noderetelj to disebarge in nit- bigb_lj level- lral area; limited aped iiatersbed; ddiestic or indus- local land Man- trial remainder of age ant & res- entersbed possible for en- gineered control • US-V So new industrial Local lend eeP- discharpe in crit- figment & res- ieal area; united possible for dotheStic or hilts- engineered coo- . trial in rates troll in supplf lent =ideal area US-III No restrictions No restfictiosus fir-Ys OtOpoled rica disk 0D c4 IA 1 I 'nI I v' i i 1 1 415 VI-r I 1 a 1 1r I I 1 w I X X J 1 Inn� 3 Z 3 d S lb S _S 6! w w ~ w w S �� A IA ' A "0 1 1 • C... t•0, c C a .w w 0. a ZZ Z .. u� Z -- -- N -- 0 0 7 a 3 �a 5 S 5 = o'a' c t s°`` V VI IN Q Z Z Z CC Z Q D. Z W I4JN I OU « N C 3 L= >- z o CC D � p I I d 40E.0 0 �j+ 3 a D. I I 14 a a O p ^ Si' 00 > I- E a C C C _. E r, E 1^ C a' a a 0 � � •I CEO L Z c10 0 0 = � � a J o a wro _• W N - a o L 0C.D U n a `� v . W 4..1 . Si C • X r. r. - .. I. ..— O - '04 Al! N N N N '003 ~ L CC 0- EL I 1 -'.' C E N U. .II �fi X11 .NE3 U Cu o 7 OC C C C : N: 0.0 wd N 0 N 0 CIO vi '0 • tr1 a a CI) a a m 0 a L C _ } nth 0 0 z --•r 1m .-.. \«...--.... tog.. U L Si ro .4.)LP Q a VI N .- < t=n •� ro I I I 7 U)) U) IV cv '0 \ O•C INO 3 W a vi I 1 3 ' 1 a z o a aNCa Si -0 - _ "" a 1 Ya- L1 N 10 0,11'1 Z p CV• U.►t w 0i a0,, ...•� ro Q 0 • i .0a 0. 0-0 EA0L-= I.• a a,4, •- 0 o e a. a' to -. L i 0. ro Z• 0 7•ar .0 o, • a 0 0 a 'DUl Ca rd � a aa. at L0C•N3 D+ a 1.•- C M• G ICO aai i C C L C 0 OOr 0-� .. I0 L•-• U J-0 1 D 7 0, D J 17 Z r Z L C'D • 6 '0 UJ a C Q Q EaL-0 J•. 0 U_J en en U) 7 I. .3 n-. 'n its- C • L[ N 3 L aro C ro A VD 0' U 0 U•'" U U'- ~C L L L . n IO a 10 yL.0 .03 .0.0 3 LEuO, U C t Cu 411 7 VI d 7 VI 0, L0^-• to CC E C E E 0 E l.0 0,p-- •.. 0 0 O 0 0 Oppt 00 CC 00 .0 0,N O 1 Z I Z I DC C] C d.w C •3..LCG .+ 3+00, 10 to U— JO IO Qida A 3 AI aL a a UO, E D-C I! 40 10 ro 7 7�� 0 I. 10 a - �de .+Z ro I ro U N • U N To 11 1 L ..4 L .w L d U C• -.r 0,.1 d J a .w A . r.3 J J A 1. L I0 L ro •-. v• L1 7 U 1 0 I CI I IL 0 ID au. VI••• ...`., ? CL m — 7 I O "1 ,;, rn to In In ABIr 0 17/0/ Cr AstaRs Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill '"m&c'Pe' 20 W. Colony Place • Suite 180 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 • Phone 919/493-8899 ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES WATERSHED PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENT The Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill supports all reasonable efforts to protect the quality of water for all citizens. In protecting the quality of water, due consideration should be given to the property rights and the reasonable use to which landowners should be able to put on his or her land. In general, the HBA supports Option #2 which allows 2-acre zoning with on-site detention ponds. We support the 12% impervious surface ratio for 2-acre lots as well as the sliding scale of impervious surface ratios as proposed. We feel the watershed area will develop at densities lower than 2-acres because of the percability of the land thus reducing pollutant loading even further. If option #1 is chosen with 5-acre lot minimums, the HBA supports the clustering alternative as well as the impervious surface ratios proposed by the Orange County Planning staff. The 4% impervious surface ratio proposed by the Orange- Chatham Work Group is impractical, we feel, for people wanting to live and build in the watershed. If option #1 is approved, the HBA supports allowing existing . lots of record as of October 2, 1989 to create up to five lots of not less than 2-acres while the remaining land shall be developed with a minimum lot size of 1 unit per five acres. The HBA supports the articles as they relate to impervious surface regulations; stream buffers; existing vegetation; placements of streets, driveways, and buildings, and water supply/sewage disposal facilities. The conditions that exist in this watershed and others will be continually changing as well as the technologies and methods used to treat our water. We feel that an on-going Watershed Task Force should be established to evaluate these ever changing conditions and options. In conclusion, the HBA of Durham and Chapel Hill whole heartedly supports reasonable efforts to protect our water supply. A polluted water supply that is untreatable would do more harm to our business than almost anything else we could imagine. We applaud the effort to protect our water even though we may disagree on how to protect it. 6q06 ..an ffdme= of t!u Utiatianal C711octstiwn of c•ionm 13uildel3" ` - -Mir{ e Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill ve *PI re rof i a &O Ha' 20 W. Colony Place • Suite 180 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 • Phone 919/493-8899 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN WATERSHED PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENT The Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill supports all reasonable efforts to protect the quality of water for all citizens. In protecting the quality of water, due consideration should be given to the property rights and the reasonable use to which a landowner should be able to put on his or her land. Specific comments concerning the Joint Land Use Plan and Text: 1. Concerning the rewriting of Section II Natural Environment Subsection B Water Resources: The HBA feels 2-acre zoning with on site detention ponds would allow property owners a reasonable use of their land and still ensure water quality. Also, because of the percability of the land, actual densities would probably be much lower than 2-acre on average throughout the watershed. 2 . Concerning Section V Joint Planning Operating Principals: The HBA concurs with the Town of Carrboro that a cluster alternative served by central water and sewer is the better method of protecting water quality. 3 . Concerning Section V Joint Planning Operating Principals: The HBA supports option n2 which allows 2-acre zoning with on-site stormwater detention ponds. As stated before, we feel the entire watershed will develop at densities much lower than 2-acres because of the percability of the land. 4 . Concerning Section VI Future Land Use Joint Planning Area: The HBA supports option r2 . 5. Concerning Section VII Overview of Implementation Strategies: The HBA supports a study on the possibility of allowing public water and sewer extensions in the watershed. The ' landowners who are helping to ensure water quality should be able to benefit from these efforts. . .not be penalized. i�-�l •c4. e4ffJ at of trio •/taliana`aqssocioidon of diem. S.airdtu APWrif010" , (re 1 , LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CHAPS HILL/CARRBORO,NC Carrboro le::entor:,-- School, February 25,. 1990 Arzenda Item: -ronosed amendments to land use plans and development regulations tions -rhich would, if approved, implement actions for pro- tecting Ur_ r ersiLy Lake e Vatersned• I an Roberta Black, President of the League of Women Voters of Ch_a,el =ill/ Csrrboro. The local Lea�yae thanks you for the o- cr- t amity to y-oer at t �"� tU.-- t� to i.__ G.t 4- s unli c h-aring. � The Lear me of Women Voters, nationally, su^perts =enar"ensnt L of land as a fitnie resource not commodity, since land o'•:'nershir 1 J whether -.public or -^ivate, carries responsibilities for stewardship. The Lea ;:ve has a long history of concern for conservation of natural resources, especially protection of sources of drinhin dater. Locall--, we have made cublic statements on marry occasions in sur _crt of :watershed nrotecti on. The ci tizens of Chapel Bill and Carrboro are fortunate that Crane Cunt;; has two ..atersheds (University- Lake and Cane Creek) -with the premier classification of '+;S-1. Such drinkirz water. su'o 1i es are maz ificent natural resources that must be managed and protected in theVtublic interest. We strongly su-o'oort establishing the University Lake Watershed District in order to -orevent sicr'ficant water Guali t� deterioration in University Lake. the land use controls that are being suzzested --five acre zoning that permits a limited =umber of two acre lots-- are realistic and fie; ble. They fairly address" the concerns of landowners about the r evelon--en . and value of their property. are aware of the intense and conflicting co!itical "-,ressure.s that have been building. It is i ortant to the democratic :,olitical -)rocess that the concerns of different citizens be considered with respect and fairness.-.. F r t error e, it is necessary that r l eva _ technical data be available. This has been done through the Ca_:_z, Dresser, Y.cKee re'oort. But, in the end, cou_raceous leadership by the elected officials =ill be needed to rrotect the watershed and the eater supply. :+e u_rye you to exercise extreme caution in allowing :waters-ed development. Once encessive development has occurred its negative effects can never be reversed. -',)(ca.p-- 1 n he. c-44Sw o- a-- poo[ic- hie f-r. "merge ; . :i DJb1' ,,. �vwair •C -a_ c-�",s, cr;.r ^avi6. b2 ;.. -cr,: 4.-;--,-c ` . a I ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306E REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ve MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 30, 1990 SUBJECT: EVIDENCE RECEIVED SINCE THE FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING COPIES: Attached is all evidence received since the February 28, 1990 public hearing, including written documents submitted by citizens to the Planning Department Staff or to the Planning Board. As you are aware, only evidence presented in writing at or prior to the March 28, 1990 Planning Board meeting may be considered in making a decision. If the Board of Commissioners wishes to consider additional (new) information, the public hearing must be re-opened, and the item re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. Article 20 . 7 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the provisions which must be followed, and a copy is provided for reference. Because of the amount of information received, the additional evidence is provided as a separate enclosure. 0 A(..OLlu4.4.0 0-et2) Marvin Collins Planning Director 20.5 ' The Board of County Commissioners and the- Planning Board Shall Bold A Public Hearing The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular meeting in August, November, February and May. 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be 7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty- five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing. In computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20.6.2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing. 20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less 11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected property owners and to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet as provided above. The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. 20.7 Action Subsequent to the Date Rof Public Hearing 20.7.1 Following the date of the public hearing, all proposed amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its Amended consideration and recommendation. Evidence not presented 2/5/90 at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new evidence" ) may be submitted in writing at or prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is made. The Planning Board may consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. 20-3 The Planning Board shall within sixty days after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of any application submitted by the public. Said time limit may be extended upon request of the applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. 20.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after Amended the first date of the public hearing or until the Planning 2/5/90 Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. 20.8 Withdrawal of Application An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first notice as required in 20 . 6 shall be considered, for the purposes of Article 20, a denial of the petition. 20.9 Effect 21 Denial on Subsequent Petitions When the Board of County Commissioners shall have denied an application or the application shall have been withdrawn after the first notice of the public hearing thereon, the Board—f County Commissioners shall not receive another application for the same or similar amendment, affecting the same property or a portion of it, until the expiration of a one year period, extending from the date of denial or withdrawal, as appropriate. 20.10 Dim Fees for filing application for amendments shall be set by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. 20-4 D /A I� UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PRCTECTION . Vw V��VF\ At the March 8 , :990 meeting of the Chatham-Orange work Coup, the group failed to achieve a consensus for modification of the impervious surface provisions in the ;.3-point agreement . The Orange County Planning Director , Marvin Collins , has proposed changing the impervious surface limit from 4 , to 6% for 5-acre lots and a sliding scale for lots smaller than 5 acres . Ideas discussed at the March 8 meeting included: 1 . Reduction in the number of 2-acre lots permitted under point number 5 . a. 2 . Public acquisition of land or development rights s;._ficient to result in equivalent protection. 3 . Use of impervious coefficient somewhere between 0 and 2 . 0 to recognize that gravel driveways are not as impervious as roof tops or paved roads . 4 . Use 4% figure for new developments, 6% for existing lots . THE DEBATE Those in favor modifying the impervious surface limit argued that, according to Mr . Collins ' calculations, the number of non- conforming lots would be unacceptably high (approx. 40%) . Those opposed to modification argued that the CDM recommendations were aimed at minimizing f.._ ther pollutant loading of the Lake and that the I3-point agreement already included. compromises that were less stringent that recommended by CDM. CDM SHORT-COMINGS The CDM report recommended that impervious surfaces be limited to 4% if the non-structural approached were utilized. They failed to take Into account dirficul ties this approached would encounter in dealing with that portion of the watershed in Chatham County and with existing roads and lots smaller than 5 acres. RECONCILIATION The difference between the 13-point agreement and the Crange County start proposals is not as significant as has been thought if a distinction is made between average imperviousness and the maximum permitted for individual lots . Mr . Collins ' calculations indicate that , for an assortment of 5-acre lots, approximately 98% compliance can be achieved by use of an impervious surface maximum of 6% ter act and that the average for the assortment would be about 4`' Thus, the intent the , a. _._us, _r ...e ten. cr ...e _3-po:n: agreement was to limit impervious surface to an average of 4% , the two proposals are equivalent . lots _S greater, ,t not by much. Mr. The difference for 2-acre _0 5r _ , b:.. Coll ins ' calculations indicate .n at the impervious surface for an assortment cf 2-acre lots would be approximately 70 if a Way__....._ of 12% was applied to individual lots. The 13-poi^.t agreement 11 f in - the :n the 13-point agreement is to called ar 6�G. Again ..� t..e b� _�. �..e -p g- be interpreted as an average, it is close to that computed to result from the application of a 12% maximum for individual lots . RECOMMENDATIONS A. For April 2 , 1990 1 . Consider that the basic recommendations of the :3-point agreement and the Orange County planning staff are equiv- alent in that .the 13-poin. figures refer to averages and the staff recommendations refer to individual lots . 2 . Modify the formula for the number of 2-acre lots that can be created to one that specifies the number of lots and permits averaging. For example, from a 20-acre tract , allow creation of 7 2 . 85-acre lots as an alternative to 2 5-acre lots plus 5 2-acre lots. 3. Adopt a sliding scale of average and maximum impervious surface requirements for lots smaller than 5 acres (averages only to apply to new subdivisions) . B. Beyond April 2 , 1990 1 . Commit to public acquisition of land to reduce future pollutant loading potential , 2. Provide tax incentives for "environmental easements " patterned after agricultural use-vaaue assessments . 3. Determine location of majority of 2-acre and smaller lots and use structural BY2s in subbas_ns serving existing . small lot subdivisions , e.c. , East Price ' s Creek (Heritage • Hills) and West Price 's Creek (Chatha:. County) . 4 . Proceed with review and implementation of 23-point ' agreement . Don Willhci - 3/25/90 _0326 - • • ' . • . , . . . , i . I• , • . . . : . • , . , , ' . . , , . . • - w ! - 000r2m0.4-020m0WOJnrOmftIMMON.7WOOWM001,- 0MrNmm4r00r- r- OmMOr m - 0 anco-mowNmmoo - - woJcummm4r4r4. 4- a omnoulooblookow 14:1 kow ul ID altsi on r.. L IONS. Eunicummmmmmm4r44- 4. 4444; 414; 41 - 444; 44: .“ 4; w -J-. 0 . , . a : - . : 1 1 . • m 4204. 10M0Lwm,70WrOM0-iwmo00r0MOrNmgrOl0N0 : Ch0 .gwr14' 04.oNcOM0-' .. 4. . 21 mw 4.43 i , cucuwWwWwWwWmmmMmmmmmMrno .7 .74 .7agrolo, I _ I .A,04- .4.p0 • 1 . - I . ' : 1 , • OWOOr 1- 2 ..-. I I • I , ; •I • I , I • • I Z , a i I . • . • . , . . I ! 1 m it)t vt tt.It vt It.vt lt vt It it vt m.'t m x ,4,4 m tt it it It it it it it it it It it it it it if.IS it it it it it it 14 w.-.4 Ic = I 000oconnoncomoconmwomNwin .rmw-.-ommcotor- hownntimmmmm 1 oc14- . 0o0n.loorwwn0 .4- 4r4mmmmmmoinJwwwwwwm - .... umis 1. . . . . . 4. . . . . . 1. . . . . . i. . . .. . . :. . . . .. . '. . . . . . ,. . . . . . .. . . .. . > 0 UM ulmon .g. 4.4r4.T4V4r40,Crir M ..r .ra4t4: 41Ther4rAMC4C .T .T4 I ; OS. 0 a - I I • 1 1 I 0. 010. !MC 1 . . . . • . 1 . . , i I I ' : ! 1 . i I •! . 1 Z I 01 W4WCIONirMOON4MCDON.TWEbOW4TMMeN4MCDON.7MMONIrMCOON •rOCOON4 W VG MOr0J4NONIMOrcum.70r•OMONImgrOW0M0-1w .rooNmo -.0Jm.7t2NomoNm.r . E 1 -10u .... aNMWM0p...r ...m0m0r. .7-.021110r-or0CW0n-a ... :20cumorumwm .. 42moj 4 : m ... .12 .0 0o1N0M -rrni- 00r- Winmw..mcortocmWOMMINO4Mr0Mr-. 00a0J -. 00r- 01MMNr 0 Iro >1.1- w mm.:001■ 0MOOrcum •70wWN0MOrNMPI .700N0M0OrWrIgrOkOrrcOM0-. 0.1M WWWWWWWWWWwmmrlmmMmmmrImm.rm w rwmm I . • . ' Q - I I i 1 M - - 1 1 I w 0 I 1 , : - 1 t 1- • o 1.11 i 1 , 0 I OW41-WOON4rWOOMiTWOON4rWOON4rwMONoWOONoiDOONoWOONeWMON -: C CU D Cb roJr1-7Wr..00200.1ma000MOrCu.rolWneo0...cumgrWr. comOcum.rolu20010.-. W.70 r m 0 u ._ ., h- gr...004umwo-- clannimom-.0111 cumwmcomoo camwro 0 p..rCum0M0 p.Qr 4. 87,4.0 rq 0 r% Ca 1::2 A 7 411 ig fli I.!I tg g 2 ill g g l?'Iliq tO CU O.: 8 t.:2 A:7 2.1!.g.,P.11;N tli".1>!..1 III; T. V)t2 A:3 Ili 8 o 0.415U4A 1.- C.. ). b. OW Clif. - 17 W WWWWWWWWWWmmliMmMrImMMMq • M › mw6co . _ _._ ._..-. 1- , . 1 .. -.--: - .. , ],•,. _i D-- ...,_• 7.., LI .• " ; _ -- _-.-v ,-- - --:. -,„ . •• ..,--. L • I 00000000000 00000 .000000 00000 00000000600 momo m . - 000.00000000000000o. 0000.000000000000000000000000 . : m . uct.b. 0041.0.1ommocome.mommommo004rwomwqmommo004rwo0 acu.i.i. nmm.... m6114rwoomm-mn.4mommom.mr-mmomwo.mrnmotowvnimn-mmm 5.... 1.307r ...mor. 0001.7wr.. m...m.romowmor..m0cu.rocoM....MV)W000Ja4P-MrW.17000r - • C- IJM COgrt000M0p.mrMOMONarVirmo1P- OW4W0OMOIr. Mrigr0000Jorr-Mrm000 • - U (1) - • , 0.1 CU W CIJ ro T2 m m 4.2 or.7 er .r 0 Ol V)141 ol 0 0 40 u)0 P-P- P-T-co CD CD M CD M En th th C) ,...•,•• , : •: A .. [,-. ,'J . k>.t,..:-. , - 1„..--.. 1 . .1 , lii . A 1,.___ '..- iJ . rICUM400N0MOr M.,M0NOMOrWrIM'IMWN0010.-.CUM.000NooMOrCuM0MW ::- ... a 0 m . .. 1 wwwwwwwwwcumr9Tommmmnimm 44r4r-T . . •:"; Li. 0 L. 03 -.-.. •i . - - -,1 . J : _ I . _.,_. ...I ' ' 1 •.-- • - • .:,7 C: MI6 U.IA 0 -:- - .:1 ----- . - • 1 - -_ -- ; ..- --- - -.• . -_-. •• 0 w I 1 ... - 1 . _,.. .... . .. . _ , v,,-- ; Z • 0 .- a ;7. -H. 1 -• --::- I . -.- • ._. . .:-.7 _ . • . 1 - 1 • ' I .------ - -z- - L •_,..• 1 _.• . . 1 . . . • . ._ -. ..c. 0 ' 0 A WWWWWWWWWWWWWNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNWWWWWWWWWWWW WZMi MMMMMMMVIMMMMMOIMMMMMIPMMIPMGIMMMMMOIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ..".% > MOU ' ... 4-4'4'040.....4,4•41M.ITM4r4M0.0.7.7M4. 04"Cl.t.T00 - 16. 0)Cro 0000.0000000000000-000000000000000000000000000000 w , L > .-1+ 11. mmmmmmmmmolmmammmmmrgmmrimmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeqmmmm a I' LL . a 1 1 • 4 . . , . i • , E > w weM " - • I - 1 - i ctEn . - • ; • • 1 . , , - . 1 _ - i • . • , . , • 1 1 .;:z... i a i •• • . • , ..• 1 . . - I 1... .--1 , i : . ..._ . I --'• • • ! . . . i , ' . • •I .- . I - .. ::• )0 . . , . - i : 1 - _ I 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ••,- z " tb ' ... 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 'II LO4A OWWWWWWWWWOMM.WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW - . o... alCu451.1. mmMOMOOMMommOOmmonnmomm00000000000000000000000m ' ura0m mmmmmmr)MMMMmmmmrImmmmrImmmm-mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm a 1 ..IM .T.T.T.F.44 ..7441-00C1r4rwrefArOlr04.74C4r4r4 .2'41M4M44-4 ' -', -1- . ' . ' W "'" '• - i 1 ' ' . • : r . i .. i :- .- I , I -• . ; I - ' ! [... .: I I : m momOnnuommiomM6mmilcomom000mmoommoncommonnomiloncimmon - - a L ' 04 0 : . , . . , • - . 7 I .. ; 0 -L03 '• 1 -- , ' , . . 1 : .• ' 1 . ama o - ! • , 1 • ' I . . . . . . ...._. 1 -1 - L • 1 . • . • . ! cm . a ;..._.,._, .,._., . . . .-,. . - - -, 1 - : . I • - . , • • • - - -- • -71-,--- - •c000G000mOocoo-coomoomoacac000tocoacomacoot,000000a0c, 74 - i.7- .-. • - cocoaao0aaocoo0ocomooccomoac000000000a0000c0000 - u. 04, 04- mocow4rwommoomocow4- womwoniomimaniammo00 -Twatato4r 1: u14Lt. om-mwacuomulm -.. mr...41.N000m-mr- mcvamw4- mr...0m0mwawmN0m-mw4- - •-•-•;r1- s. - a moor-mom4rimn..m-mmoNmonmcwoomm-immotooni4romm -w4. 000 -,m0 •• :-,,, - .;- 644) 4n .7000MMnmrm000w4.r.ch-MON0w4000m0P- Mr4-000Wgrr-mrm0000J4" ••••• 1 • • i-- U. - - I ,. • . . maimnimmmmm4-.F4.4rnmmomwwwwmorr-r-rmoomcocommmm000 •-:.:L,: . 1--- 4 1- 7 .-.' l'" ---7.T1 LH , . 1 - .3 . I, ._... L - I ....- -. 1 i .......... En•- -4 • ::...._,..14 ._.._._, -• rt- --1 i_ ,,:,..., • - - r. 7-, 3 • 4-- •-...7„1: ' .•- • , ' I 1 7..7-fZ,f1 '•'•" 1...:,_,.. ; •+ °mon. onomoir3om000Inomo in 0 in 0 In Omo&non 60000000000000000 -r . -• , m ....cd 0J m m lr 41.0 0 0 ND p..r...0 co cri cri 0 c).4-.cu cu m ro 4r 4r ul ul se up 1.-r--:0 0 Cn Ch 0 C)... 4 OJ OJ PI r)4" .--I0 • :---,- - I lb tb lb _.•_.. ._.... .4 WWWWWWWWW 1-1M .4 U -=: - -. L ' .-,_7 ; - __ . - i 1_- =- 7 L - •- ,.__, , - 1 • cb En a • •-.•: . _ -.... . _ ., I.7. i O■ La:, . ! l• - 1 1 cst 1 3 _ _ - - -- I 1 . i . ' , - 1 . • 8........ F-,.:7Z.--A ' I. • ' F ' ' - I - I. ''.. I:_.-_ '. ! -- • 1 •' [ ' I ! , - , .--- I • , • - I i i i I i I i I I i I ..J7 C W I it% %iev. X % XXX% it it it % X it ItXX% X % %X it it it it % X ¢ 0 ..E i 0100+01 0 0 4 0i0M0 m1.0Up0NDnea-.PIP.h1O .+ I+MOb1.0U7O F W H0. H Gf-U1dN.+ QmCO WUIa CU-4 0inca1+.0Dlf t•? MMNNNw.4.40 ■ o > uZ000 0 1 t1- CC r•ci V]� NOt01tiuiUY7A004 rad .td •tdd 44444-7 4 .7 W W I a � 7iwarWc 1 I ' I j'', H NI-OEW i ( _ j . ; _ It' . . I I I � • . ,, ' ' • I U1 m m 61 a m 61 d m 111 111 N 10 m m d 0 m p m m W m m m rt 0 d 0 0 01 • a Al a a m m m m m a Al Al m a m m m m m a a Al a m m m a m a m m I i I 1 S. S. S. S. S. S. S. "S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.■ H : G G G G V 0 tJ V u U U u G u U G G u u G G G u u u G u U tl U u i i I 0 i Iry 4 4 14 4 4 4 416 4 15 4 4 4 419 4 4 4 418 •4 419 •4 4 4 4 4 4 4 W J S G -. NMdY7�af+�0�0 �NMdu7 W n�D1G -+Nf'1 ?IAuOf+� tri d , 1 i I rLg1.. NfUfUNNNNNNNMMMMMe7Me7I.Mrt,Td Pdd ddd dIri I I I I I C C W I I 1 I I i r�.1 I i I I •I I 2 ; 1 1 1 i •I 3 Q CO ; i ■ 1 i 1 I i i I I I I I I I I ' I• I 1 i I B i l 1 1 I , ' I 1 I I • I 1 I I I ;1 l Q I I 1 Qi I I I - ! I _ i t C;� E I I �el t . I I I ' z a I 1 ; ' i I i I I I I ❑ j i I 1 I I I I (J1- 111 o I I I ( � I I 1 I i , I 1 � I 1 I I • , , . I ' . • . •• , 0 • I 1 1 I I 1 1 F T ( 1 1 1 1 1 . n ■ I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G 01 W el Q 0 10 w ee Q 10 n r ry Q •.i e• 1v a Ip 10 ? 1 1 Al . ( 1—IQ 1 • i • I 1--101 39d�dflS Sf10YsK3d11I X p` ' (>L0 i I MAR 15 1990 it Michele Dubow 124 West Stinson Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-6434 March 13, 1990 Moses Carey, Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall, Don Wilhoit Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Board Members: I am writing to express my concerns about protecting University Lake watershed. I am a graduate student at UNC in Environmental Management and Protection, currently working on my masters thesis, which has to do with preventing nonpoint source water pollution. I am also the Water Quality Conservation Co—Chair for the Research Triangle Group of the Sierra Club (Orange and Chatham Counties). I have been living in the Chapel Hill—Carrboro area for three years and plan to remain here when I graduate. I strongly support protecting the watershed by adopting non--- structural controls. My views are closely in line with those expressed by Dr. Daniel Okun at the February 28th hearing; it is ludicrous and bad public policy to degrade our high—quality drinking water to the level of that consumed by some unfortunate communities, and treatment technology is not a substitute for protection of the source. In the long run, treating the water will prove to be much less reliable and much more expensive, just like structural controls such as retention basins. Furthermore, we have a legal obligation under North Carolina HB156 (passed June 23, 1989) to adopt strict controls if we want to maintain the high classification status of University Lake watershed. Minimum statewide watershed protection standards are now under development, and any changes made now in our zoning ordinances and/or requirements for structural controls may have to be amended later if they do not conform to the requirements of HB156. (I suspect that the proposed alternative strategies now under consideration are mostly compatible with what the Environmental Management Commission will promulgate by January 1, 1991, the deadline for the new water supply watershed classification system and statewide management regulations.) This important point was barely mentioned at the hearing and I believe it deserves much more emphasis in your deliberations. Similarly, Dr. Okun made the point that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is rapidly stepping-up development of new, nationwide "maximum contaminant levels" (standards) for chemicals potentially found in drinking water supplies. These will require expensive monitoring and treatment if water supplies are not protected from degrading sources. This is a valid justification for the North Carolina legislature's action, above, and it is equally valid for the action you need to take. I was deeply moved by the pleas of landowners in the counties for consideration of the potential value of their property. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to expect OWASA customers to pay for purchasing some of the land in the watershed through increases in our water bills or a bond referendum. This strikes me as a fair compromise; those who benefit should pay at least part of the cost, up front. It also strikes me as a much more valuable way to spend a chunk of money than on a study to evaluate extending water and sewer service into the area. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, it seems prudent for the Board to educate itself about the court cases cited by Dr. Okun. He stated at the hearing that these establish legal precedent for a jurisdiction to "take" land without compensation to protect its drinking water; and they provide evidence to show that land values in the watershed do not decrease in the long run. It seems wise for the Board to "arm" itself with this information to justify a decision unpopular with the landowners, whatever else is done on their behalf. Finally, Greg Gangi of the Sierra Club suggested that some of the inequity might be handled through the tax system. I am not knowledgeable in this area, but I feel strongly that something tangible should be done to address the legitimate concerns of the landowners. We do not have to be completely unfair or arrogant to protect our water supply. It is not too late to address their concerns; however, I entreat you not to be swayed by either/or positions. There are creative compromises waiting to be explored. To recap, I strongly support a strict, non-structural approach to protecting the watershed. This is the safest and least expensive way to go, and it is consistent with upcoming federal and state regulations. If a retention system is required, it should be a regional one maintained by OWASA. I support retention of a critical area designation in the watershed (it will probably be required anyway by the state), and not extending water and sewer service. I recommend that a formal cost-benefit analysis be part of any future • studies. Finally, I believe a proactive stance now will make it easier to deal with these issues again when they come up with Cane Creek. Thank you for considering my opinions. Sincerely, 7ze Michele Dubow RECEivEo rr i 3 1930 March 11, 1990 Mr. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Department 106 mast Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 2727P Dear Mr. Col,-ins, Please let -e congratulate you your presentation on the Watershed. It clearly explained the "Work group's" recommend,tions an' vn,,r added slidt.n•• scale impervi .: =',:-ne specifications. As a l owner in 'Rin_gham Towr.:7�. i _ )-e of the heirs _end t'he res,.c.-: le party for an estate's property i_. 1 ;-.F Hill ?oo;nshi r, _ - 1 t-)_It the pro- perty owners in t.he watershed have been tiro erg nn linr-iyly. I have been advised by some real estate people that the re'susa.i. ±.. :-.72prove developments and the change in density requirements have deva'-ued pro- perty by atleast thirty percent in the last four years (not taking into account°or atleast another fifte: n percent h 4.) I feel that there are some ways to protect the water quality and not penalize the property owners as much. Please consider the following. # 1 - Establish a reasonable setback from any tributary going to Unive. sity Lake. # 2 - Have s setback planted in trees which gives the greatest protedtion from run off contamination. # 3 - Extend water and sewer service into the watershed so as to eliminate this source of contamination. # 4 - Build detention ponds that take care of all run off from the impervious surfaces. This would eliraiis source of contamination. There seems to be great concern as to how these would be maintained. If OWASA extends the water and. sewer into the area then I think the property owners through a special tax that goes into a trust fund for upkeep would be fair. If OWASA doesn't extend its service, I think GWASA should assume this cost. # 5 -If the above is followed two acre lots could be developed in the watershed with no•deterioation to the quality of the water. All I want is to be treated fairly and I feel OWASA with the support of Chapel Hill is restticting the use of our property in excess of what is reasonable and necessary and have refused to look at ways to reduce the impact of the proposed limitations. Please give this your consideration and make the points known to the commissioners as coming from a concerned property owner Sincerftry;j6n0( Roy n4 Strowd Route # 2 Box 197 H Davidson, N. C. 28036 To: • Carrboro Aldermen & Orange County Commissioner From: Ernie Patterson • I I� RECEIVED BAR , . ht6 obi . Date: March 15, 1990 Subject: Land use zoning for Orange County Watersheds and other Rural land After reviewing the different watershed zoning proposals, I would like to suggest the following zoning proposal for all of Orange County land not part of a municipalities zoning district. 1. The development density of all Orange County land be set at a maximum of 10% impervious surface covering the land. This would include all land not part of a municipalities zoning district. 2. Land in any designated watershed be limited to an actual developed density of no more than 5% impervious surface coverage and the owner be allowed to sell the other 5% impervious surface coverage to land owners in Orange County who do not live in a designated watershed. These land owners could use this purchased impervious surface coverage allocation to increase the density of their development in non watershed areas. if the municipalities would also co-operate the bonus could be used anywhere in the county and would allow land to be developed to some designated maximum limit based on location and available public infrastructure. 3. Gravel driveways would not be counted at 100% impervious surface coverage but some lesser amount such as 50%. This means the total square footage of gravel driveway and parking areas would be multiplied by . 5 to determine the amount that would be counted towards the impervious surface limits. 4. Owners of property could sell up to 100% of their density allocation provided they take the proper actions to insure their land would remain open forever. This would allow farming, dairying, or other uses that would involve no impervious surface coverage. 5. All lots not on a public sewer system provided by OWASA a municipality must have two approved sewage disposal systems available. In the case of septic tanks this would require two separate drain fields being available and designated. If this proposal is implemented it would allow for reasonable development of Orange County land while at the same time protecting our watersheds. The value of the density would be set by market action and property owners in the watersheds would be able to recover some of the income the lose by stricter density requirements. 4 To: Orange County (Comments on Watershed zoning) From: Ernie Patterson 6.4," Date: March 15, 1990 Subject: Analysis of land use patterns under the proposed watershed zoning requirements. In looking at the proposed watershed zoning requirements I decided to not only look the typical lot sized as referenced in Mr. Collins' memo of February 1, 1990 but also look at an actual five (5) acre subdivision that is in the process of being built. Attachments C, D, and E use the typical lot sizes as addressed in Mr. Collins' memo and show that for five (5) acre lots as long as the road is along the narrower dimension of the lot and the house is built somewhere before the center of the lot the 6% impervious coverage limit works fairly well. The two (2) acre lots all fall under the 12% limit as long as the same conditions apply. The problems occur when the width of a lot with road frontage exceeds the length of a lot then the additional impervious ground coverage caused by the extra road frontage will increase the percentage covered to exceed 6% for 5 acre lots and 12% for two acre lots. This effect seems to be constant with different building sizes. Attachment A looks at the Holly Creek Subdivision as built, with the limitation that the road frontages are taken from the subdivision plat, the driveways and parking areas that are actually built were measured by pacing the driveway and ' multiplying by 3 feet , and the house sizes were from a combination of what the owners said their house covered and pacing around them and calculating. This summary shows 3 of the 9 lots or 33% would exceed the 6% impervious coverage and if one averages the lot road frontage and applies the average equally 6 of the 9 lots or 66% would exceed 6% coverage. The major reason for this is that by counting the driveway as 100% impervious coverage and the fact that most of the home owners have chosen to build their houses as far back from the road as possible they all have long driveways and a large portion of their total impervious surface coverage is taken up by gravel driveways and parking areas. What I would suggest is that the county determine a "impervious coverage factor" for gravel driveways that reduces their effective impervious coverage to less that 100% or exempt driveways from the formula and reduce the total allowable coverage to some lesser percent. If you are interested in the effect of either of these suggestion I will be happy to rerun the model using the options you specify. If you need fully accurate measurements, I am willing with some help to go out with a tape measure and remeasure the lots. 1 --- Attachment- B- is- a-summary- of the - effect on the original owners of Holly Creek. Farm Subdivision if they had chosen to subdivide the land into 2 acre lots instead of 5 acre lots. The number of 2 acre lots was based on the number of potential perk sites on the land, and the additional costs are from estimates by contractors involved in providing the services. The net effect is that the owners could have realized an additional 59 , 400 dollars of profit over what they can expect to realize by subdividing the land into 5 acre lots. In addition the real estate agents in the community have lost $21, 000 dollars in commissions, the paving contractors have lost $125,000 dollars in revenues and the surveyors have lost $14 , 600 dollars. Also the builders of our community and their employees have lost the chance to build 11 additional houses with a unknown loss of potential income. All this is to show that as the minimum size of a lot is increased not only do the owners of the land lose potential income but many of the other people in our community loose and ultimately because these people have less money to spend in our county the county looses potential taxes. Because of theses losses a possible compensation could be that OWASA could issue bonds to at least pay the property owners for their losses and both the county and the towns could work on providing additional building opportunities so the total number of building sites in the area is not reduced. 2 al L a w O. . N d K N O b (Si P M m Cd 0 O In .n In In .4 •O in O 6 ti in .O X i i X ! M g v.t •2 S v w 4 K A r d 0 (TI V., in O. Wi v O 3 m h 9 ,p M v 9 •O A h `O an m W 0. N W L m N T 0. h 1" a d O r w r � r 0 ' t � o d ° , LW C y W 6 7 . O oN m r a Wi A P W °CO N v N x q (U In v M r+ .T in U , • i i u .0 E K a ae K a G N 0 m v h b `0 m ° C a! Cr. ,o w in 1n . w v 4 1A .O 01 G ea m d Us Pi..� W P .0 � — - — m A CO v N 9 7 1 II r N. W .7 � ^ 0 N C 2 y Al m y O w r m u IA 0 te 10 o N a+ v r A in I m CI .3 W C v O v '0 O C b O. O .- 01 CC 5 w. IA 0 K (Si 0 0 0 C ° 7. 0 m d 0 ° 0" y N c0 a w w m 7 v PI n • In v ti • m E1 VI L N O m O al 01 p tel 11.1 u9 VI v1 0 • E C m C v b '0 N b y m 1. C- 0 `m 0 M 9 a o ,c 0 1T '0 N 0 O O 0 O A 0 O N Z m m N ° N N N M N1 M 1' J r N'1 N v !PI 1+1 N1 •m s O m ° ad a ., O N dry ~ O 0 M �m N O m d N Y .. `O 4 V N N .,0 K K m O Al 4o0 W M F 1n O P N o W N- 0 O C N A .r w ` '0 O h O i Q C . N v N 0 = N Al M M N N N _ ._ p w 0 0 O J y -0 G N 0 0 ° 0 11 ,O v .f M NI M V tl J u r y K 0 N C h in C CU d O O ` in m t U m a in " m In W N In N C J N C N O 0. 1 ` ••y 0 • . K C w m L 0 U C . 7 0 ' 0'j a a (Si 0 0 w 0 12 in m S O N N W 0 A III tel N m en U 0 U A E m C 4 p . . C O W r A O M v d d ea o 7 r m q r CO fA • J N m 4 m O m in H 0 0 a m m ° ra P p ° v hN 6 N +1 C CI M la id s .. ec '— m w t m .3 = r Jr C 1. q m« 1. r N M / S tl• .0 G d W m 0 L L O w q 0 0 0 ..(> X m N J J .1 J J J M Z V r U • e • • 0 Attachment B: - Holly Creek Farm Subdivision Analysis of development options for Holly Creek Farms and the effect on the owners return on their investment. 5 Acre Lots 2 Acre Lots Number of Lots 9 20 Selling Price $510, 000 $720, 000 Expenses RealEstate Comm. $51, 000 $72, 000 Gravel Road (Base) $90, 000 $90, 000 Paving $115,000 Surveying $5,400 $20, 000 Total $146,400 $297, 000 Owner's Profit $363, 600 $423, 000 Selling the land in 2 acre lots would generate an additional $59 , 400 to the owners . This represents a reduced income potenital of $990 per acre based on a 60 acre subdivision. It also represents a loss of $21, 000 to the marketing agents of the community. The lot sales price for 5 acre lots is baised on the acutall selling price for the lots already sold and the estimated selling price of the 2 remaining lots. The cost of the 2 acre lots is based on the cost of similar lots in the watershed and was estimated to be $36 , 000 dollars per lot . Using these estimates if the watershed' s 19171 acres were fully developed there would be a potential income loss to the owners of watershed property of $18,979,290 . 10 w m m m • In In F F F y u u u Q -C Q Z C C c e 71 a X X a 4 X X • F 0 • 0 41 m P.4.341 m 3 O .. 0u 3 , 3 .4. Ou 4 3 . M . m 4 7 R . m > cr.04- N4. > m•.0c1. Nc4 In F •.. F In F -» F Z 0 3 F ,'L 3 3 • m m a N -0 • m a .41 N •0Or) 0) 0 cr••...C) 00 4 - (714001 O 7.... CJ 0 II In a in n.0-00• -, 0 10-4 crr.•4 •00 a 4 0 m m•• •0 .4 -0 mwcrh -• -0 N a .J 3 7 .. 0 CdCJa1i 7ri 0-:-: -;ni -:n1• n .4 0 r.:677 6 0,..i.i ..: nj - n 3 m- 40 ,4 ++-. n 3 4 4h 41 4.1•.1 II 0 m > m > n P a > m > u d r. 0) F N • 1. as F n N m t m 1 03 II CJ •Z m Z • II • -. PE PE II - 0E 0E II 41 (.0 .w ... +a.. N -0 IA 4'.4 4.•.. II X C XXX X X74 74 7474 74 7474 N C 74 74XX X XXX X X N 0 0 m CrOrnrd O J)m43 N Or C3 II 11 O•- N0 I .r 13 03 r. r. 0' N m X 00 0crOIr. n0 II m X C)CJO (7 '0 mcrrur• n II CJ 4 (9crriM1 -041 'Q0) 0ro Q•N H 4 O'a1i1? .0 .666N 0' II ., F m .,-, N F m .. ., N .1 3 0 II a 3 4 II v II 01 -.4 N n-0nn Cl m 0043••03 Ina u a •.4 1 -0ln n1) 0) nr. n -, In u cF I- IT0 N .0 '0m � Y nn N C > F u7Nroa m •Omrlr n N m ++ -00 0` O O r)ON-. r' cr II „. F F.- croon r) O•C) O• -. r1 u IS F 4(0+03+ `QO C4 n O CI 1)M103« COO II C • i m O(7N •4 cr nr.0) ..• CO H - P m 7 E 0 ... ... .. u +• (4 2.014A ('II•r ., .., -, « II 4.J 44 Y w 4'- 11 0-P w H II II F 4 J 4 n J 4 N Q F F Fr- H H C) TO • 3 I • 0000 -0 0I• dr CU Cl c • I • 0000 O 00) 0 dr ('I n •O 0 eI I 0)I m •OOCJ .O 410cr0 In F 7 I 01 ?010 .4 CI 42OQO n N Ci F • 14) • O.O• •OCr CO n)n0 44 0 • 1 911 0)T 41 E' r) nnn0 N P • I •4" -•C) -0K 0' .r01r11) M 0` 1044 nr• n(7 CO -+CdP9n C) II o n I P C in I C a -. II N CO 0 Pro 0.' 0 II 0 F Z F II X Z m W 4. +' (L N 0 . = 0 -0-0 -0 -0 m -015'1"41 ro + a a nnnn m n0• 4C- N u 'FO ++ • 0.0341 .+ONO n Or�o'ro o 011 2rnae *4 00103 in OrrQ• N O H 0 O F m 3c 41 43 V' n 0 crm1 - ro -.J F N 3 C '043 crn 0 cr03 C) •• (L a -0 J 10 m... •.NC) a Cl -.-•ror) ro • a.+ --ICN (7a' C) -•-,N(7 N a C 01 m ] : 41. m • > N 0 4- 01.. 1. 0 01.1 4- - II y •.. Pc m F • v. 0 -P 4. 00. F+`+ 4400. 1 4•.. a I a-. 4 3 00 01 0000 0 0000 0 a c 3 a4), 0000 0 0000 0 'a 145 la c 0000 0 0000 0 u 4+4 0 1: 0000 0 0000 0 I 0 .0 4 'F .1 0000 O 0000 0 II U5- .. 0000 0 0000 0 I 00 11 n 0 e• co co r1 r7 r1 ro r)r)r) C) n -. r)CI C)C) co C)CI r) r) C) I C) X C m • 11 Car • I 4 .4 3 N 3-., a I oI a+• 4)o 0 I 03 0 C7 II II •.4 41-1 3 (07 • NI1n-0 n II Nrororo ro II 0(07 • -0-0nn n rororoN ro 11 -41+ aSa+ 4 F 4 II � s 4- n •.• • F C F u 3 u ., Q Q • a II -0 w 15 4 n 0] F Q +■ F co 01 N O F n ..wnJ +a 0000 O F 0000 O F N J 0 0000 0 017nr) 03 II .. 0 114.5 0000 0 • NNNCV CI m 15- 0 154 0000 0 OnNn O N Q G IF a or U. 0)0) 01 03 0 > «• ... > 0 P 014. 0)0)0)0) 03 «-•O-• N v O m 0 IIt. I. I"1' I' r' I% 0 N r• M1 1,4 1- P 1111" W Q 4) -' .• .4 .0 •"1 y 0)0)0)0) 03 4 .15 F -1-1 .R M1 03030303 0) N 0)o mm5 0 (A N(Y(Y(11 ('I X aC Q10 nnnn ro N 114. 0 Fb ++ t 0014. 0 41-0 01.170• 03 0 0-•+ .c 00 P, 0 cr 01%-00• CO II 41 .. 7,.... sls ('44143 (7 010 1k-•O'O 0.0 a-. a' ro43 .00I or l«Q•O 0• 11 .. 410)3.. 4h 0 CI.0717 43 -01 CV rd r) J•• 4 a (1.0011 43 .00NN C) N ..4.0 • P C -. 4) N a P C •. n 3 7 1A en 3 .J a -, a 3 J • n CO O) 3 130 J c0 .J n 041 .. .) 4 -1 • a 211: >Q 01 .0 eOl• O n 00-1)-0 CI a a .0 1OM1O n 0Q• n1k rl n • to 4 m 4' 43 r) 4) 41 o x100--• -0 I ♦' 43(74)43 o ro0Q• -• -0 N F 0p F a -+C) cr-0 a c «rorocr ro C 'St. 41 -.•C) ? .0 • -+(11Ncr I'd N > o E > 0 P 0 > II o 3 3 N QJ►+ ¢ Q m m re.4 H U C m IS N 45 0 11 • P m .. a 3.8 • n a 3•• 4 a ,. • 3.4 a 5 3-+ a F0a4a 1- 0 • Fa 4' F0 • r. a F0 • Fa e a u F y 11 b 4) E 01. 0 •1:1 a 0 0. u F u • 4 a u F u a IS a 'C .. Q F... 3 .. 010 Q F.. 3... m u -0 m m 3 4-w I . 1acr m e " 15 4-3 73 CI I •+. 33 a 3 F I • 0..0'3 • I • e1 ) • rd Z -. F•4 • h Z a0) F ro Z am F 1.0++ d H 4 >• H a s. • I- • I- m Q • QE 4Z • Q Q a • W d F u Q Q C C TA .4 • 21 M ?` , N A F Q m 0 v 3 i 7 V ro 13 > 0C 45 4 a F F M 3 3 p a a+ 030.7n M1 03Ntr. �' II 0 0 m a N A 7-0 1'. � C 7 a <I VI 1 140 n 0 J a A - �+s ,, oo 0r- M1 o NCd NN N R CT M1 A a m > m > m - m m A e , N• ad E E II A 14 0. 6 11 F C "" a E u m C] v 03 44 -I 44.," A > a C �71 \Tr T 7.K r47.1 > A 7.1 Z a, ,y 0CT0` a onion i 0 o C700IT M CI 0 II ca O T 6 K 0 n N e. J A 0 07 07 07 m .tl 7 11 6 n, A d .,.. ., .. A 0 1-4 .4 a 11 mdU am ., A > O au n-• na m II r_ Cd 0 0 7 '- CI 0]N.0 N 0 IT M1 CI N A CO N OCT7d0 �+ A Al a•• N d U •0 F F •• C' N N-43 0 CJ 7 N N C) Cl II E A > CI CT 0 o.7 ro N M1 N. Q. .,,.. ., A `' 4 E •w Cl c 0 CO +� N •, •, 7 0 o R E H"' J ., ~ II E As U r, e2 I. A 7+C W o ; I r 00 .40 U) ON, ON, N II Q a cu O ., .0UOn 0• A c3 as N 1 I In 1➢ Y 1%WNd4 C) Os M1NN N III 0 cn Q C n 1 0 C 4"•4•, '~ .4 A '0 C A O N C F II 'to E LA a; W CG C d II. A U. �, os a nn0A 07 n0. nr� N A . al .-IONO] in ONO• CU 0 A W W II In a N m .4 �4 N C a• f07 •CO N Cl N p in 3. Q 7 a d » A .C, F. W O 10 ,. F A F. W ro . k UI Q N. A A Fop U LA .. > II 0 �, 0, u7 a > a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0" N. u 111 u LL W J as U 0 0000 0 0000 0 A .� ca I. 0000 0 0000 0 A a Cl .0 C7 n 3IU U C]C1 C) C] I7 Cl C7 Cl Cl CI II y as ar Q a LL a ;A .4 a i- N 3 41 4 W 0 .0. aC 07 L 3 II Q IA a+ 0 0 C 0 m N T: ,�-1 a m r 0 Al IIfn49n n NNNN N > > m -0 03 n ,up uO3 O0 m a II U 74 6 G Y! 0; a s C] a+ m F 0 6 O 3 Si C I+ u a a F" '" a> W cr F .4 Q Q Al 3 a Aa 0, A a a 0 S. W E 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT n CT 0] u *,•• .0 V 1} •11 .. M O 4« 0 W O Q F +I C. 0 N 03 ^4 a E „ S E 9 II, 1... M1 NN N N N M1 R h P. N C 6 0 E CU N. n 0 ,.•., 7 „ 3 a C N CU., N N 0]CO A! O ., 0 Co •y N a > ++0 w++ a GI NNNN N u el 1. 0 re 01 .0 c ON n0• 0] �, ~ • F CO .0 A AC1¢ Q0]kr 0 .o as N-0 '0 I0'I 0` K•+0. 0 Cr ,> a 0 C 0. E m W E., a Al a c .-. 07C1 -0 07 NN Cl 9 WJ F 0 M .,W a1 N c 0 3 "J i 7 4 40 U a ; 0 44 C 0 J 01 > I. a... .C, 7 a • ., m a .004) 0 0 M00 ) Cl N en44.4 N N, COT 0ro00 9ro CQ m y .4 CT •0 .0 0 6 C o � Al abF v -+C7 't 0 •+NN ? N E •., JEn > la. � m Al u C 7 3 N 7 *to Yl m 41 42 m u .. C ¢ E6 0 E ,1 o s U a+ 0 N 3,,, d a A A F A 4 O .4 1. a 3�a m 1. 0 IA 1. d O i u • Al m a 4 F u 7 9 Al 4 1. 1,1 3 7 Al • 6 d 4 O q d A N O E .4 Q I I.. 7 3 44 ID I I.w ] M ID F f- F F u u I m 6 v3 to I n 3 I. .., WI u n g - F N x - a c C Q Q 4 0 c 5 0 al y 0 ~ Q ~ > al I it) I Chu^+ 1"• u a c In 10 d Cs • N 5 a Q Z' u Z w C '0 C C G 7% •X x Z6- w ., 3 F 0 m 0 R. _ m F 21 X 0 a O y a ] 1$ 0 u 3 -.0 ,4 06. > C,O6- Nw >111 ] 11 .. m ., m 1• -6- C 4a m 7 W N n 0 0 m 7.. w' 00 ' 40 '" m m a N -+CJNn 010 41 4 N•• •00 5 0 a err, ryp .N. 04. 01404 7 q -0 J ] O . . a J 3 ] II .. 0 Nr17n C] n 0.-4.. .sN -N +. 0 PtiV' 44 6 00 *. •• •. n 3 a 4.t.... 4*..y 4.4a.. _' n 3 ++•., O r > 5 > 6- r ] m > N m F m 1- m F a I. 11 N �E a CU 0 E a E m 11 E a 0. a 4 0. II v (04aM 4+.,E,. a (A4A.�. 40+ II X C X+xi` >4 a+a+ XX XX X\ C Xx>4>+ N Xx>4>4 X n O 11 M1 r1 40 40 1 42 O In 0 40 P4 0.0 re m0434. in O(7 N N 7 I o A X e^10. 042 1 In0 077CiM1 470 04M1 o W -+ I'. r) -. -0 7 I N m nirirri .G 6- .0 .a0i0ni CJ m K Oilrih V' .6 nI' O`-: m I .. F d1 .... .. I. p 1 A ] 5 0 ] m I N O U � u 13 en -.411 noon (101 40.0 ••01 4i7 a A nnnn CO nK0 in n 0X C > w O'•0NO 14 .0 .0017111 nn 4 w F 1... Innon 0. O 0•C1P -• (77 .4 1• F.. 7NN] 0NNI C7 O•C10% ..4i r1 N 0 C 0 3 4 IIW.. y 4.C1 0M101-4 CO 0 6- 0 a.[O+A+ .a..N. .4O .N. 7.ONO M1 II -n N I E(0o ~ n mJ4' N f. I- 04* .E.1 0 q u m j r J m 11 Q L 4. F F N U F A •0 4 5 ] 1 m 0 0 0 0 in O M1 'N (1 C = I m 0000 0 0(30'? C1 II 4) O co I ee CO•O O N 40 40 0 7 0 In F ce I m .r CU 0 43 (h '0 0 7 0 In N N F r I n A 0.0• .00' 01 00 0 o -• 0 • I v A 00 O• 40O` C1 nnln0 •• N 0 • 1 114+ -C1nN 7 .4 Nr1n C7 U• 1 114+ nNN1C1 (0 ...NC1n Cl N Un I X00 n 10 C •1 1, N O N F. .44 x Z r' U. U. I� Z 0 U. (I II W nO' N'0 CU U 4+ men nnnn N 4' 6- 04' 7 711 e1 -'OCW In OM10'N 0 n 041 cog = 0 (1101 In ONOO nI 0 II 41. 0 0 0 1FN O] 3 0 •0'O 7 N1 0 1 W r1.. N N J 1- W 3 C •0.0 7 1n 0 701(7 •, N II CF a m >x ••NC')7 Cl -,4010 N A r.. •+Nr17 r1 •4 -4NC1 N II > in O 6- e1.. F 4 0*•.. F I .. O n 11 5- 4 .0 A L A 1 OW +' F- 0. 5-4+ (-00. 0 •.+ F ., m 1 N •3 0 en 0000 0 0000 0 0 3 0 6- 0000 0 0000 0 I a 04* U O 0000 O 0000 0 1 50 U C 0000 0 0000 o I w .0 m 6- .. 0000 0 0000 0 I U 6- •.. 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O I e1 ] N 0 • •4, NNNN N (7CIC1 r1 (7 1 •. NNCL' N CJ 6 C NN N N W X C Cr • I ^ d 044 II a m 3 I a 3 N .. .. m 0 0 I r 0 3 n •. 1 0,0 r O N 3 E O 1n0 r II II 7 0 II 07 4J Ot7 11 m nnnn IC) NNNN N q 2(1 A m el1nnn in NNNN N N .. r E 4o m F N .. A F C 5- 4 N 0 411. II ... f.< 06. Q Q e1 a n O F << n II R rvl.nJ4 0000 0 a 0000 0111. II J4'+ 0000 0 0410in CO n .. 0 114; 0000 0 € NNNN N o N .60 A++ 0000 0 OnFn 0 N w C .. N. 0 r 1I. CO 01 01 CO W > .... ..-4 w > N 0 0 r(L W 01 W 01 W •'... 0 •• •. € 0 r OIL I. M1 M1 14..M1 M1 O M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 O 11 LL F NNNN N N w 'Co ••w•~•• "' u W W W W 0u N r C C w. .. w W CO CO W II en0 e II e4. 01 NNNN N N 4+ e1 01 NNNN N N 44 > Fa+• .0 °ONO 70 OM140. 0)0 n 0w .0 OONO 1 OM104. 01 q N•O.00] 0' 0 N-0•o 0.0 n r.. 4► N'O .0( 0• N-40. 0 0• N ,4aW 3•+ 4001 C1.07C1 .0 . 407NN VI ry II J. o C 0.07(7 .0 '0700 (7 N .. .0 • 0 0 .+ N 6- N 0 J J ^ N 6-3 J o N 0 0 II 0 a J N O O 1 0 N 00 >< 04 .0 001%0 in 00.01% N n a CI r 001%0 in 0 0•n N (7 II A 11 a 4 4+ .O C1 4)-0 0 01 0 O.« •0 N A 4' 43 x1 .0.0 0 (1 0 04 -+ 40 N F r6- N. '0 •4 C2c142 7 C «NN7 N c N a 1• a ..(77 .0 1 -NN7 N n 54+ 0.11 m _ > 0 0 0 > 3 0 0 II 0 > 3 n pdJ••M4 d 0 q ad II A. C 0 m • II C 1 A 111 N 0 0 FAF .0 x3•. 0 a ++ 53- s 03.. 0++ 3 m 5- 0 4 I. • N u u a F 0 A F 5 0 n u F u A a r E u u A a SO a F A r u F u A a • r .. d 5-.. O•w coo d f..... 3.-, a 0 1 .. A u nz0W3 FE I Amer A d40.61 a I Aayw ee 3 E H u 1 4 0 e'3 A I A a (3 A 4+ IA I- 5 6 NZ I-- r x N u OZ I- 5 NZ1_tA m d 41 ft 0 .CE ii <E n 0 C C w A a 01 F u a C C ta v ' ` .. in F. 0 m • 3 .. = u v • 3 • , 9 ... ei n- C w w F cc 3 rI in q -0 mCI .a .a CI a a m ccinr30 o- w1CIM -0 27 II r) M Cd - J a to4C+GN -0 aoNNNtJ $3 II r tt 3 u. .v . - c a > m el C in inc. II en -N m E m E a C 17 C y I. o. 0. II F ❑ •.a 4, S 0A � � -.4 a.a. > y : .`X \ TX X XXi4iT X C X X ?Nn 03 CO mNr11 M1 U O 00 a co -C • Cl O N C7 41 0 -0d' �6 J N K Q`M1M1fn m ..I.. .w .4 0 P-I k C. w m m a m C q u D CO N F 01 - I. C111 I W d 'O r1 0 Cr N Ci m . C c. MmN in N OCi. aC7 CI U ,. 1• F .. �7 •A C N O C7 P 40 a.. Cr fi 4 N N CI N �„ as > . fC- 0.($3 .4 CU ti .4 •4 W w.. ... .. ..1 A 7 0. w as 3 'E o 0 EMS C7 a +a r. I- 7 cu E x W q 3 I a 00w4O 47 OC110N -0 Q 9 F a I e, N'03OCD 4, .mon � E 0 a 0 +maw I my CO CO •. .4 C, Q•yl. h I C Q C4 1 0 C .4 w4w4 ++ 4 m N CC o w U .a U. 7 0 C a U. +. ql 71 n 41 m 11 U.th II Ik. C4 A CA o ..0 rd CI OM1C• N O in F N 3 C j 41 0 .mr w W m m w 44 C r3 sr t7 n rl N C 3 o a ] C va0 Q t O a,. F q 1 m CE • FQ W a +a Fq2 m ]1; O m F o 0 U o 3 0 a 0000 0 0000 0 0 N i N v u ucc fWj J4. U ., 0000 0 0040 4 4. 0400 0 0400 0, m C'1 3 rj In a mW w • .. CJ N N N N Cl C7 C7[h [7 m 3 .o U U. O al .. a F a a U. 7• C w CC N � w 3 In Q ,. A 7 C O :4 a i N 03 .a 0 in In n If1 45 CS NNNN N o ] 4. N N 0 u u[11 O J N m m II U 7l c 4 3 G 3 inc. E In O 6 a b C F. u a W f. 04 ~ IZ m .. QQ in a a w7 W A F F 0 w ACC ra 0000 0 OC7 r5M C0 u -.. — •" Q' w d. °.4 0.4 44 0 < F 4 0. v0' N m -0 w LU .a a c. . 0000 N W N 03 h M1 M1 M1 N C a h-H A• -0 a- r1 .0.Eh. E E • �' QI NCalid N CAWmO 03 .. E .. N .. N ` 7.0WW E. ' .c C at N NNNN N u CC?0 xN QNICICA Ca '•w+ ~ • N -0 u eOtC xN•o -. aaa ❑N-0M1arr3 P ftiwC•O a > •elO C w n0CC L+4 a .. as C rl-0a r1 4 C1�NN t7 v AJ F in I F -' a • e 3� .i4 en Di 3. 3 CI▪ 3 J • a m10 U Inc C F 4 J .a en .. o w.. K in 47 .. a u1 0a15M1 C7 a a w 4 t- Q to 3 3 w•e 3 • C e1 G -1 010 0 CI 0 CF•4 -0 -I F o N .1 9 A a a A C • 2 -0 N -0 40 0 ..NNs N 4 m in O a C- a •� C7 7 -0 C •.• J a F a G w F c w a a m u 4a m u u a ) 3 N 7 #fa � Q 6QE.q. OE G] +. 0 u t: wr n as a a 3.4 a e4 • A A F A A *. m 0 3 m a f- 0111- 05 - • u a C a 4 F u 3 9 m _ a u F u A 9 a a a 4 a F • A F • E .. Q F•.c a e 3 m F F F F a A a A a .. a al A 0.53 A Ls u Inz �m F NZaN m Q Q Q Q .aaCn a A 4 4 4 4 in C11 I I cc H u•.. H hi C 0 In N 4. • O. N 1- 4. r- Q d Q C C 0 *4 C 4 a • 8 �. m F 0 0 0 s a X X 3 •.. 0 ., a • 3 F 0 m ,, .h • 7 ro n 3 7 , 3 y 0 > ce 43 4- C-J cF > a•-0 4- f1i w 'a. F F 4. 0J 4. .. F. X 3 3 F X 7 3 0 w •0avn --O meT----C] 00 +, m .0-- a•n .r w -0C] C1n CJ 4 It m 0 • N(0(0-- v0 0-10.N-1 -00 m o 4 0- 00 .0 n a40C] C. N II 0 _j 7 7 a J 3 o .46C]n Cfn o-...w(y w(y 0 M1. C] (7 4 C0-- -+•� II 3 4- 444 .... 4..... 3 o-44 44 {+.,. -" N 0 4 > a > a m > m > It N 4 . F m F _ E a N •E 0= F a. u .. . 0 E 0. o 0 o f o f II 9 (1] 44 •'. ~ La 44 ~X C XXXX 7:X X�XX :.X C XX XX X hXXX X II ❑ m o• n00 00 47CD43r• 0.0 4 PAP O (0 O. )OOnm I O. n 0 - R-0N •, 0 ODoNn t170 4 X HN •OC] 40 03-. 0. 7 N II Cu m ` (IJC]7-0 V' -0 •0(006 O N m 6640; 6 et-OC• 0 n u -- F 01 .... r. k N -" n 4 7 a 0 3 m 11 a II a _a, m nnntn r1 d0 4343--W Inv a •-oi m m7 ml nn 11 m in n n CX c > w 0•43 ro0 co ,a �OQ07N nn C >q- 0 roN7 m -0mr]r] n Al -. F F•. in n 0 n 0` 0 Cr-C7 a.-- r7 7 -4 F F.. . 0 44 C aNy 7I%0PI (000 nM1(0.4 03 0 C a 3 4 CO-n+ 00. N (i .400~• .N0 •• •- -• 0 F 0.(04, -... ... w 0 0 40 3 E 0 +• 7 E 0 4J +, ++ .- I- 0y .. H F o J u m a m m 4F m h F 4 O ¢ 0 7 I 0 0000 n CNHI CJ C] C 7 I 0 0000 0 Om0o CI 43 C cr 1 rn 0-006 .O -00aa n F or I a 760 -0 Cl .1070 n CV o ~ I m+4+ 0.4.,03. w 0nn0 o • I ti 4 mo• .o0• C1 nInn0 .4 UN I 0 4 roC]n C] Un I co Cn.F� 0 e co ••NC7n C] o N CC a Z F .. Z o � U. 4� U. O. (L o m a u]nnn CO n0. N-0 N 4. cm a nnnn (0 nn. nP. N 4; o-0 ++ 4 a'm oI •4160] n On0•N a a 4 0.4 en -.0 (11(3 n 030-6 O 4. 0 O F (0 3 C -0.0 v 0 0 7 m C]-• Cu .J F (0 3 C -O 40 7 03 O 7 03 r -- N 4i .J m m.. -4 NC17 r] -.-.NC] N 4 m•0 .4N1`Ja• co - -4 N (9 co e• C d m > x 4. a1 m >>a 0 0 4- el-4 F 0 el•d 4 a .0 4 F 4 p m F A 0. F++ 1- 0 Q. 10 -44 h .4 4 m-. 4 1 n � ••.4 +m+ 3 oa 00 0 0 0 0000 0 C3 00I 0000 0 0000 0 u a C Joa U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 4+ U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II m� a 4- on 0000 0 0000 0 a3 0 U • .4 -.-... ., C]c7 r)El N C.)0. 4 ovOO 0 0000 0 II CN e• .. C a .. II II 10 m� .C. • 3 '. w 3 II 4000 .4.• m p 3 E 0 0 0 CO 4J 7Cf a 00nin dl NroNro N 000f 4 • II III nn n NNNN N 40 0 4 m .4 m i 4+ • F v • F 4.4 4 h C F u . C F 4 4. Fa +• (- Q¢ amp a 0 F CC man J ++ 0000 0 F 0000 0 F J4.1 m 0 4444 0000 0 0 NNNro N m 4. 0 4+i 000o o 4 0 0 0 O CI In C0 (0 44 C . 4- a ft U. (0m(0(0 (0 ] ...... -. > 0 0 4U. (000 (0@ (0 �•• 0 .+ 0 • 0 0 0 W F M1NI.C. N u r,n0% N u U. F • IvhnC. K NNnN N Co .4.... .. 4C C .4.. .. .4 .. (0(0(0(0 (0 0I+ 4 .0 a (0 NnINC CU ++ a CO N(11NN RI C.•.4..0 C ••• ] F17•4 .0 a0n0 o0 1330. ma CM r o0N0 H or.na. m N.4-00 0. 0 N.•0.0 0.0 5.. ++ �at03 4 44 4.4 C]-07r1 .0 . -04rro N Cary .I a 0 C Cl-O7M °0 .4`oonnii(°u cc) ...xi m a C -. m en A J .. CJ.0(3 C J O J 0 0 a 4 4 .4 w 0 'y 0 04 >a a .0 nONO n 00•117 N C7 p m m F 4 44 -0C]-0-0 O 0000•-• -0 a 4 441 .o COf •O •O 0 (700.- -�•. -0 4340 a4 f.. -••007-0 7 c --nlro C N CC ti F 9 •4077 .0 a •4NN0 N ••4_1.C ¢ • • ¢¢ 3 0 a 40 C 4 4 C •.. 0 3-- 4 A 0 3.4 • .0 +. 0 3-- m m 3•+ 0 m 4+ Foal- 4 F 0 4 F 4 44 4 0 4 F 4 F 0 4 h 4 E a u F u 4 v 4 E u F. u • O 4 E n U4- U5 9 4 or F u 4 O m r u 4-4 Q 4-• 3 4 E la I. a2� as .40 4 F-4 3-. a ¢ 0. .. 7.. e, re n n1am o.. RZ�01Z r x U nz aW3 • (Y3 aW3 I. Q q Q g > 4 • H 4 N 4 QE A C •C =I. Al p m m u u d Q C C ." re F 0 m 0 m 3• 3 9 PJ U > �•0 `-■ r FCl x 0 3 II CO -0 co m a Al Na.0 03inCl '0 in 11 I Cl N J q N in in 43 40 ONNNN N is Cl N 3 q. .10 .... y'" m a m > r II> U a �• m E aa, E y I( to n 11 F 13• 4.1 O E O E m N F X W..1`N cu 0NI7In 0 I -a > n 0 10 ,0 ON oNE7 e 0 I IAX O. J m X 3 E If) N . a1� r�m .M--- 4 al 0 F F 3 It -4 C A ] m ( .. Y Itsn '0n Cl n., ne. m II m R o 3 > a% 1WN' In 00' Nn N U Or N Cl n U •+ 0 3 Q0 `0N N UNNCl Cl U 6 m > Cl CI C 030 onnl.. - ...444 .4 .. 11 i.1 4a a U Ih a E N 0 N 44 44., O E w J ++ r I U 0~ m II r 0 F x W n I r 00r❑ n °NON 40 II d W a NWOU 0' .00nUn N U E O si• IA 1 910 0)WNW 0 ca ++ • I IO ++ N'- -4.. Cl O%N N 1" I u C Q an I O C rI.+ .. .'I w II U 4A U. U 7 U. • �. s nnnn W nCrnN IO o•m a •+ONO] n ON0' flI N II p W LW9 umi m to a .1 -INICllU Cl -. ..,NI.) N II II 3 0 o 3 CI r ] Y 11 0 ell 011 LC O 0I.+ F 1 r and 3 NJ 44$ .. F O U U . .+ .m II F O 0 0 as 3 p al 0000 0 0000 0 II O P CO IT N m U. W J a O C 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 O 11 4 V U 0 0 0 0 0 11 p f11 yj N n a. r4 .1 4 0 0 I[7 C1 17 Cl II r HAW ' o er rI a U a m F ++ .0 W a CC F 0 3 u t 3 II m Q ,a o 7 07 oI O CI II ai 54 A T! 7'� r G W j I lO7 p n n n n n NNNN N II O > T M1 m a u u 07 O N 1. II r 3 D 4'I J rs m u II II U K C U 0z et co a E 0 ¢ b 6 F Y O p Al H 20> W a.• I. d d O Al 0 u I50: 0. G 0000 O II u -I.. w 0` .. Cl p pOw., E. • OnN n 00 II Q > y > c) r,N m d Al � 0 a l a i NNNN N ��"" L a hftM1l� ' M1M1M1M1 N O p 0I-.1.4 CI in in nii N .�NN NN N .. W W W W m II +. 6 '0 > 4 W LA 3 a 'CO' NNNN N IN I • "' , F N ,A •u rma xN o .C. G 00100 a NhnO W 11 rom ranfc (CM O .. ++ N-W Cl -0 0. ,O N O C 0 ,w a O C 6460.41 E a m 0 C .-. pWC1 -0 OmNN N 0 p II..I o f-••• ani B C▪ 3 J • .. 3 A I U p G F II 0 (] .J 0' a .4 O 0 9 .B 0 ✓ r nONO n 10700UF. n .mi a+r.••.+ 0• N N. 0 0 • 0 0 0d al y -.007d40 0 -INN C N a COO ..4n 0 3 9 m O n F • -.4(1 .4' 4 a E •",a a > m r Y m > .. m Al r F F G p F G s ¢ 3 00 0 7C 0: a? 3 O > E @ 0 E IL C .. u p r u M 0 B l a3 + m 03.. 5 am • F 41 A F 0 CO F G F O II F 5 O 4 u r E s. u F u •a • u F u IU 7 • • • • • r_ r m r- • G .. ¢ F.. =.. OI ' F.. O .$ a F F 1. F d1. 5 Iea u F nzaln 1.. NZ 4.0 A- u a a a - n 3 F as • C r C n r r y p 1- > 1 1 1 1 ra4C s 41 5 Q 4 In N • n N 0:I- Y w Ir u to: Marvin Collins From: Ernie Patterson Date: March 15, 1990 Subject: Rual zoning and apartments in a house As part of your considerations of the new watershed zoning, I am requesting you consider a modification to the requirements that the separate "efficiency or other residential unit" that is allowed to be included as part of a house under the present zoning be modified to allow that unit to be detached from the primary residence if it meets some stricter criteria. The present zoning states that the unit may not exceed 25% of the size of the house and in the case of some of the houses being build could be as much as 1500 square feet. What I would like to propose is that for lots of 5 acres or more to insure the "other unit" be truly an apartment the limit be reduced to 20% with a total living area size not to exceed 800 square feet if it is build as a separate structure. This would allow some one living a track of land to build a unit that could serve as guest house, residential unit for aging parents, as light rental unit as allowed under the present zoning without changing the goal of the present zoning but allowing some flexibility in their use of their land. 1 ;4•-.:8.,_\,: t:1 1,'•• I . ‘ We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? .9,/k 107 r. i A4.et Zr- (117.2.1 All 11 An — 7o-31 /?e,a, Z,-e-Or. es,e444 •-• .4-142 ..„, .,,,,„ ,„ _ .; . . ,,,, . AL' e . 0 46-2,y . /f/ -4t- - •Mr.:• m c, Avom, ,..1.... ,,, ..• .4.._ I a.•:-.2_-1,-.. .- : ' A._ e.ye..0 ; . -' fia7 .A ./.. r-C a , . / ,. e. 4,--Mr-1 . -•,... ,..LMM.;,.."W„..L.4,/ -• ...// .4. ei) - v,,..,6-•-t4.0,:fr„,44.Lizii,;.-Li.;-,i4.-I .,::,-:-! , -„,,,,,•- ..:-: „ , /' IiirIlltri--'- -car .,..AliNniMaillirb ( I A e•-• ...-____. ''' 4 4 1 , 4 ' __....7.7.... .,A,.......,._.,—......_--.........,...._,__, ....i.___ . . --man , - . ..--••--7_•.--.-....--..........-..........,........„.....—...._ _ • , ., . i'..EIMINEllrill .. , . _ _ .. : . .. i . ,. .: . . . ... . %. ...,. ..s.,,,,;.:...,:; ._...-.: . - ... . di .—,emmLymonlimmo~ ______...._,.....L.,p,..iniximmi,,,,E....... . --• '..• • Y(f ': ::.---:-.-f;':: ::',' ,:::‘,-_::::::-:-. ,.. -. :.:: 61,4t:1(47.4" ....,1„:„. 3.71f A/L....4- A....e.L. .2,/ ./.ri..70./,v;il,/Vc.Z WA .47 • 7ar4. -- e.,e 6, 7 rha-v-... zr241'-- :.i., 1 .16, , A. ..L, "1 0, A., AWL.... 4 . A ,. d- 4 2/7-26,AS' r • - --, - -- 0,,c- C6x-xl 61 -Pt itlz - yA r CAA jai /if 4)C 2i-rig 71._t_.1 - .„- . - .. • ••„.--.-, :_••,--- - ? ;,‘11,) ec._. ‘ e I e P 767' 1 VVI 6rk" an Iiin .1 I 1110 . C r.j II 6(.., 116-4- II°, if „ / 1 ask ii-fi." '.i. „, **,- • -gc)761/ L _ yz7 ._ ( j A , 7, le 13- ), , „./.. py / • ..i__, ,, z / .27.5---4," ,AA......,(_.. D-...k., rt. 4 AF-a-A-1--, f"--.-----•-1-7 _,... ....,,,q _L ,, .L.A,1111 ' .a_s A* Ar. I r-;!. CA/VA_ )\'Ut\klui[Q 6-112 ,4-A- ■s)..u- , ) - fialp Zii.6? (tLi , I' ------1 vY,-) 7( I w Vk i( )C :7 /41 , ( Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,U0 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. '1. gin::,r ,;; , ;: ICY We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name// // Address Ok for ad? ,�Ltlt L(�'{ G. 1 C iC2G(ti' l[,2o 1�G2/i1ti2-2,/�-) "Z '� .•.. „ ._..., — . ,Y:a.; .._... .. /t12o / dce-ei s r 1 s '-.-...-.-,4T,9 t- - 11 iiim L.e- 3/ e44e-.,_,C,, sp r • fr''-Ln_._•- Sc �.:.1/�`, H 4 4-411-1044 C c.71 l�wc r 4 p/r. NI e 5 . •K.u� //, 10,-44271 )1 /7 �1. ( k�>: ;:.• t....,,...,42_0 4 n, \-141 � . c 4717 f�*rot) 70. . /t flA- -4,4)°oo -nr -eo - . . Z;f1,------ /9.7.;/' - —0 *--. tf- tov--e-,77:--2-e, Y ..e_ Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hilt,NC 27516. i . ' "; _ y ..?5•%:.;F::Y.<;.:i.�?nr�d,?`L°its::;�:. `Fik 4k;":: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of - . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? Can , CO- C'c, m- t qcq &C' i r c S( . c.?--60 01 5.). F SI4 Cam!cf f,xl.2/libi/.4x, 7/ l� 4.,3 ' 4 1�`-(/ Z d .. ,rn.. /0 / ,c?e.-,.- kcisit. C 74 yr- cc r / a� n.�_ 5 . . _.... _ �./,/ Z_ y • 4 • . , Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. r .. . • We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. ��(! Address ,y Ok for ad? N at x'Xl* /V-dro/. "`^ �� 0 Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. • r .`.,. . : .,p p ..:�',,.s.,y h-= --" `lr V Y..: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Addresss Ok for ad? ,eaticeti - c Give aPi I C'N ,,,i;14- ,•!14- W[. 7/ 4-7 /4,,,/.. _ L• '- . (7z1---- J.LL_ 3i3 C. , C.i9 _ • ef�_ 177G:.._..i /,.s- �, ..-/<c c-11 L.,,� / y/ '7Jlca4cii..Yi X , a.c 2 r�i 7,� f cz�.„,.fzt... /1t e N Y114.4.i J 1,-2fj '2 /2 1-4:d'1 o 4? .! C# 4., (,. .,0,2 ./......„ ."./ `27‘4.--,e,-,....,..., (..A.4.4.4. •---/Ct. .-z.it..4 : ` %e Via.. p{- - _ r Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. /," :, , ,'� ',:,��;�' �k� off �F:'. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Address Ok for ad? Name h. 6 Wit fti)C •,i6 . a i d /.J/ //�✓ - c-4 -7-n C'. CT, „. , ,, y—Ilk I..lti is -:.,.;,n Cu c 1 tp .,-. /2j e(/#� z/C 6 '454 5 y 41i C L 776 /6 r. 6:z.0 /.. i n .2C <•- Lat. C.C,,4 --g 7.5 t 4- i1 iod Pr,41 CU 2:2 --/C.. �l i - (64, lJ Pic 29 .A )7 c/ef ill -f_ DJP- C..k I. 73-14 lat ____4Pa-m 644,-,- 1):A.;,, /0 a■ ix _ , -, • C 2-,S7 P4..h Ge;r0 LION ioti 1-0,,e... 64- 1307l4i [Bob Wfllmu bJ, CE{ 2:7s14 Ycs Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. wa,-.^.•=f,.‘.' .:: :-.;.;::::,.:::.:::'':-,?...:',...nrIt',"'-r", . :Ii:?:`". i .h t' °��`. .Mrnaliatii■'' ' ■r".. ......:.■'. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. N a m e / Addr/ess e4 Ok for ad? ,I6' C...) A ^ ,,�L . 1 1i' /L,-gi,p`z_ 49/7'Li� �.KZ's'r/ if A4i41,1 ,��. /.n 1;<15,f0.47 it .max'=/ v ?%/,e,.sA 2.,%%M4 i /R-. ./t--�7s//),-, 1 75-4/ /_ .9-2/a-u-u:_s-. ,--, //4, ./I ,z wo,, /. l -2'57 �/e. (, .L+Q.l�u- f c. i" S loin , .u, -..,. - 7s l5/ io /!,G,.,.,,r' ,/,! i' /C'C"4 NI I,,-, -/ /'/r .r//!„./ ,2%5-,'I /1/J )X4 A., 4,,v. ,,7c 9- :,ice, ,, . f/ �7 Sd Y' c- ✓ relies,-, ///���213 .A.-i.-- �y �1�Gi (..; vl Q'Y ' P J. . 1 r 7,4t1 / oL 7475 \/ _)L l �,. .4;:r,, t h ,J 1 r �'f cl .9-7, Ll'._c , C.• 75-`/ 1 t 21444 ( - .;_ 0 ; rot, ie. (4 0 4 / . -:. r� , e �. ��-nit t�s�<�,c��lr. ��ni,7Y r,.-.L�<r� C� s/� N4 rr0n( i ' (r( utorA Aiko C 11.1-1 b CLl0 • k'Z44 ,1, ems.,_, /5- 7 .t c 4. 4'- L,__ � .,.n ' I SvOb 'Y a, -C% 0' 2;171( '\P AA-43.) 1-24I1JJ-).. 173 ( (j ,), (114_411.. . (.-/), 27s ---- -- _.-) 7" :,u r;1{-L1 ;; ■--t---- ) C ' _ / / It?C. 7/ i � O ��� rt: ��� Acre C7�b �.-L i/( i ,� /.7l K �i C 1-;--Z ;,-dh J� !O2 (( 3 i. C�,r 1 W'1! N'.^ . 7).--/to 1 %/ J Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. 4.. • .—._.. .',..',6.::7,7:-::..";'' `¢lX'�5y �,..�+ eye titb. - ,,,:' IP 7. :-'!..,.. !iiiro-t-y- ow . . We petition the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name 11 Address Ok for ad? irvaua.4 F{PJ.ILaASM z.io flea. «3.... S+rea#- eN 17,5-1 l ✓ �..: .. .. ,r:<.. ...� y,1! 6 ,� � %� t a.� in rub'�e%hrD �+• �Cfe�aP.- 'AA r1,--finf:.,,. + Mid m,•-Y,/O-! . , cox.. R 11 I Ut r)U.Q C�tD E.-r 1CJA- �� H Z,5 c---(lice- h on7� -?e/(,/3 / A//i) /4 G a9 ,z'.-�,. . - .., —42: 1 1 7 7 1 I / S , pJ �: _ /VW A.,---- CZ/ A e. ,C. z 4440, /2,t,,,,i ? I b - S.1-q 4e .P.. icy,for k $-/a,'r, re/ I" cP ��. / -. 2f 7 60%/0C- atit.sdo.4k `/Q _-,_,,,- ,I.,„ii„ C-z,Ac? / fl 4,,i,e4-ri( if,t)e--e .7' ..ri,z,.., a C dizl 7.19 lid f,/2(C c// Q� �,.;�:.� mc-L h (yt iL lC� I644,1b( (r .001. Lje - ,ta.t - ter r zo iJ. Y Ail 4 ∎1 3 ) X02 (hrr'ho no ci i1 - II i,t i2 -o.1 J � ARli 1 LA, 1(.ucgt 7_ll cvwUchSf- �G e - Ai. t : <U ( z i, pis P/, y i a �� � p /, n,- (I- ,,�� j D� vo --Ill(Cult �ti P,,, ..e\ '820 &rni,v/i1IP fad Lik-8 C zo r2, f d "'r" r.„1,5/a' VAS . . ... . /7/4„...u.;„ �.r Ap� 1 r!.... Z o 1 Jc■..•. k"7.Ed G`''`h°rn y,ed, iA,Algt.-S4 I 2`76et if Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. r u: :-::. . ,K: : ::-- i .y.:' ....... 7. 4, it", Wilt ittregdit.',L,-4'..;;L:1,-,10 . We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 4' �,/,,,5 5( -, ,::,,, ,,./ ///F/-7 Yom-??—) n � c .. ,. , _ -& .e-4/1- G..le- *. °S‘•- I u5--A 4.,„,..44e...-4, — 1 A ti- 1//4-C<ItAT6A-()- Ckoi7 C7,r-A..-^-1‘tl e rt..,( c (-4 No I, ta4 C- 1 !I;,561.,1inn P/ 3 6cx 739 Hllsfcrr, (,�,c7 _ . '=4,.u.," _,_:-1..4-- �, Pra€ AC-f g--u - _. -- C it., :..: _ ...°.... (' e., /,,.X , .;a( C/„......,.A(<.[t-..,_ C H .A.k) _ _ -v-.. ..". . 7 tire;':-.:', : - - /7,u,n ,G- 7' D-fl( IA /06 i2-9r-c� Gta.,i- .E'az- Cl`]'� ILL.•1_L. a •C'u %1 1 J /6�b2i 4 (1:/ 1' 4" ,,?-7,5A/ ad / (U `l/ /(: 7. • - a 7'107 : -1 a Yap idiji 5kyt Zep24., d 75/Y /4- / -A 1\710..J a.c.,,s 35I Ca-c rv. L 1I_c i J y42.) Y/a 4-a (.L.�s421.„. 3P3 eq,,��/ ( �'-� Cy.,�fii,_. 0-ii frl y,,a4 eA it/ a J,- _ _ ir Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. 7'',: .,.ILMR.7.1;';'Ali:.'::1 ...i.e. .t. ,:,,. . tie,:::,:::::::4›.. ..,„ 1 -0,at. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed, Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 140 ( S�- 1-(c e� 0, Orel 41'II1 c .c.��i�n - s op lee' 1 '� J Z _ u J .1,] 914n ,{ (.,,- X ✓WA'thin,la we, „I,ri /‘- -...:VG/ /-r,...0..,_ 7ni/e50-..,-,-GS2, c..-7,..74.1F77,,,f 4.... �n \A[ � -r..+f�r I JQ\ 9—c--4:'/� � R1)T�'V/I Z7S1lO iF."y _.ir..v.;-.�f. ar7-.. wp*n.r'0 P NDr-/- sZDc #u4�n5 Dr.0Jj--, `1 PrS 5 of A-i9 CC,ibr r, . 0rs. o_NC .151a fbi4,2-i 74 E.' voi itl1iw_f-ew (}, C,,L,a eR fl'iu Nt ?7cii-i- 'u gilt , EltOmU-U \ fl L.�( n -tric\ C,r, c �.9/ni dj ) 9O5 Gi ,�x l,p,fit-_(,+-4 LP 0 P,,, ' 0.1 ■ a -_ �. ;�;. .. . .., pr,µ - r 0., i• 110 t PciAil V 1 I_,0t( 1.01 p C 1.1-s 11 Ii 1/ L C L.) ,`..at , ,5616, 7-ri . .d1, Cie 77,6 /� F o. 4,,,a 3a orm 4024)i ct f h,Ld111.G ,r2761 a-4w r•tu1aci- E.F. rcI grrr 3z 0-4h0.cr 34 r /f/c. z 7579 u ) v .S.,.,.._ ./ ---M■ 1. ,e,t,--;7! .X !10.r.7 11'97='• .,7?a-iy, q . a - Z13 7• CM NG a7S1`f \U Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,130 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. I , S , v 5 fir?; '��•µp'�.". %h'P'.Y' .L`ti ..:�iS+N.yi'...yaq::�:.' f 'y r — QQ�� ti mi' k j .. ! 1 • '''CLIJIV*E‘k -- -tr -4,10:41,4 We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of , . . , _ . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? n rtirav�u/ c,L1oo—TbVC.l1 � .���, :.:.ti:.w...,�..ti�..... .,.�.,.. en Zd N11 sberO,• M AC /--17-1 - ■ A .. Pc t/ 2/ fir...,�. !^-*'1 /0 ��' r_-�nr/ ,I(/ `77S/��^ 72:—,� 7i Ct.. LAC I g7'S1 y "-/—:164777 -23u ee•.J do? .P-;-64., . a2,./fG li c a gs/X - .. , . . _ raare(a M. ti • Z.; (n^S '.3onsS rt-rr/ ,Q/-1k) /ltrrbrirD &RS/O df_ RQ s Pfcipf„ sr- for ,09G, crt Rd. -4/N3 C4rr1LQ,Q Nc. .olslo Ok rJYa..- ko3 A Sw..2.1-, ✓;4-- Cl...,px.1 /A3/ „g7c/ h 1 x 1'� a17 k ;�€- ... _ �. �L'�I �..--- (n7� v^CL �. r �-_.-.� 19 F•1--- 4.�r 11_-..�TS --'—_.. �.---- —' �,•�_��_—. __-• --'--'. '- - JI �.�F+3ik'..ww� .d _ "]-- 7041 Foss fk Tr, (.1 AD,/ t 11 2',f/4 .:. Y L v -.r: --if4P (/`• ir•.rrc, ill-/Cnr'ryIf,//*.. r,,,,- ,g, , 4...e ..2_7 T.-b t' u U (14y12,v. L A,,,cittz_Lp00,0 J/ -' ( lea Ck+cv_scrrn NC 27 SI Or- an k. ad boa st,{ 14-8 'i.e .a-7t./(f C1,A'IT4)►� l7. 7.)Ald I'ZS 5,(Aar,J6-5 C.P. e4M76- !- Lt AL- 2_.75/ Co 1.c.,/ia..p,1 2178/7J Cl Nz•(1/At - 7)1 )//VI .G�vifflew+ I r r l „ r i I --- c" b ibbf- Zd-- Cc,e_ a 4 NI-C._ 2_7StiQ. { I I —r t. ,P. R l 1 j:^11. 'CO /r1� 1,.I.ie,-�h Di . IZ-1 r i7r. 4%(: .2'747,' 5C.1(,.. /7 1.rr 12 7 176 rt.,6,,r. ' ;d' :,./"F 1' !I d 5/.6 �C ` r .t'' yvc c3.; * F-o-,,N,.,, 1 1- --(4 d7'Si4J Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. . I ,rte We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? —7-7;Can., AA et-,-.i..4- .. 3°I G q 'r z y■,'r, A.P, (1 C'T,G CCP—, *ci cm V,i u 177-k(A.) r2,14--ire;1.1- . c c_,.clk (v/J1•�o.'S'_ 1 .lF. <4 + J rv-F-5 ‘r- .-e��'7)7,0 /�T- N 'lc -r r lt-v o fre:, 0 I PT A , cii,,,,;,,417,t,„ ,- -'. '4')L' 'le , z,-,be,— c-7:4-.-rz., , a- c ‘1 ';‘.2--- ,,,-fre ,,,2 c&,../ /,1,7, -nt,,,,,..„ .,/,,,„,..,_ ,11, "7-4A-640071,1/ rr7 ",,i4e_ri,,,-/L:/// - 1, .--7) r I r 4!7 QQcu a„...,....,........ DIc W, /1a,;,..fu;-h„ a., 0,,,,,,i /-;II A, ,751 0, OL C,7...:,.r h.,./. -Ux%C-e,,, ti'r 27,5'/i's es - -- ,.. .- L' 1'ti _-�_ - 1 el, �,veana _ 3 Couch ed a'l4(' 1 0. VVC -16---lit _ . . S.: ' ' . P4 t,L i l2' 54&k n 0,-_ C44 ria \, Cl 1 AOC&ua c4--;p1, tom. f /• ;,P;. - (; �� /ry ( L - , - ''/C 2-7;79 C,c Ilse,- t, --� („`) 1.4.7.r(,- i 1 , 0 L /�,-e /�, I7 -') y.. M P 5-1. c.l^c A,,,k.,ai 1,, kr, c-,1 17r r 75%7 (-�11f P1 sfl. (e- t i1i4/g(d, C/1W I-01 ' 5 (.6 a Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. : F '# :1: _ . _.... . - ._ . w;.¢;'tp ' d • : ; ,: c:::::;';:i:ii ,,,K s;Win:.,.. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address �f,,;,Gki Ok for ad? • /hi-Iowa a 73/rZ .-...- ,e U Rvt-ss"9 4 P., 60.x,444 NO +w F✓<Gr.k e.7 /QS 7.....2+C-4.-. 044J/464J C.14 0 22y CA 411 0 /t, I h DQ aCS s Sc r;Se L Ch4 Q i 4-tli a3c 0K ..:. - r_1,a,-lo i-e... ro59.r-„I■ (02.t Arka'1cj-►a,sr. C ic1 VIA 11, NJ.0•z spy Ljc r'(0 ' l04- Sfrnc UIIE c4-. (416(24 bill -7.5'ill-- '_��.A. 1 I!� MI `ilWir :r_ / 4l _ . .- 7%c-4,..,,a 6".Pt.01_,-i ril di,t,11,..e4 AldIc ('aA_OK,r. ;:k7/ � ) a., e d 021 c I (AN c-C -\ Citapj U, ■c_, 713' '- 4:–._, /' mss- �.i..�.� ._ ii ._-'/ /9- `-. = :: : ._ /- 0? ti+�!-m, ,, �a u 11.//!4 C `:+M1-'.. `}.w'.•n1!•{ryi.,{�•�:'�.�',^�_••.•.:-+ W0�/] OW�Q .` •iibc3._\-- _! It 16 o CL....e.„. Dr• )1l,1is�oen.al.,,klc 25 ?g .- ... . : ;;n ei1Ccn_ f jriv,c.c 1 R "RQ.r M . -J i,f1-56-,ro n1c,a`►3l.2 u/ t 1 r� ,� ,,,S 7i. ai, I n i/ A ,/sp.l?• ..AAd /n In . ,e ,./re , , V 1/ NC- ._ - 72rt�%ct1. -E f a:: jP 4i ,t4?. ekfe4/ ,/t2 Y3 t,_ 2.n4. a LI a t ltd .141 dill- C .i I J/4V,-2 G ' ' ' Y J v(1/(17L,. L4L_A•", I E �.,4-tf ',,,.p ,I_[ A O P I 14, 1 1 . . . .. 1C t.E idin-eo f0% HistU_u r� 5 (ir X R 41] i.15 Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. tiiW''` `` 'F'E'D: i�'F���frw s .,%r�;::::,:.x .. :,;;vts��✓s.,r:'s::;;;.,: •,ice -�4. fi tS1 - - '1 ' 7.-,7 til,,i-,:l." Y;'-‘1N5N . . We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address / Ok for ad? c.. '..G414,-7/"- --il:,._..-- _/./.. / .gaf71V/4 , , (9/ pm1P2.f'5.' ..4 4e,e4'77.4— /67-14:t'47..4 4 fr,- -4-., 0..."a— (5-1 Au....-.. .._ P ,I, r- �►,_44.,M., ` it ..n- S t Q,..../A_LL n., Cdr 1,l�oYie oK .:: ,,_ fZ. toy 4L� 'Ai. ,2-/ )4 O 07 S"7"...i.,c„,c C- NC 7)il e. c o /a-z Jc,,,0,9-7 0h« C/ /L.r. fi. !mss tico,. .2-6 /1 9--..,-sz__ C. - /VC, AIpII2 zLtullm „bitz...,.._ ti --' 1--6e_tar X23 +4u.L.�YrS 12, gC I�X o,IL. fir` Q 7 J 4,PcA C � ne �I.,4__ LC/' I1 7G/. 4,-,,,,67e,,, 7)r r,t �i -V -v J 1 (.l4 v t'( / u 7d;. .dee ,fief JC 4( .0 • 1/0 - 7 6v 5kv«E.�I 15--... ( {+- C c ,d_%�a I,- zo, 4/f)[,„e.� 7)?- c !� �7R , ... g qOA .. x , C ®lam -----7` /1 )972._,,,,.1, 1 r,. e iq o k /i2, yyJ1i►-,6)��. C4' e r: dt CV\n:aw-\ L,G., ut—rruN ri. C! - MO . . \.) ,: ?).t 11 G r: Tn S t G �-75-r4 QIC Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. r . . latip 1 4 U0'w"`-'`i -'",‘;tik;:.. : ey ' . h. & We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? G-t-1-1 'il. R T i Q go-FA nknn. A/C 1. 74, J. / f l . P' �x / 44 fi�i b-yi f C., - -S-1,6 LTD.-4)At, F '- ?.o ►T Ilk) GK�,L4-1.0 Au t 1}6-/O /#6') 5-/g Gore .vim- ;77s t ,. _Y-x,T ,.0 L4 ✓ 1 y P r atU&A - )(_c-" -2,--,2.-7,7,-; --/.Cly. - ii-1-r /, ../ /]-v.-. /'.u--1-..-.-n 7'74ib)vl 7I, ' ee. 5a F - temu40 v $ .it*'C a 775 1u \I . . - / f . _. 7L. At No..i / r / ILL, c I...4.A,, "T701 rl„,,L_g.,dN,01 . i -1 (4,.11 z7s1 4 0 I .........1:i..- ::--7 I/Z6- Ao,5,11 re.rp:A,Ar A/C., 16 - .,_. . Diu it f 111,4-- r r130 /UQ _ R,A ' 7 , 0-30 01 . 4- E le r c _3c-ILI T4: c d X30 Tie.Pt C f+ N( 27 s L, -4.,_,LA, L.,i cz.a)-e.____ ._)„ ,(1) --1,-,k12).:a.,,,--)-- W O. 4-- li,I C 2-7C/9 Ut' ry l . 1 /lti /&t.-e/. ID A41 FL 0 ,../ -7ir r.thh,.. -k A.t,-5 L+ --cMcQ L (1 aL-r 5 t/ 1 k.60, - V ' 0(41,4-/-- 3Qk o(&rrrerl r,, .2)r, L'if .7Sf(1 -- l/ m) D(A F.44- (V.. IV. C.PL z.;7�'1 c' �* e 4 1,JQ Lt CH a75 I Li e7-77:71:,- r w al/.U,A�i, , /5- APP/Zrm 0.. (1^ i 447/ ._.. . . . j(,'44.4— /.5 7 C -e lc-,--r;ea 1, .,,-Ce_e___ Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. - 1 , ". :4� .rig., `H'.v' We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures'to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? a n r,(4 J,c 4J' }.ar /4-11 -.r,4 ma±1 v 3_ ( I r, ' h U v n k �...".•' /�Gna1 a I1 n Pn ei,'f 5�, •i4 l LIMI s ty r7_ 6 Iir -141.,„„) )I D por'-. s so- G„,(,,,,. 0 `'j___ /LJ• t,., , 9a. ti ,... IOD-10 1-7)tck6.kS Ci. C ' /11 cam 1-cam 2 F kc,� e_Pe,r/riVer• 6r i '-j" .- : ASIA 1 f‘ Plc. r.1,,,,1.0 i' r I „,,,t,'Q% f V ,,-i7 • eZ- /Zpi p, L w ,,,A,16'S - 1 , (c-�c�cI� T73-a1\C tnc. 5�∎ +' O 1 1 T7,4 4+7•7-e-, 5111 C./Am 7r, i s r4 71 4 1- 0 K • Nit, fAt..-1-' Mr..1 G,G•, Z6F f}-nra.-trb(IS Or-- _ 4- .?------42,4 ----'- 7o 0 Lg'il■iitile all-E. 4,7--4:- et. _. . :i ►'R-LP C_,•.-.ol,,,,, Apt.- ose n,Q,� ., ., 0 1 C, r an cu,t t Ix r f. ,r r inr 0 C' cp,...4.A4),_, �J ��A A, T.-7(7,-7.15f f- r Zr I t cf- 6c077,9 7 ,n Ck 1 VI ':7) J A,,.„,,,./ r5bS. r^. *4-9 067,,....4-44-1-4 (7k ) ' moo- I) 1/ TNI-- PC a.\,',e_P(i -, 1 ,.19.E ( ( c�I l)r)r I r r."n -,, -A, V. 1'0" 6 6 o ^^�it-rj Wk �+• , • .Av+8",_ 'f' '2 e-,.rvLt 4.rcler OF r 11111..11k -7 i w - •- ... 7'.,21/ Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 • Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. ' :v env ..: :Y,ei?�.,�.,rrr«�<:r. �,.K_..,,.. _ . a ash .:: . " 3 ,sw . ' :/ '•' - _rte"`+y We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of ° property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? _.'° .i, ./,.,,,. 4!`1`a%-Ar i� 'J. ..,7d.‹.,-4... l� ,1 •'" f�r.a , I.v, E IIi f,np S- Ct4 rrhv i 1(3NlU i/a/NIrtA{JI fy /G 3 Pr/...e'._.b- e-/ec16- yF.S a- Ai_ ,- --7 i w I-Eq._ H l J. _ _\ir\ \IA,1\'&sc__Fi„- 7S 2_44 IK, C C!`I 'f StleA 6∎_ (IJ e5 `' 2k Ccdcw Cf ., C - rt9ow Y 5 ' ;i"��`` . _ Ili k.,d X1%1 .0 G13 . M I '3-- C �^Q`k 4°4 - Irn0 4 --??3Ira cc _. D,L,, ) tam / c,1+ w c-.- - L,co .�• ~.` A-7-4,7 z,.... _ Z!v/�/ M,Cam., ‘.. 54- r.,r 'c ` ;::. - (VICIA.p._ _, L\ 4 1.0 �4 PC, o9L ►2 • /4 / 1 r R,-,•:hirr� (./1/IA¢.v1 Ya N k,rli Fp ev,-, 2 A'P ,-I t.fJ i,.�, K7rur 60, :� /�d. .fiLi iii � Or. C ti'�5'� r Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. i ., : P. . P : 4 ;44S:- 'Ti44::t )4 . • ::..;Oti4.8Arr,/,',Ikt: ,:ZsCP,..:1:111. . 3•ik:•yr,?}} :.+:?«;d:fw%ii.3:i..... :,... ,.....:i.';,5��•,;YO'; .t;fu •, 1 We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 0. .3I cAirr..,cs._ M lW4a/jG 44,.((5boroujl� 70�s L,„�^o /1 6_�/e// /3 /a L e C.icr-c.? s'7 t 4 ,►A, ,4/04,09 9yz Ow , Rd ( NI, "Tykvt-4,ro- C�t2 sz._ 3ao5 r,,,-e_ Torkss 0,1 C.14 , wht-i � /d /c / .tOG C" . ., . :, • w 3:"^ z,k-,, r -g ._ , 44..x•.... /07 _,�;,..,,, eZ �lQ r el! ,---•� ` •, ,/r:r/ }:4,..I V-1/ / • ..:5.4 `er; , , :45 1 '.,:::' ';,�::. �'+sue ; ;M; .. . - .. - We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 1.0- 4r-rE ro GC1 '1; 'f f.4 CO, i.i- 77516- �,�o ,\ . .,: •. . S�.t�' �..1, .33/ i/,-.-4,... —r5. )'la . . Iieir6 _I T ()id G>11 (ilk6 C. �.;S(C) r„fl : - _ Ilh r 4,t/P,i ■ 1 n 1 --1..--_ -:--, , S/ r5),r7-- -'OA,C." Cc..∎h J/11C.. \'!`) rr Pkq C., �h t G 4t-1•G✓ 101' P Y\kC f 4', C2-i v toot/O 1,�X31 G ;... :. ... :, :..:::......:. � tea---� 12-C V tt u4 E C FEN (>,# /�,« i'UC :.._. �.. �• y. �, I,.l -4.r- , it/r . / '// ; /. .H._.. . . . A g ' ; .- Pi, 1 1J o y 76 c 1J w' f c�17� C�Ili ��ora„�.G - ---a:evl c.�T i r-1-i2 -6../I P1. CIA girl N Na ;` .5,,k, 14,ra, 5, Aye (.Ni -a-4-9 lo �.:.ms.µ... 1Llm{.7 qc r Z24 vnuc: St C4 ,a.s,y v?5 . c is use-- o ti-g 6raad ('2rrlr)(� 11,1C c,15/0 .3..... Fb.2 -/ . 8X oZ4ZvZ /-{,..0 ,:,77s/5- ( 3 -- • -- X., er ,z vox z f_ u,c.i.- .P 7s-'r y2 S eij&0 (71 Z . .1)7 651LuAi24 c kJi7nc) /)C a 7)-1(/ io.�1 ,aQ 63-4:...,..,-5,-4 � ,v e . I(.1. +at H,t. NJ, L. ). 7� q ..46idl -+! 'r '.�C� L+11ink7X r 1 11 !^� 1\t , 7,;-7 ---/14,44,, . -r- 70e,i '/r..4t7iX.4 ^c ' --1`! crr c ,-,c., C n,,.,J.,�,r N.0, al-51 p y/ea (-7,-4„, LJ,,— ( c,3U i"1 A,Lj-- ',).- r J rJ'- z..),`1. 'I A0 - - (mu.cv,Ii,•',rE1!r,/1p, 1161 \(-?At,:':)(Ak !N)A C 1nr,p.Q A9 v-.751 , •`r{n- . 1 ff/t4 .1,1,2 4ef- -u■,L Glrce- . a 7)C a,7a.78 ,• C.&4 313..6 �Q b , 71G Please return by March 1 1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o-Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. . ',„.404:409024:0::::00:::,:i1:::,:e:-. --,,,„Ting: , - . . :.4.::::.,:,,,-,, o,„!:.:„:„..„:,:-..-,,,, ,::::,s,::::,,,,,,,:ittt_..z..-1,„1,44% !.„0411, Ir.:: v :, pi :,....A ,,,,,:!:,:::c.,„..t....ta.,to„u::::,:e4 ,,, .,,,, ., .. .. , ,..:,:::::::q.„._ _ Y Ilk-TEZ;04 .‘ • SUB We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? A4 ,z_ . G.G`-J I sa L( s L.e 14 0^G Dv-, arli M . 3(Y I^€' ``�/���-�u r� -)3, / ,/ �� VTL 'K fr�CC J/G, (((, ((, -r.f. 4 SI AP I,1.V._. 10.D, P i s i c., 11. 2-7 ))..1 V 4..KmA►tl ,5■514 VO kiz,X 1-34 C:4 9- /- (--)6/4 n u.S�s 5 i Cat 7 %cc r rl,nr T�e.e D k1C ,� 7.7 1 T if- Leff,(" /dl is sti,nuA/,-4 -. a7�"/i � - Jv •. GQ9Q XOOO hu ..0-‘,„ e . 2c- ' t it, ,Stek""` 0--7 , / r -44 • %..i _ 1 f Al _! �� •: L1 L, X1/& 7aAI -� Z1� yIc0 /.t//./l ) FnkLp' & ! / L( _ . ... 1-1aft2,2.a.- Vi—.7 7 c z�i�/ . 1.4. ' d L.,,r �Li/ 4, ILA._ ji/_.9 - a Ai I - 11 I 1 41 . I, 1 1°"DIASPbt +, 1)Z1l U t_-Lh , . C,/J«,P,4J' (�hA 1 /(t ,242,„,71,..,_ iiie(� 4,4) /l l yC/T��A 4 n w.i.'1 2 i,-1 �(l7- r, fee e Ijr 11 7∎I i4,,y 0 C 7-) ■U q-O 5 Ste7 ..s4-...12 :I?,Ka,,,,-1,-i• a ,,e4ica of a . 1� Y c-'lL .4/C, . I4- Wpct N a . ,I oc inn ? jt u (1[V 12,4 i l � Ate- L.,0.4.„. y1Q r r ��n� , -`.!9 5 Q *�: 1k (.�, r u Njc 7 s 140 � -1.- /6 G7- 69/61 (/J.F-07. /,g n ..—A L"t-vlti • \\tl1AC CAt''pi=' ,(1 10c Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. . '� ''.: :-,1 4_,Y...14.1a;;* . ,L : .• ,, r:-: . We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of . _., . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 14/-4- `. 'itI- / (02 -50urwoc-I eirCl2 C'.4-(. NC. .`IES .. .e r -L--�.... e3,, s y i ) �D V.---- a. Y►�.._. Y r '1, C, Al 4- . al LI✓rr �1/�I , r �1✓ (�� ''11..0 ( 17 In ((J�P A YAW 4,4 r Li- . . p 1(p�Gstr ���/,', �i z. Crf- j List"jJ (. J t4 f2ft ( 1..._ • ..:. �� ,�;i / // (• �.: :rf,f�Fa. _:. Tn • k• a isle A, .211-18 lilticaL ref. e.id-. , • -, I C r?a lit 444 o b-fo t .c--4. 6li✓t ko-4-A ' Hi U dJ - Ne\c�v 1..�'t" 4-1 3 ` - m Q.,.�.a.rr< CJ1& LL► �---� _ `.' - - ••C - - - - 100 L ET• l-• Ct'r J� 4 ./ 1 w'i17'• /?3 /14$14^ ' / .J ,u'� Die- 4 1 h• '..�� - . , . ,1r _ :'r'`` ' //2e___, .'�/ ®Sj j 20(0 Moruc IA)cL1 C (4 yP9� /�l�/L.„r — 2_1. i .1... C- C-R r 4. / - .� •-t,PA... - 47 ..J2,/% f PJJLI"' IDS' Pnr4nJSaAd 4vw.1 C'hcTa ,51/�AI/ en . ./IP rt 86W Tinka4tdt (IL, c4.,(241 tfi7 c . (o. Shthil 9ff 26013 Att.�,,,s- N uk)C� Ye fAiiskt III 544 r�.sq.. Sf . yes - N C o-�Li E.'• - F 1 • v -_, Meg A , ~ IOL MIMI= 0 ,S r Please return by Mar . 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. J • fi We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? l- l! //�� // (hr;S ( l PIG r.r,,)1,. yyN YP4) 2 ' ` '' -.S c!c, 6..,,,m (- G r.,L.. .. Lt.-- , 716.4./ fi..aran 2- 617 4'G r�fr n, U& Z CR- (./�¢/vc.<� CA ll .� I 0, Mope 1 scN A!, /An/ ...11A.aii.a.,-- '7/64?lit/JObitrf-7) g - , 4 1 i no'' R-11,-.1 .4,-j 311n C`.s�Ja� L�-IC < t"/h go., u L (o 13 , /'4 1191 I1 p� .c• '00 s. ChM 6-,A S{ �cs 4i.):/-;t..7\I-- (4 1 rr it w . � V�1Cl I A'Pi) riit�,Y.-t;wddj � jnnr l►�OQ1 nco-,-d�p,1n 3i Pi c,l v Aid-ion, C ?.75(y /Lo■ 1 �- Lea kolie ),*1 1 ik) s-7514, e_ . 5/7c, /'?cC24 4 £ 4dxr// rbl 4 Lot kS O.r cbG'-L 1:,:i. _Ai: ' . Anmifr.... N•c . ��'1 1 1{s / ('C' KCk /117 4,9e ( ?1 rf,l� N� 2 TC�y `r<S LL 5-K. 6)1/4441-c X.D&c G-7 7G� r :1i11 ' 4' r-�i1 f�r01!fi%(s o f f1(. G ar,lluccUra 305 Cobble . L44 1.4e) 11 4,...-n.-nys 591 gAi - k 1 )- Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. t / i; ::2:,.., r: ::;racy t:: �. ..4 .,�k� ~mod--,.-1,,,:.,.'.,:E We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of t-.7,'-',':-..• °• - property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? Vern 1,12 54, ,1 �O Y,, r. .. ,.:,., _;•,,� r y1.1.•.-N.,M‘ ' L 211 CAV 1- PTI1-1 l r ?�fl \ttn.0. 1(per_ . . 17.l c, F.v-oc�k,"L. Z 3 L 52—,., I� .c, -:-.- .. e 4 a1,a� l ea_ L k .��-,.,_, tteo 1.±,,_,..„1".Al 4 NtIr. Crrii \P°R__,, , .,_ .., , .,„, „ ._ , _ y,...L..,.., r.,,,i--• +C (x,►&t 1— -. I 0,. .A- i J _J-1 e �1 -7 l f ‘ fu r..cc.. rO� . . _ fir AADir— ee-etZ-ft, l 8' -8 p._e r,-it, 9961 0,I! NO I L - ''_ j11,rv... f i d.t,ltdJ /�Rre, f-40a (�F0 - ... .. - .edv,---, it \Loa,,r-rt.--)`J /1,E,--) - ,// . , 6.-k, GJi `ham+ ._.,,..,-,...:,..,--....---,,k2.,;--_,.-,-, )I ., 4 x.71- (. , C' . ( / X1 •c ,1)'j ,, L1 f1.6 : fl tck D„7► E,„ did 0.1--1 ,_II,, .41-.... /c 4----t- Q+ 3 -Ro.. gn - u ii (---"kY ?.+GL . - )Min �.", N `5'�l A\1 ,lrq, €;<, C (4.26_,../.-...., 474- Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. .11T1 1 ..tufs: }N; I k We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? ^ 2 1 a=.ez / tf2c(r,4L2_ 14 r") 1)24v "nr..,. .707 /f yti,..4., Sv �u Rio !,0 , � .y l c 4 4 , any Cory 4.,-5 Yes 1 J t «%� `- �„3 x'1 ,5-*-^+'3G ' �e ?c.1�,,,I� $ 7(d LJei Po.,,,,,_ W4— ..:, ; C�� 'lam l (1�I` ', �(� A RD1 Cumin L--i) X)a . --9„ w v n4 yG9.k,/,. 440,,7,v ovb>2 r(,,,,,. I 44-ti J�' S ifs 43,7, 9.4"4 ./ D. c%,,. i* y,1 - . - . , • � /OVSci..h4 s•71 if,/h!-�/ '/.s Xm- 1'� „ .,,,„,� 4-3zeoG,b ew t7scy y _ _1.6_L `� ! ?., ��- -c.•.rlw .S- Cli i'..M4.L ::.� , .._:: :.;,..:.. . . . -41:1k /t,, (w-- .711 Mc 04\S.•1 If (ii- - 1nT r - qcam..,vim._._ k�/k \ 0 6 .4 t., , 12.4,9,--t-. t>I r C (L Y Q-, r4 ,) 161 L:Ir'b�i=i1>,‘ c*-- • (Yç Q,6-�7 ' ---�'z. J., r..rE X �,-,... _ Vii%;, ,; 70 ./ ,._ ,z r /,,,,92 (c-- - --- , '9 Ri-bye Garr. yes .:.te.r,, ,rm c D 3 ,1■:3,- 11 ‘,r c u '1nV,•;,l,..r 0'1,7” I c.,.,rel Cie At 03 u B i '401tAltA 4ra41z \GS pvii_►IJ gD, (iEs . ' �.` U el;Sys f Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. • r - .;s 7 mod: ..:R:z >i,v ;;dip.€sa!:...:::s .,:',0::**.,' ... ,�:'`=9a? We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of .. - property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? _ er_ijin d sa-4 1 I o q IM Ol MMn.r5`l ke -Di GIMI D LO KC, -- —°‘'L‘24- -- 7) GA aai -t-. 4. cl.„,r&k: too ..,..... -----z,'YES .°. -7: lk -2_.. _a '' ). c - 0�-.c:, c`\-\.,\\ qt() .,mac -..• .-- Li kk. 2c„ ed Cam,. CriK 11....6,„..,... {��11....6,„..,... PN�<,�> Dt��� Cl�ar�� I4 4( • St H�..wEll RI. . .. . - phti . ILo ICAP .3z , cb1a rk UI-JC--C4 ktec� .\(1)APP 1011 al 6g4111 chAd j4Ajc{4 �.�- 1y r - , _ C6 ' (71C,4 S7/r61 e (# Aio J,c,K, rtir�l 1,5 c T-3(c.„1 (a r)C•c. u- 1.1 e 5• iy„,` , - x,.,.19, /0 4 �, sf VA)(-(11 _ 'µ. ��\-mow A . o c.-b5 N 3 M iu L'N re--it. CAa c lam, . k. (ti}k 2ri � tat6-C•1-1- C ( +-0 ( C- -- _ - . <:� : ::. t,. V'',1-2, 11'14 fr �N,( t ((,-„ C� /' 22( gill 66 ,..: ? - -: : T4 ALP2 4,„-,.J 201 G, 6+,'�0.,-,C:41 rQ�gona _ .' L. ,- 4 , W A— P- y.2 14,7-6-7 . (',i1.41rr,,, 4-c--,hi • 1/ ALJ v1�L , 3,dµir�, Cr ev1-4P� fi 1,..c.- n! Yrs- \'�,A„, N.£L�,rYt,,,\,(\ ..:‘,,\\ -c1,,u\-c mil- . L..InG,-,2.1, 1.---; 1■ \-•-•0 l ',r,/., 0, 7 7 C c<t-a.v-s 4,41- ( C.pr.- r,`n, � . J K 1"0. 4— ; -�„(C•r 50 (CvtM1.^( 4'1' / ■ C 7 . , , r, rn..,. GnI r AA_P 5 ('.}, ,. II-li II . C. 2194 . y1/./cutA t h At un^,n PP 4 joilm p� I ��,,r��� 1�c�I'�f`J!' 17514 0 Cok.kr+infu trLarsn, Gr5 .TorrPS (i.1oM1 WU NC Z115)41 r, 72aL4 5a-0-6r 135 Gtr-okna /1p1- d rrborm W. 77510 \I ec- T ,C C lL ! L , r ..,, -( .. .. Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,ll Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. •: u N 5 . 'frSM ::.RtkelLAUB,407;;.:,, ,„-P,-Al " We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? iM.0 111c /!0-h I _-I -iCiCam.. Uillc (� (Irv, , 1I ^1 J!„� `� n J pit 1:. • 10 Caro/,L 114h 4I(120ra 14'c I . CCarrhoro VP..S ty ru 4 Y -U 41 A-vp vz./ Cl- (-rem ,1 i Do., poi pz _12_ G++ �_ t . I!•a.Mt�,„, e r.L..: 1- '47.5 4,-i f t(�or-, S+. I? - - yes - -. StZ p1-cin,, ;Lk,k-.-sr-n 47F 1-1.a_11-, no.no.„QC 12-F 1, 0.2)1,1AKA Otry-6,,I0c,ift_ 1 Arr„,(0 CC\ nfstel ni ( H- '-/Y- -:---:...4,---,-,_.,.',', ..':----:::',.=:t.;.'t.-"---i-'-'. -5-1 171/ 'Jell ),-,45 (24.-,0 v',t,4- 4,-),-,.., f,.l.. ff«ff If #1 !/no R,,e,ft.�c/Y- 11r. Lit5 /7l`, n . s , Im11 4t 0-6 yei 4th.4...4,7,..,,,.„,,,, ,--ut, rAfprAr” 7'1 - '' — /1/1 f., '\f erl..r, 7;c,-- y�Esc•, C 1 c,23 ` I�tt iZ "iuwwfr, K- eavkl fi4./k CPn.,beie' ,.ueJ 1 ojv o � r-, N.5 - \la Co ,xyr.. PJ,., 91't.J P Q 92AA 1111(10& 313 tema n Cerro 460, -{IP A U LJP 1),_,,.ti 1(0 7 i-/ "e75r-C I'l (- -li fLe s . _ _ (, WA4) 8,,,, iii,4 6,ivorr n (j. rLI11171 /4 � / (1 7 tx \ kei• 2 '\-q- a r` � be, C 41 v.,S Please reform by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel hill,NC 27516. i — :::!;01fIltr.*:ft: ArNPRO:'•-t'..-_,_--- :::V:•.!'l _..... ,jVAe,T•-:'!•::::•?'‘,..;.,.,,:,''Vliti?,1'...11 \r$:::;=;. : • r4U''''''' t Ar:41;i::',:.'.1,-,.=,-...-•,-:„.:.:*0-A' -...1, — • '4iRii:,,q49*.-A.gi**,•:::4P1:•1'..:0-:t'!:r,::,,-., ,, ,! ',"•'.!-.,:::.- c,_ r) ....=-1•- -,-) -.$ We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong 2 measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of ' • '''''-"-"-- . - • - property owners should be addressed,but the quality and gaiety of the ._. public water supply is paramount - •,, --z7-.. Name Address Ok for ad? /-.64i ..tWiS 3 -1 LIJ:Lits-K. D -itt_ id_ 411 6.(1 .. --Erik •-• --4,.,_ c'tbr E--T-Thkii, -- 0,.,,,S Oil k ..yg- Le_A 4 b...)c...4-1s---- B15- Cr2,-p --t Ed ,. v.525----- 711 C (co 0,1'.1471\1-17-7-o-c.i 7 7.4 s-7,-2,1 cp,- a 61.1 a,c/.1 rgtke_) 41 ._ --,...i.ep ,/f ■...) cz)...." , • 4,,4.,_f•- , ,e. _ <5 flz1,-,) 'I, . (.,4 061k,.,. 1,;4 ,,,c,,„1 I i lc g -eH ,--,,e/ ThIl. ,/ , . ,......__ ... . ...,_ .• •. •;,.. • 4.4,...,,,,,....4„......„,,,,„.......;,,.•.„,..., (*.L'•-vv-v:J...9A e-P- 1 2-1\C-ttLric_,Ittf-- Gid I-I;I V - U,--1 E2f ( „, ,/, )io YeJ . ., la rt....A. (-evs' --"- /Or 11,4 lt. Se'. 0-yr_,1--/ ky" N :-,-:'-: '-:-:- .::.:, v--- -1 ra•-,-\ )eki\m-e-A.\ I 0(-711 r,--\,1-tk Cikr-r40-3 -Aug tx,, . _ . • ._, . . . . 7 7,f2 &-,e-14...-46,-t,-• CL-494 4-10 ,---.' • 77:-.'2:7-7:-..':"..-. -7- .:-.-. -`` ----' A.4),,e4k,"-----2.,,tit— ir-,s' 6v-elo e ,-,- ri_— _(,7H,11 L---7- - • --- '-- •-• ' -- ,1 -w ih.AwIP. gI-- 5 .• a u, i „/ . . . A sd _ . •_ : . ,----,1Lit,z,„,...---, , . --,....i 5-.)_./..J--f.) li,,,,....i 7-1'r. r ,s1, _,-,,e 114--,((( f ,,I„,' (,r,- i., ,P-g jr,d,e4,17-4 1,2 A St6p (2.66) 5, Ale. Fkr G,,ket 4/1 s el-1 16 wsv)Mdid C I-1 ,,,,,,ze /,_,Zj_,,, gD/ -,,.t,,,, lecr. ea,..„. 4 ' -4-Li V‘...eir __•••• i 1 I . , /■( ,-...... \1., ■ e• 4 1 ''\ ,-•i ■ • Vvvo,.(10 , AL,j-- 1 , v:...-$A' r‘ ,,_.-,1 ( r 41\I / i ..........:1.0).H.er ....\...)--(7..td. \■• \ ES/7 /■ —6 C:-.,,,;./;,•,: 4011-5. I,. 1-1 ('' II --ce_4-t,',- .m. . , :: - --- •' I\ ^\r • C I 21;2 ., it,.. Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,cio Margifet Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. \ - w d d rrw.. Vic :.: ,'::?e+:..•..y::"+ss:d:i:1! +`.yf.:::,,..,:. . We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? gav,E y&�,./.-6- 5* Ts r0,4.-72,1 afQ .y . Nv zags �'^- /XA..",JIVE e., 1n7 r!) fgrlcr/eve_ nfi.ckcrs /VG 7_71'/C ,,r s, l - ni,r..,u r Ma/leH'-S S� ICS. H. 7."15.4 C- Cl,��1 1o�P S2 CI.r rrtl 1�;11�c �7��u Abu, S . [a1, �„+ 1416 Wuv.4(....4 Or 1),,,, A C .--1101 A / 7 +,. •A /r/ I'A r'II f �ll.� I I� j n r.r:!'y,..r:�-r.7� ". :°t v,. 46.`L- rte-- /4)4., S /4-- 0.1 l ios// a 7 SJ1 'CS Flo, (''L. a 1t.9p Z"ri Y 4 QrC;(- t)11(\PI -- ', hAbrt,`Nei rin;11) va. - _ - .- -• Ac.r - .fa CQdtr—c_ Si- ' Cdtc-“tra, 2-3-5-15i 4/I1, 1'141 T-4 Ocks ec "Fwi b •: , ~'_ - ` � .�.Y ... . ; - _ ttakfr C P,Gi- G11 Io-Fi.Au v4._Ra at/Jail 27srf _ 71f0--(2-, ►24-M crsbu 1.` ,, '• - VOA 04 / ., �c C4,.,i ,,y,�7 ., /�V 75 /[/ l 75- _ 14744)' C .. /7 , ' Ge./c"d•'r 7 d-1,- r I ere.V._...—Cr • CH- 2-7-17V ( c, .L, i „L-4 1 C14 '�5,y 'Kr., EJAr.is Igo FAr�mt4-roa �0 . - r µ �r r -- ,..... wm.ir._ - 14 Q Za 4-I l¢ Oc-K Qi RA 6)6-'0 1 (( 2`7511- - C(�,, � 2`f 4 1 �'rwuLz 6-y 0-4.71.41 G 275 o -..- 1'' k-e 2-7.. 9 , t'14, - F` j1c ,i � C...in, ."CiA 7 rtjA-,Lf,, LZgr• , .i P I( _ _ _ p \ U Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,U0 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. irk We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of _ . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name �� '/ Address / Ok for ad? A7rc,a[D He .r / Sol ,v (.-.rr.vcG�o f,-t. A g0 r z?s/D / 01( . C.. G1- ioU w a-r l/C 13*, C CDp 'iz ti 4L 5a . Nc.1.0I u.)I 7`t;,Y- G� n� 1I0'I p 1tiJ N141 of rilk6cc—rt,1\IC Cln • ( J Viirk $ems Nc 4-7 (1tk-d. 00,A. tib'►"- rd,Dr CIn. de 1.H`)t N C z X51 b r !1. itI U 4.1��R•l�y L{. err//b.ro b7 5f ....- / ,4r,,,,, A/ 27r/D ,r / 27.570 • Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. I : Y: ` :. :v 42 M ittlik .:;, li a IIMINV,-,S:lc_48,1 i We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of : ; _. ,•�w:.-. property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? , e, f1:.,itik_11 eLL�c .37( /�aa t /Zit-Jr-2) ( t/IAAA,,.'.-.. GZ 4 � .�'i ge0s M'. 2 7 '70 y - . G* & /75' G4,9 ✓ s" . .77G �g At. /41,V(ir 1p I -2-z yl hi\A G -r� ��0114 ( u �1,\^7S;(p Pao 5 :. .V CLI � (;1, \( I 1. 1f 04 �.-\I/ C1-7Y V -2-9-5-10 Yi4 .. •..'. * ...:.r• M .S•'.kY„?'i• 1,, _, „k.c ,\.,V -2_01 t 4, 11,--6 c,t s\_,.c/Yl .1' r . Pc . 7 7/l 4- -Z,.. -- 1 `I-+-'1 \k„_e.,U Y- o�la-�cA"6 C O . /'i_.-�5 t`f �.4u1. rl/ �1 I)IPi �1 C ?<t �f7 j t (41/L, -�L nO alp 30C 4 c ail>7( P-15Ze'. _ - - �G &/ u i-C4.e, / 7/4Ause ,z,. ._.i,z,..4-4.-/S _oer-2) 74,0i Ai,_4 (0_,„1, A CA/c;7.S-/ W /tr, / / --'rr 1) "4,./ 4;A L_._,Y Cc_12.1 A.9..1 . ' - , . . , . . 4444 . �� - 3/6, ' -/Gta4 X. GI/ ,77s751 - : : -.:: 21y 424'4 2 Auk ,4 f��, 3J-7i - _ "Th a_...i#°f,), X.44,1„:5- ,go 64 r, ^ ,, v ,, i, r. r` ., r. F yk.g y o7 .o .- . avjari / ..1.7J-/y /(}414 1Y,thik, / ' /, ill/ i .c'1 .& Uk it.a. - 10C -,miLk. 111. C jir..l kl kl. NIL z1 s' 1' �� �p , n .z _�T L .:�. /" a L , uc r Pi- f l Ar1�Cil G.t.CL.'.W 1 �•:'f llsu.t �1. ��t`GQ•.(�.,I( Ai -',41,..S-Iu c . / ' I Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell goad,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. 1 ;Fib%iii ; r.'�: S ... ''.: :::",,. wa,r.- "nom _ _________ - .--- - IS 1 ''''', :, :,. li,:iNg44:: 1510 We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 1,et,...aP La.-i(Ker•. qic r,9 .w,err Na-e, "614 r /.1 /<. �h /4A-7/3 /, // L-----" . . 2 2.2 ro2,19 r,131/._v1 14// A �� / / r f�/ �h'r i Wit'. ��* ��n°/1 I �t (� 6 i n ti7,, � (hnv.-t Y)- T )a %,�„-, Tai-,-, ,-1-4.- c• -,�-.� �' / (/‘ 1-7 5 ar/,?tier raffia C. C f , A' _ Iii, J -, C ,-. r94, <e�, ( L - _-.. I .,,,�a 0t tJ "31(,ottr644 G7` C, /'?" - - ?-� Jfit4 3'cc djj/!c ri-. c74 G ..//'i/ : = 3a ( ter.l tg.m_-,. . .oi-ksf Ac4.,in. - _ `-/`-1-7 F m,-, �?„fit,.. 71.-,11emu- �7L4-3 " ., ,, LV 1P ,.-- . .-.. `(-- • k -. r,- ,,,,, . I A, G 77 - i ,32/w <acr7 40e-- Ci f v-- I - sh CL','- r Oo/ (rr-�+vrCs CI! Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 1 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. I ® !i tl tea..x'7,:. .;F.- We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? /�6141'?� l�/P`1G{Zl5 /�' 1 �'�irli/ins'• (167,-rhoYd �� 1,w�= _::cwap .. , . ...4 ,7/7A_L—r. ,Irri 0C,o Aver/ u4]c- cN / � c �.c,( (( -,r 1 c rvc ✓ 1 PIS 1_34,,Pa,k 7;3 k/,.,.-gin J 0 n,g c ___— V 16(a k l�-�aQ.6 , '�I R L,,, oi?& -c.N . .---4:Zn �1c wAnAtr, -2`2.-q //ff r� r, O .L1 � 7 1 �4✓b y ( ,iJC-CI t; m14z' ;.';:: AO(,91PerIll1,3iiti(9 ). T) , .y14rid C---1 _. .-49`$.'. ..Z ? l 1`"t k n,ci,:c. 4- Cknl I4,i1 iv C `J Cotrrboru y!j fx124■w--- 4I—D(a ctS K > 75-pa _ s....A 4.$/ lel ave UN-le-ei c. -.:= K=r= - „—,„., �1 23 9-r�J lei,,,. '73.-•2s c/ ,: ..� ,..-..... • _ K ev 1 N !sv- n.r.! K 3Ote, P ,c C a e-E1e aviu 12-9 4r f ,c'a ,'117 j ,. . L ,,Y6' 51 r1Orr%5 @n Q(M. / /4,1.44 a.,... 7Z r4 1 iii ../ C'n,Vr,p,- ,-,e mi Irv, U 7Z,cP 40..C.,rn^c-n Oa, /201.0 ,2I6 Ord // a 4i LO(}-1,:-- J 44 (It *(01--/.' ..:-\71 C/'-4.-.17 1 2 f-4-e-/- gniP 41P4n,e {44..:r/4Fu4� 17 JJ _ r ..-.. G� y =ti, �' .4 ,r 1 4. ., UJ,'ww QJ 4,-4-1 1 5 lin_1-0 Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. ..:,-'-',V:.,-''':•....41:."..,..„,1:-:-.•:,...:,.4,1',..;s;''Agz,:: :ii. : '-::: ;,_::,:-.-:,_,._.:,;:'.. . '14g0;-::'::::::;:;::;:.::‘,::i'i::' -004rWg — '\-:.2;:•T __ '!''''':"....'''' '''''IMI' - • :e4vao 1 7..: -, P ..5. . '..4.4r1t TA.k47. ri*".314.4Z4 ,x,etuatemv,,,,,...... :::,... ..::::..f.:::-,: . ,.10x1:; :-',,.4','- : We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of : ... property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount Name Address Ok for ad? 0 G-L,1 Orel ,..s J5 C--s■- .c P,....z■e.. •, CaRia):7012- C‹ - . Ir.ow14.6■thrommeramoftw.m.wrsiA i.Y-•,mwro■t000r4,- PLII,A1-4, 'Le-2LN Or 751.1 /LAC . - 3)c 4-L,-- y f_ e____. _ (litta .--- r 2)r,.7 04m% L.) -71 -,Th-a_L.,._ 0 ,, ( /...„, ;(1 ,, _ „..._ r// 0 /3 1:4 1-7 (ci f 36 S C(4-0 fr).0 )-1.. 1- 0 e-V2 1:„i -Lerf.--) f)iL- ()1 ).-)fC, Mar LA 59 La, rc ,ac:44 49 ( „Tei hhi/ ' )''' (1) --- iii,.:::„...;_...2.-4,-,..:-,4,-.;:,:,.._.,, 7r'..--••:'';':'-',1-::-.... ke4(4 Vti-(40.),(1, A-3 ("Aah,f It sift Ai_ov-, 1 v Ii' 14 fr.st. i 1 I i' FL4 rau, IA \VrAard--s '-1 E.P4,44-p\c7.& j. 4-. C4-1 Cll.( 0.tniP D I oo G Jo r-r;srm_ lb)rw. —c ,, c/1--rxr, NV-111 cwct 1 3 2- C c-.)Ho C.ti.o_et-1 l-F-i 1( ct._.. ITI,J a 1,s-r- Ge(r:gq rworz- 4,, cl. ,.... 6c,../7-, 7" L.1. T•r?4-t: 4')C.: C4 6)0 ri...„.„,_o 14,(1.r ok . _ 1.4,),Adv2.e (2)4-(.4 .0 ‘12-`5141hizyrovii Ch 47+ (,:::F • (4J)-1n (0/10, 3(: /'‘ riP54- .F (?Ilt7G 0 0e 0,04.,t9 ;14 ,,.4., ,-.. ■ (Ote--4A-a ctl/t 1,4)6' l„4 H-f5 Og Weil Ac.k 0. -bpro Ce ,....... . x, ... _._ _ _ _ u )rd'irrn lb'd,c, ,_42.7 -row,A., (LiA: Pi-,-,n-1 ki,5:f ■ ... - - C"--._,rro a „. y_4 rs.,7 1--, er L-----) cy-ibAp t--, a":77, (I,,-. itt j-,,-r--) GK.,1 6 4 Please return by Mardi 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. o- ti"•>s AJ',.':3%;:�i.:.;f. '•`' yo-::. ::: u''.:4::::':1 .tv'' 4/'' ., :aT•iC::; We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? milh (I^•■■.,-,/'1.v 44.71 Corm;r kri CH ‘ / a�_ u .' 111 S 0 1 wrmA) (7-E-` n v .--77; i■ �/7 rc /I / p r rr-, / I J.� '� 7^1 P��n v ,.1 A_, � �..�Ah,C Lt(J r.( A n f'� ,.J IICII ^'� �` (/ A ` � dg v-, ,C_[ `� Ui'n,V AC#1 f h o ^.`A y��r rby,i�( / 1r Cis !V fl I/p ( /I I�I—D SGfdacrJoaprl nr ■105 (1\61.t'1_.L- Mt'WLA/Lt Ic?(3_ )}�.15hi Wflyd.r.a(0.-t'1G rLie9 ., _• : te-ra'��z; &,a,-EL 2) MI,,L [ 2n,;?-r. )ry 7) Z,,,,,,- L!,Os 'rto " r( rmi citaf I ye5 i-,,... el,,____,,. 2116 C'r A Q 'yes /JiIC10 aD7s)ri ii-i tack.07//S ['girl CleS'• -- . VUc- , ..1Ll,-r‘. P,l� p-!;417- ttl5 ►LA r k ilyi;If 4 �,e4 4? c fl .rt C'H+ s l!t'!L1717/'l C"'7.? C'r ? 4.24 14(1._"0 (ski , ,f c zi 0,1 i(2 54e) A .nrA 4/0C/ 4 ve,✓u CO , Lt\ too k, <,,L,„h (11 --)'"---1 . 1 ? 9.../cei G, 0 c Aw, ! C.`-1 y� tti � 44- -( ',0,,, v J . 1&"4, 1,1,-,a/71 iSr''' (✓,7JIL/ ca_4_... 7<✓ /1:za4-A 4G ! /,�/:v c .{lG 7-a7J11?,a YisL r '-G1"'t-- Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,U0 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. t •. ..,%;ni�:`tie%+;i.::.�o'.'�:�:.i:.. fN:.�'�'",:NAin..� , �kn. .�f We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? A44"&: 7,24/.41d /.d �- t� �. ... �_..., .�,: _.,...... _... CXQ..-u.�c �lc�1Re-,' Jc,G zt rrf PI- - - .,„_. r 1I -c"1.x.1 . -i.. Cam. c_ A4 Pl.---ti.-13.,� �. ®-.-,-/ /435" -jZ ,��// C a�ISI4- Ala rZe.a-,!,�? u4_- kf-7 zu.Tiizd •U�L'�7 C.'/ 27S1 II DO t r 73L1/N f- TR, V)-"'lie. J C6C9 /e .fs Cr C/{ Yr-' , = h, _ ro3 -s P•„ Iti &. 0 u k , -, f k/,. . ill(.:/://,,i .1 A- r1; etitefic-t,'ede, .2/. 4c,t_____ .. , _ „ . , ,, ___...,":7,-,74,..,,a....._ 3.(7 G.I,--,ire 07 iv ,Or-- e 4- ir 0. k. ..,,,9'nn — ?18 Z7 s fra La & Cigrd f Aa Ak �:�.: .r_ J . �1 e Z737 10 . _ ._-..,: J� I z o/54 l' Pi/ 414 It. (.srrio'' , ■ G Z7S0 lib 7 A,10 ) ..�.�.� �aar CAa.�■2aa h�� <�+oEc`Nlc.c1 (N�IC_/��7ciq vEsK r , . \ . .■ , C.02 Tjr'B .A„; .n 1 A CIr,a�1 ,II.JVC G-!% c3t (Ernac.'ki. 1",,s_ ati,, 5/3 �'- 'Kt,,.•‘,,t..,,; C ff1.7.r,y /i/C i' t_ ca. .k..Me. .5 N . r- � cTia1S'lu 4� 1.3,, u,,,_a_ I r l� 54,7,rc.c(-,-7,;,4- ^� `IFS 2�Le,....,� t- io4 yew 9u+te crchpa Phil 77s)I ye sTI Me,&a alb216-13 c'rCC' s• ek.cupt.I bill tic 21940 Lie 11(-.4-61 CF s-z-1/ 2cq No- - Clr4pd//4 4// 27,171{ f4. - .. _ ���,--- 7 Ai'orr'4 c rz C:l., ,/A l!C1sil /es .. r i,u A 6,,,,4„...., - 1 (,-,(ok litioc.k. ,Is. , !;-r ., a Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. ' ;i:i;! .r_: .,. •.:;;;. ..-::tiAi:ee.�l...,:.ms's.::::�. trr"''..::...i i ..,ate .' Fn , ^:fin':::f$N:Ir:::.:4:.... n:...:., ,...: . .. We petition the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the .:_. ;, :: public water supply is paramount~ Name Address Ok for adz i n./u, ,'al.a nor,-, aW .4k1. xO.., (',haes 4;10 Kr D75/y r 112f� O-Q-�7 �JC' l Gym., 'Ile_ Tc.�.as Cs,e,�.-D 1-k H►.�c2/sl u ,. .. .... to ('t_ P `�II� Cip.la.l�._ ClcLpc C 1�.4c e NC, -Q711 .- ^- in, A CJe\c,J. 1-1_t,,,UQ N c a 751y /,ll?, `-fI (6- ' (6,, o P1 4 x r ,D7S 1`7 -7h,d,, ,i ), - ,;6 3D..,L,.,....,, ,1 y(°i,- /J /dC a 7S15' 7 4 /o yy 424,,.,ferif C1'14'77?..1 41,It N C 27S-11 �r: ,, , ...q.v,• .�;. . - _ ..m_a. •- C _ - __ r 4,....,.i.,__ C�x"510 _. _- .. • i':. ... _ °:rt.^}: _ (--�r r_,. ,on .3/7 577 4/7r 4,,,'^ C.h 1.4/14/r. . 7S('-/ : ::e,u p k.m.c - IC4 (:(_-1,11 Chn^r/ 1`{4(1 , A'c Z. C9( tc -k S.La-1k,, 23-( CAA')1S - _ ,,.-, - 1 hi kt. 1-1 r-r_r7 L A 5� =x .--.C. ;.. ,_...:.,. . _:-P�::•�,:.Y / �V-l Sx"'/.,hrrf+l:SI 04"/.3 7> fa(irn_ Ale.47yD y ly. :�.- r..x =�,:, /J l � -aw"a:� s�_ r,:.u�w�rv:�-r.;FiK:��,_� uira. 4x9 Pam Peace.#1 (-Apt M2 f; NC 2?40/ _- : . ���4 •~� ;�„ =�-fi -::_.�.. - - la C 'T 1-4.1 Ch LAC&/t_5+ G-( Nola(.4.,)/ Al.17S-7 r cy y °L' V . S))1_.. Ri A r w. P& 0. C .Q .ONe .27,5 4, t_,.., ,zi- :- R.,.� .r•- +7V� `1i';Cc 41 AAA, 3 357 ''�Q,r,nich�L G 2,•fd- •1 2"l5iy. w"' '::44'= v/(,yw l�mee J /1- °Al.,tikc ,drlv,Nn Ncz,,,Z '(ctitt '0.414 z i t c.11- t eQ.F..,' N At At 'a 43-I / 4 0 ,_. pf6 6.. 312 CAe.�,/ // Ac x"7s.r /Nl,�.. , �_,.r.• 94)a (_,,,,,,../kg,.,,,,,./ (4,,.,/ 1/, !/1,if 29,r/V _ . iel •I anin.,.+t' ,9i t-h v 3Ar1R . (4.4 rht(i,A.fr t 9_,0f 7aLx cl?QC1421,04if 446 F-14 vac 11Lc4P1 In ,C1...,1.be so•-• 331 Pa. utiC ChF/terra ,nx 2 it-i4 -. 7i �� . (co5ss.bu�rat ,, 6 kr 17510 ((AC,�_., ki)) TZI CI-CC/6)h if T‘-mss Ea s+ C:hc 1 l-1,•eI 275/ _ ( , '<;v r. . .tea+ t f 5.y :,.,: Rio.- .1', . QC_ ,i 1 s 1.,r Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516, ;7`' Y;,' :p : ,: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong �; ....T .. measures to property owners protect hould be add essed,but the quality amend safety of th concerns of public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 14_�L —939 CP.c.rrru cl_t-C-L f' r• l ._ 3 3 L.fin a.SG /6$0.0 A to 5e-A rJ SP,42.1.60.4— jD-f'—!< M'sly CA< ./te t/,:r•�ii 1Ir./r_ a�' -•■ '� /r�n i� -lam . , 1�! c * 1. `-,r r ,f ,...._T..........:... / a4- • oral . . Is , . * � - )1 I I (' I f. [/? (J,A!'I r.._10;DIF.P'L /gC ! Jl r re/ �`l t ) "J Y'+' _ G f}3v C . . ..._. • Arc A-7510 : .1. ,.;i1,_...lidi.?4-:~ =w - • - !: Al aIQ- -1,.,r 1a_ r 4J' . / , '5/4/ wi al la-. .,,- _. - ,, _ I. G4,.,-- ,c +7._ rn G'w }a -1"8.!A`./-C/ J c r- C '-e/ -' /1 A'- -\..5--4..."a y 1;;� r 1, .-- M .M. .i. i 1., _'.1 -:, - ' .. _.-. _ - • .4 � !d-7 r i r. :Uc. 4,4i r r r:J _ 1,--.4.0 , p6 . K_3- I ) 141-1 . k, - 120 r . AA I. 4 .� u .re - i .i_ ✓` !.11 ice 11 6 H,1 �� C.,,E rn _ Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516. • f.�o:: "%kkJ-`vQ.?+ry.••. ..q:KY.9.?:t:�' We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount Name Address Ok for ad? IStL,. 44-- 1 Ike-dru 17h:ve- , h ,.t. hilt, ✓ ' M Y L). E/ : a A- �L /1 5 8.44 1/aS, Ch<yu/ b(/i 'VA` Wk,IR,LA Y+/ i5tn.,.• x,14 aloty k klA Tte2.Lf& +4114 1174 SOUA 4/74 CIA91.4.t 1/L144 L., , p....". -R 01 AA—, VOV41 , ]6. G YGD.c ' ' . .:., 14.3 1 V . .. li.)'__l_, 4 o • a " -i L. _ l ‘ �! -74,. /i 1 Y , A....-....,P A', ice :/�� u 1: , - . L,..„-- '2 ,rte. Sao 1.,P,lCL e CLO. c ILI Ife.4714f J4-54:KhS4 7 s yis Va,,4:.-d� ,.p,, C j4 i///�� _ - /o., 4zt - U /,. ey . rf :;.c d/4: •' /C i &.d.e,, ,,,cd• eb4 - _ "'... .__,�... �✓i`' ���.,��: ems' boa- `..9_. � ..ate. r-...b ,.. . -7 0.sa.sa r QiIA/tAtti IY r�. - -. .. - ►ate 14 r'3a �0 i\ '1�j .i , tie,, q .J:CAS // 1 1 e'. 17 . ( SX X . /Air711111St" /( /S,Pgrciirc 4.!> Co( 77 i/'6 j. Y`'e r T I/ /?A -/ow D• CH 2 75/5 _ . _ A /43 6rg1 / a rr/,a 11�.., I�,k Jc-r �f aM���� cl- C ( 4975-01 _...__._ Ftm.4(.4%V. a. A,I, li$ •)A-tom 1)/■. c+r- ,315-Ili ..____. . ..... ._.._ . J _ h P+nD L..-, .:.niW 113 f L-e- 101 C-4-1 _D-75 I 4c, Cl • `-, ,,,,z4 //3 �r,'� � /2-..;-,E. f,,,:l j hill /-�- 2rf/• ...- [ _t"1! l 1e 4.4 (iJ i Ll')a /1_✓ ,027.5%6O / i_ . I Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 27516... ...- . • m.4 . fYj R''' �C:,, •y;4. <s. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for a ad? 0 • . [= ,err[ ( �a ill /0 2 /4-n./ /15 11�A y VI S I'�-- ^--/ .0 7 �F s _ -. / r!/r,r�r l/�[ni- CA z. /o2Jx .6^,r-�T//ea Vim' 7 (12.x, / /) /o / l.,- TG,1 `-12-i) i'1 /VQ./ 10,1 S,r – .i 1 'Tie S :, i,�00, 1,1 IA b.\la(id n) )13 P-0/)11)Q 11 rnl , il ,,) . ..: .ti�., ,,_- _ _ ...._. P ,..' ?§*":_. �4-,1ea^,6. 7•-• �... ._- _..—_. • .wy41yI[F N" P:ni wK° `•.11�:-. F in .. - _. .. ..._ - r,,.._. Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 Braswell Road,Chapel Hill,NC 2751b. - 15 1 ,-,,,,,' •N.� 4M :::Fi• ,i1,1") Dialiglelitli We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name, L. Address s Ok for ad? 4 I ..� 94,721,0k1.4 /14, Araelkiee..2 75- ' tegrrrh4V eg a /2 frA)m%r.A c4". C /4 X17 S- /cl .A./CD -:-3/1-4,.--u-,_ . , ..4 /2-2, /'.,—�A, C,.(' T 7 c• 1 `T ao1 °,etc44..._ 1,9/I Rte., ,Qn C# z75?4 !OLD , . a 0.2_ 1 '1 1� nn:Sr.a.�v. 11Q• C..F( 11-13 / '7� tm Y4,-, 0,9r l� 4is ^ hI 7 574- ■ —-at u-4 r/o Z, E' a . ./ c- /1 7(i 5G V 4/24.e,_,L. 14,4,.... .,,,,...., _..3c1 '24.4,-IJ .15;1rn-. ire 4024:.cl.-, ,fn io5r- - bi & 19.+47 Eau Psi, Cu.A..�-b-vw AK- 27510 )j,xjer(� ¢.,,hr' 3 0 S 'Pule-�7 d r' r/ /),// ./VC 2 77ci 6 J tl Pt fed 416- .2?-5N- . 1.�.0.,L ..f" 7 /1r../�, v. e4.9..a. ,fir A7b7,1 ;, ,(16.,(4-,,.„..4_. • i o 9 R.,.,d�.., [1/ �. -,.a 27 5`/o _ /5-e'l. e�i ( ,r.7z,.� let"2 r1L. 7 t'. G2 2LJ�P. -7J / L , 5 .. c, � . _ _- . -. _ ...... ...,,_ _ , ► 7ie& /,......_ • /-2,,,c,e .. 6-', ?..„-_e_,,,e,..,..., 11 if s'.1 TO nor A 9 LI(q ,421 ALO,iyt,a,c,0 0 . Ce-I -2-15 i Frew6 ( 2a / 't v rr I' J C ( 27.57 4 v' •' ,_ i 1-$.K-4- d-1,1 / ¢ 0..-h '�" C k 401 g r'/ a2.5[k1 �d - v f pp�Z,, ,,J 101 c.�u�a el,:t C 'Dr, C.�.R,a.ci F4h-.e• N E- s i S►r} LYAl4D . ML41(ri'O0 / i'a4 -a. 4 14:1- i C het:L4t-i i r r Z '/ r -sti.r r ;y '� 'c' spy rte!%✓ f! .� kYLA)) �` / .-rte h ;.Vi //a � `.J-. t.^,:u ti... H • \b • • • OL • f tiP :rte iiifii . :.: ... Arai 0 ) , irk t:St.r'i::, ,l'-''.;'41:iii4i:C - , We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? J-r D`q[_•E ,e0w H .2(S -P V `ce S7. ,r+ /±Pe L 1.1-01. ;-15t(. `Tel LQ eX) i,f 0,, (1(0 mflxv.et/ M a75-141 yes 4-J. ', - _ 0.,2/ 1/ 041",0.Vel,2: 5-“, / - / / X75` e., . ��r , / �Az V&vtc, st C� -f a,'l/V -• L. 6(00 414.50 M sr ce-r gLH(LL Z}5I6., ti S t'e�„_r.4 0 r)-- 4 v 7'ANSOMS'- Cl&aPsL Fr r o-- 21516 Y5 s . r ZI.QL Sl C.S' z l cs, Vc....,c.e.S CL`Q`1/4 . 2.757(o Ye s ,,L,/lizie.t.„ .stlatelL,, a)-?_ v(tivz,254- ri..9,/ ictai., .aisi-i- tv (•1-(4- ($n Cllr Zoi l)G... e .0- (Lira, Fly Z)Sa (jC� '/1 be.4 /ayes z As- Ooze_ s -. C •.pl / "// z7)-76 .r J //VI � IF Q .uR\ I-r-O-lferaVv-8til CI.Lt..- lu.(f r`sE.Z�S I co k14.4..... Cr - 8(bi,- �� (..4A.;v4.,r 1 )r: �C:L�--/�-ter-vL 1Q1+11 a'^S1(o l�j� 1 -. 0 r( /4r �T1 eez,\-7°CO U 4 ( V .1 'r. mss'^ e ` W1 1 L-^T�1�L/ J 1 _-' (7:›CL--\i‘r'?1S*. Z�>�)C+...c.c -- '-5z--.-•-.(-4-42 `ck al.s(C.. /ll�G 205' �- (: /7- G a T57 aJ bAS r 2 J .c--j V--,r_.4 cc .41.1 L- " 5L � , i , -616,--, 03 ✓ t 1GC—At - , • ' /Y-e-a- 27576 ,, t , ,i.,c 4,� .1:)3- 0 O bl I v-el S L .4,- C,, _ry l i 141 ).-7,71 , J /, I,�. �- 61. 6 ,".-, ,r .,., . (,1. ,.)k k a( 2 ) s, 6 . yam, ,4/i4 . yv .✓ ( L ,L1/ 27 s—/‘ Please return by March 15,1990,to Diane Bloom,c/o Margaret Taylor,110 ia:.>:::;:i:ifi;i{: <'ai�i�%_�:{�.:::#�i::;:�,vJl ,s '��,�..':.w.,'ar,,•.. r tin..:: I We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? gfelh, me - Pe. A 3.22' C, eP.�hSi' A/ r fa+ 9.7ea, A,�aTi/l�✓ 10�� -- aonl :a1.n.r .-dr r L.2 C �i ate. otfGcJr i c,4 �. Gitpfieom � -S • ?y5'N,.:L:iiii: ?:�F..f?;. _,ya: �`: •• 3:}. +�¢�'' .�{i,.x;,`d; yrfiy:�' �Y,M1 g,'�-- aVerTMS 44Mi-,t,i:. vp:, -.0*1 - • We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Na .e,,, /1 Address Ok for ad? /,�1A, - ,erg JAW 't , - eXapi Aid N6 a75/L ' , ciiik,:oite aa"1 1ucLo ,1ZC-cH civiate tile/ Nc Cl 75 14f • //.. it / 1 .2, *r_/.. •. c Aed r 1r A//,A.;_ 1 kIC cg-7511 1 dna, P/L7 .r , '315 LcatiteL i iO it- LaipeI /(/c-L X G 27.7 5t VINSIESIIIMISEn ',4_4! .'i 1 i tk i , 0 ,. . / / , 4 nt I► kir. aiOLxnpheJI 161 hattRitiad 401 011014111 MC 7791 l .lamt6 �eYtox i I I u h L Q. Via_I-( �(�6 /75 7, d9,'M (4 hV/(�' z75 • 1n - ,6 1401 7D7 (Nil! 1i,( rn i (h) •- 1 1"-H/I NC 2 7514 L. E • ' 2,e, I. �" ��• /' / a�s`/V J ai,,,,,(� A 7.1 bU,-.4ekea4 t c rrr e J2 l.:-;. c J C L°? S1 1 Qp •21.0 - 1/1,I, VC 9S/(7 0 uhh... A:f- 3(I W D j 14 11 I/IOC 8-75 i 24 AA (In r", i,r Ar,Z4t s4 317 Go la:LLP c1 1)6-0(ltA Ctic c-1 I-f i 1 I,i). g76-4--- M • .' Qc -\ e ` .1R tortxr \ C_I'Y.t,�2Q.1 A11 INC. )"D(4 4;k_o I.'046 3v i 4Q1--),-1-Qkst03 m C'_'&&r nj 1 1 it ik)C 0151 it &th/eL_ 30S ,;c_Irc.LthJ? th aE194/777 Cat alter lac J ,NC 0161 y . c JI116 A zo.a. (.,oh ; .(_hi ad 20'tm CA6p4 ALl_ nC a' iy L_- -11.1,,r3. I m i 6.2o err/11 k0,l,fic.Q.L r1�- vrx ,00 i',Lite,4-i ll.NC Z4•5474 a c,;Lo 3)(C %/AfiVttkla.. ..Z. L.t, n .2-1s 1y ° ni&io ' r olo Y +o I `lo k'te11.on TI ,l.\rwn e k, too {I k) --2`751'{ 2'7501 r1 Liu &K(1,ml.lrt. 3/z J2eack36 cupd 4dj Aic z'75/q 1k:;s,,,- rr£Ye 30`1 1.i.3fn,•f c h Pad.( cr.io, (14,110/ AP 4X- .-7.f'I � c )V U �f � /14--c..,-, J 1 3-c GJ AC AZ oci1 r f 17/ 7/.,4/,C, z s�r / ka1 a'q Q kuc9J,t(p402.- 9-s2‘c) \NWk\NIA, II) A ( r1b-h.)\ -\ 17LVY10 () 11Yr i, P 1n 4,( . "„.QA, -11(4 -- do \,,r(\iit,k cLC/ l7 c,--7A- 01,vm-x-t *I ( , L- 2-1574/ ` `';� � h.'f.' f.=� � `yam : ::Le v::i t :: !..:;iliiirE:Nve,,-,- -."*.4.444::::::<:.:: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of _ property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? r�.yip 04- 1r. c / 5 Il C7 Clod Rd E' (74 ,,t id,/(/L ,-2 a Si y Ci/ C.f. .4 . "- _ • D• Y\, •�• mg %C. k.K 07-3144 at . 11 1 I �' l C ,.,\C• ',i n�ia ! ��r\ arl MO,N R\aA-A 41-a, Q c-s\*v. 1,)C. '1 o ,',, 0-_-- L'Y /�j� do _ �'i7 `- / y ./�_ .. - //J ,l nc// 2/ .Ov_ p _ . .G_. '.y, •le57t 9< ('l,7) I awAca , 31 Catwooc r e ve( { I 1& 07s01 24 Ff 10 -1 i 1 . i :.(( 6L (?,,,,:._, n__, ;2 1,,,/497-,,— /x-4- 444-4,4„ _ (Lialzil.A/6,a9,-/ o(c- I - , �.- , • h0S`7 '(V_ Z X571 Qt J 1 ;�. , 7 6/(o , / P,. r), - a 74� B-4,4-, C41,+A_ 1 ;)1,1--,n)/e) (9 - (''h,_,,A I I, A/c z_i-S// y ry.ti,,,.- �Q.t n P r k_i ( 1111 OA c i., r,20nP"s e T n u-V-PFI 14 11 L. kl L 23616 �' k 1 A o r(� --',i 4 l 80°1 ea ►.ar th 0_0.A-riot-co ,(NC. 244-10 ._ _ ■cakr\c � ,L P lao9 qa tvaa ibr C4 4 rbora fl c 2:1-S-1 a tA::� alas cl P QP-e (4-n) r- r3-?S 't 0 ,/ �,, '3( (p a- � f� C: W1 t X-x-'75(, . Q / 3cc ef.4 y 1& 2 11� 4-I(1,-,A, . -,„ .,, i.( 1 to 1 H,3Li i ,i -4 d r+l k1 r _2�c 19 f.., A, • ,„,, J VY ' c - lAc-Ac. (* A + In`-3 rk,r.I1).l 11 ocr a751f hi2Arm Elamo ldl kid+-- Cru,,kboD -- , k, /iL . £ L. es-/ , .t - c Le_ Zo J . .27576 F1,--, _/". - il,,,.,71 ,77,. ,_1_,,,,77`0,5.1i_ ,/, , '- ---V u f,/..on ,,a lf(C9-0. /LA /d 4 4,6c,o C-1-1 a 7,574* r ?�y.i�}+f�n;(j�4...tOtti:-•4r'+1}T SS�i' Ce'.(' r.:it .-.}� ''SS::. A ., !Shy J�t .✓ ''•��%�$�? `�...::, iza;�s•..�.:.. ...; gig;:>!:'•. . We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. I' Name r Address Ok for ad? -re-, 6, ;, ��.,r,;� �u. �i �v ,f�... (f (N �7,�/c/ -r', ' ✓ �GJ 'r % �_ c /c4), 9(. ' («_ 1 11)'11 I (,' T-engi 1 EFCJ M•t h4t1 F�+t�l.tr 4r ' C r 7 7 rO 14/144/0/14(• 7-151-1 10 l'Lelw.�ri\.� _) [l�wnll W�1{ y�l D .iBA�{��.,, Ka... 14,us 24 C46%14,1/6'6(/irc- 2Sy 4.1 r141- ( ^r7 � (�i #1I(5h SL+ S1 '1 OL6rel (till Nc 2-S1Y i($ '0013 YYlc6rn,,t4,4 /Thilekkizten 3!q C�hb�s�we Ct. alevt e/ /1,1/,AlG .,a-s►U /rs ( hf rr,thw� Chf►Z (� G- Plrilr9n.UkkJ11v!.4-An P C1`.D11,1,,,tOuit4 et. 32OSe-verilei St. Cl�c,�,v(H1'lI OJr, a 75f(a �rnn,,/0 n rr lei\ L 60v 511 1ckai ( I-4 U ;W 27 in ,K� J e_s4 eaci -l:-nn i)g.. 1tr∎r 1., ,\■■.\-e_c,c■LCCcs Carrbxrc NC 2151C.). ts-a RsrtinFl 7,41, 06-F 6kenxxY( Colori r1kcyel 11+II s.C. 2)57y (. 1' 1M r_1 H (.n1- i�-r 1 Pr. fir . F (,.�� ��p. r� �•.�t,(If p_- C1-1,r�,r Neta ` CU�-C'lW C 7��� � co,�V)�CY1 V� 0.v_ti `l N t o� - IC.M-sSY J i/4„(;,, / /f 7:7574 iI l ` `o RipP,fl 462-R flR(nr1 7 4'. ek4 /fIiIl k/(). 07.4/ e5 (r, 112 P,:rrr in fed I-4i 1J N� 77cia J�CTT1/^� r<ZfEr 141T11w11 1• v J9—t irrlbt1't IV` d-•(7fl0 1Ie 714K T-0,A 61. D--5 l<;wyp..)7-c■fl I , 1C Z75/ y� r( "1:+0" \\„(c �9 1 'ASS->� l+-� l7,(n.Fr Zc-r 1 r,• Ca.r., A` �d d a Zrz.& j / aAgcx..),/ e- j[/ 7 1c II'Scon SC.o-( .1r,d9644. �, . Ai( Cttrolina / r l*s.�'c�rrb.v t 27510 ( 1- 6 _• • . / ,r - /o Cov{ 'Wo((2.ymoyl YO.I 1A/ '.JitITsr� IZA Poytill I 0..,3 VI-( ►O NC. 2?-S/0 -`,NAN', tiM G 'r- N vvv\ ( . J1 14,11 NC_ 2?S{ y npk-, 1-rc•,a `)k_c�,� r �� t lnrr' C c>. \ 17i Luc: , z-le'D\�� iE3 e - •' it,..- :: r< ;fir: •?:.; , `5`•Nr,:x•;:::,:.;::.x.;k%:•::4:xffi{:•>t:1:•:,•.:fi : ,,;,,,,,,}:..: `i:i; ic:s ;:..:.....: . ,.. We petition the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of . property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address JJ / All Olc for ad? T,�i� '7:6/ -)11/1Z1 I'�/�(V 10 i7( fl,, ��[,P'. A /` N Z :::?;/':;'/.5 a& /�-�// 5 G)°1 Co,/,,,,,i4., p v. D w,�►ti�/,„/.���ti C 27105 t/,/� ��/�. l7 ///tr y d6`` /,, /J rill r�1; ' `lb LA_ / z��K r� /� uA, 5 V3 �r 1 -Jnr, brr. P1�,��/ '/1 �''c' y.- ! C-- -.11 63-2 Wateia 3 4 �1( 1,G'V�"/-�X. I�J C z n-t o �C,s ?)1Pr 9P(nr�r� ail Cali ; /d li tt ;� Y/FS I .� 36011 ��C M,1.i sPi y---- t,(e%-c ecL 1,, 0"- 6 &00-40 1-,C( (S6 12 v0w N C 2-77-7 e k, s a .cn*lip, 401 RA4 P k 1411�4 Al C 2-7 a y k e= t110.44, 11-44444A4. 441f �- , - ) � - 4,.\_-„,_, -7 ,1,,(L? s(0 u. Q-u ctRA ( 1J( 21 a.la ff • 50/- 40 4/c27V1` 54,-{_.Q . - .,-.57-0--rkai„(/,m/t;:)6��".64. c , /f C . a+ 7S//. Z. /© 7,4 2r 2 r' ^6/�j�j / , / i ' ' 6 / [/ LLB%1/ l /.„ - .1.�.,.//." d' i /�/T it T tt i-i. NIL") 61. . ,/ Ate A! c 27s7/ Aer k� c ), z-V-e -4 . 2�5Z ,�6.7 m _. 2z�r4 - 0 cf/�r.J.t.d4�c.1 ?O 9' v‹-�: 01. 2 731 ti 5 ,,,, C- f' n.r...y c7 3o Si..11 ia EJ, CL c 1 4;1/ 21 S-r'f u Sly,- et 3D SW 1 L ,. KA .L 4 t L441o1 kw 21 $•01 YckaAtInfm, likuvo 7":"ib 1 RA aJe aflm C Qrl c) JJ( 2r <C) - it r„ 27 - , / �s rpo : - �i. e 2-7570 8001/- ‘ / /// (44041/175-/I A 4“Lt, . - c2 4.6 S AL�a r qp�c. f .. an IL/ <„,txci 4o4 6 Gad' N r..+�. , Pn _64::: S C}I_*PEL co LL N L 11-5 t \l G Cho 44--T3 3 ZS 1 Ct-A EL HA-Q_ >la't a°C.L etA-t c4 //3 Lff r _ 4Lei 7�9 Nlc // - 4/9 v QQ 6 - clvg 923,=',?0,74c: 1 /a z �rc�cle Dvr rYN Cita/? J r A' 4f�"1 C 1 f--117/ 4k7,,71 041.7L q04 6,( . . IS.::....: --,-,,,,i,' -:: :-'' ::: 4::::11:0 -.,. ....-..;-"c,T444.4:4. , We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? /'/' (41-n ,-,z( ,:, /r ichi J (1 t'6 c#-n .A)(' 6;11 F 1534C rf G f i hLi trIberolt SI. #' ChtSgo( 4/1alS- 7 r ir(�J �' �- 11, �r�a e d31. I r f ______. //- iz_ I.+ c l., Ste.\1 Nv 7 5` VO 0.) !� :s, { ax 23'1 & T; hn.> vz, , ) ( f,,,,,P—e-ft- /X- 3 r_er.,4 t.„1-0--- (3,,,,L-r-k,-- ‘ist.-4,_ \.(,-.\AidAJC4\A-(17,14--, c6)\02),ta (.,0C) C),-)(.4..init). kAz-4 Dr. C1,4 f...c..c\ . ,-,..■\/\ - itS WIto-( c:Gla P0-4,)G,y-(12o1-0 W.c.,,�Isis ?e,o, •) y '/ '),11,th a\ \ chmito,t, g A. �^ 71,4 r•h.■( 2,751`1 42f/ /ii. //q/c"a,r Si-. (721 A/C X225/y- .e!{ 5 q/Li a..�. (A tt---- 7«-A Si:.P$ .s+ et r r1,X-1 � (C - -,1r 47k- \ i k vJ 11r, Si- 6 7., :e.„.... C,---2,7_ /74- ii„ :„ -,,,,, L.:AL, cc„...:(.' „.„ ,.... -a>::::i5e:i::+i};:•i'"i> ?; OS I P P A • Nell:: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name 2 Address Ok for ad? 7R3 C79-,17757.: -2ce I�� 1 , s ?•itL(1. ct15,6 A)O 51b. l4-( / rvx a7-5-11S tre5 J ,'77e /dr at . 7/2/4Z_tj- L 9J)6-)? (1},val,,, Lk, C1-1 cQ)nq ::Kii;ii3�;.:i<:> t?4 if ii :ww�c:.'ii:-'„ii y;Y:i.?r:giti?-*Apt:-.. ,::::,— :%IS��4�:�.,qt:i sFiv•.: ':•}4",.;yy`y:!::4 iti` .��'.i••,�' SLERf' : >. Vi :13 � � $ . , sy_:,iC r2aiii: :s: :i:i sp.'•:i`:::r tc?;;:isi:iif:i: :»::;2} y i.i: We petition the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? ) - _ iauy tv6 v Fa,./ C't. Cg ,J?.<,--/If v f�c„(n LiV ork,1 /c5 Firer(,, 5�-�A ITS Co rrboro �J .c. a7S%o t�25 I/tc"rep,— 3/? /Harr, ,, 674.11- Alff'VC Z'515( Yee 9w,I,,t.1 CC a-).1 flLL",..4.K SY L M tk\ 111 I4 `.-.c-S (' L � .I /, c ,rGE n 217:7 4 y ; �1 11A' l lby 4,a.cik. (1 CG�1,4i �.1f z�sly res. Vl 0,) 1 • TM' "AVIE C . c HLt.L- 2.751.a `J I'. . Sbq Ce 1:11c r-H LirI6. `l F,--- \Y Q7 n.,_�°1 LC_'! ` ) n tt- �� r- _ . -7 r 1 },4- 1 /ar ) /04( WA,I. csl;r, Gd- , 7-7S 4- . _ . iiidir 1044400 6cr',.4544e U. Atil q Girlie:ID z;rIo 3t`L44 4Atw5 WV 14146444.,i4.40- 1)r.4198 Chapel (fill zi -/ct - .: J&4 e L rx l o m ccl-C e, r 6•,,,k1,i...-S+- C I,5zs1 II 32,S-74/ / ..\t `Jh.i etS 100 6o,- 9 ay...,-;c.,1!41-/1 27$66 'Icon/ fA 5l`/TV55 It, 361 -.,.44,0, Arm (Aye/ 6f`/i ?21lV ye.s ),INN<<... \ cap► Pils6rcSa- 4:1-141 t i 14. II y,'} '''''.0 F' ' .' -'". ::'1I4&.. !, --.1'''"*. 1 111,,, I ::*.P: .. : '*". 4 '...4,, . T 14.10„:„ 4 . . • :0:::: ::: ,:: ::•.: :::. :::::: . 9.0,4,- ,4,17-. ,,904 .:yam::ck 3!.. i We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name i Address Ok for ad?, 11A 4-ILL\ kb--\-3-r \.\Ctg--- —1 \‘'1"""-\;114-r\"k 4 -f '\''z4 Ni--P---- (AAJ A fp, --- —it_fi—,--x...—, c: , ba ,,,l(-77„, //,)„,Q!)A . (bc9-- r_i ; I 1301 U?A'1, .1 4 /GC-r�Lavoul s iii. , : 4 _a).- 1D g' "Po -7)( C (A �.5 1 /. , k , // i ; /4 :II, 4 i-0/..??"1/z0 , , mil .,,/ 1 -.L„, i._ ... ! rc!�/ . AI-,— 11\ , _.,,); A �',_ . ..Q �o ,z).-_,,,i-c.,6-74-ii, ,�. �.d. �� .T�.�:,., -Qaot n.. /5/0 4,�� . C 14. 'lam C .r,�-. 4-,. 13/4,k Pri i CI- . C H eS. L,c.J.(AUjuak /0r & c, 7e, • 5 4r 1 ., a. el ' - ■f ..d. A I ' /A c:) .... 5 ..I , A_,..,_ i _ r .i..<7---43 k-- ��•., : , . 4 / . , � � rte I,/1, 1:� A 4 1 ..c &_... . ,,a,.,„„,, ,,..m,i„,.. v•tak.ipriff . i. . _.kifg. -A.At.nll11111F' :-... _______________ M:;??:_4i -✓ `4'+'g'":tiV' t 13 i:ai::<;�i: i3. .„...,:la „:.:: „:::, : ; :,::t:54x4:0,„ ._..„......,7,:,:14.;: , ...,.... , . : .. :: .:::,:,000:4;,:.. ,,,____=‘,..,-...-i.:„..::.#:::1 . ,00mmoomozet„,-.1.......::::„.e.:,:::,..r.:a:::„„:,,,,:m.::::.;., We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but 4 a uality and safety of the ublic water o N Address Ok for r'6 o ?6A lit,rna3 \-7.--c -7)._,LLE" 6-acr e-4,--V,......- Z �a_S 6o/ ° ligit .. 4/4,- ig/v- et fr 4-Z 4.441.4“."'�d h � t3 �� __ I ��s Gc LA-IF / -t/..._.L..-411W __ A_ s 1:1-42--e- 12 3c G,.-b.•-.,•titu-c-'-s1--- V 1`_ L ' 13 7.-S 1-.),,,A4., 6a a1Asg� 17 a A PAS s- .� ce-,-..„)..„ y.„,,z,€),- --76z. 4.4.r..... eti L d{,n 'D-' r e7a (; 7... c_ C 64� 6■� V 41 1 S `D G. /K L I•.J 1 / Y•:; ISCLOM .......:::�':�:'f}if>•::?>i{},.:?!;l::�fiT,i?:..5::?;•Yy:n:::":" 'i:Y:F,••.•;.vij+b,t4:'{.'.' •.. .... We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 1) PO( !L PeA �c� /f(LJ 6u-to nJ,c Z 72 78 /// ,-.574;( 5 574• (./.4/2.6/ •/r(1 iV•G. 2757 C. • rce: ,L1 r i I `ko(. C/ Q, NC �7 5, l ■INI■ f [; CId' �'?4r:+�'}$%ii,.vk?: - : '•:> .d_?-. -r „A-3W;�g>, •: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed, but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. A. Name Address Ok for ad? ciAle n A b r/ ' 3 7 p ,'N%, S .Cam- 1.--,rrmnv 1l' On- ' Ate__ ( 44,,,, ✓ a if a, t /0?-i9- i s &rborc. O . O rc,,r,6.0 /,(/ 4 /l e 1, cl es( . C.,iiicL ,/ '�1 u,J`�,n- i z,) 'tom,,, ,v"0 C C.1.gre.,_o • a 4 -i. _ X62-6 4 L • a', 66:0 ( )ra l9 7M 3— 1.J4 07s SO'AA 9 v.An..a 0 Tl (0_ 1/ () r Ifnotl-b a0(� 11 I „s..>nP4 w ]r r r 0). -5- PHI 13 G Rd A.J C &c— J is -y44 rN. 52z 3 t71131 e. ,Cfka576W o/ 277 ! C S/y J/- i .X19_ \ 1 ;1(7h44. _ r,k /, '.C4 oi.c:, [ E � �� / ! C �( / QA L r .Y t 7 S A,/.;:e.2/ itc- �-6 3 a f/,1�� CA/ rub teat le,c( • L 4,7-yi-7 IAA,CC • C ). d 1.r/0 ".� � n•., Pa r3,K 7 73� �-. �„ /)C— Z?576 \`>i^' •■.-,.v! r 1 .. `. ii-\. ,, 4'iv;s; i `cehri,{yc,?Ae{?, !!J.y,,'a 2i: •�''��;.:;i:.r-i'••n, 'yam`'•.n,�f:' :.�$•. _ ''S#�::i:, .. ., jam} l MCLUESOM09.:; ,' - - iirP'' 4,e4. 4 . ,,,„:,. .,,,,„:, ,,,,..... „.„. ,, -,,,„4.,.:,...•,, ,,:?-,-,,,,,,,,.,,,t,..::::,,,z,:, "1:6,,,,„:.:,-,,.,„„A.,04,,,,,,,,„now:::.:*:- -..,-....,.,.-5, We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed, but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? `11(. I c (-r.d • c-- ■ (, 1• Ot,,chT►-Lt C---t— ✓ . Iii)a. Se- t...0M1dA) 7-F 0,0ilt251—''(l LAVE PP-r5 . • ■., .*:Sintl3A01.4,,t,J4-..::,'54,;..44,,I;;.:3, 4., ::::.M!'':::.::: i.i,,:,'• ::;, ''' ::::. '::::::: ,:igl,i:" ,, r.-100,,..„ . 1%--1;:::::. E;,:*rt;'rIMqfgij -- -_-_"*.. ...t'a',,,::: Y;)ri:::::::§#Xi;.:'::::g:.ir:i::'0::::}:*:v.:::i:::i:ci..:,.:i:',:....:;;?S•.:: We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of •property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? &,,_,..5. 0,AAL•:+1. Cr 43 le t-1 c r r,-)cn \\4") i 4, ... N. L(i.(L 16-c. r------ .�e,-n,k-y (c c--\-- 'les • i55:, %i +ii ^ i 7; tkf7Tat, '151 ii!,, f, We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. N, e Address �+/f(/ a n �// Ok for ad? r �` 7 /,...... / /D 1�'C4`,Lele .[ i F.-(• l_ .7 . it---- �o3!!'^• . it gi rk rte. 2-3 _ ..`..,.r : ■1i a hvt A1055en d( 141'1Ic Crs/ c (.4 —1\■ ■Eit\-\A 4 ,jr- t4c2 E. 1 �, �t ill 2,efript.56 ,f/t /m/A.2xe Ali ? /11.9_tile,4- &zed nz. fi-4, , . \ . a ko 3 rso" t_rcee Lp e•.i . 1.+ Ak �a 1 I v (s. 0J- Pf c , c b ri;Sr'r'!:l;ie iiH ;:j4:r �'�'j+ii 1: :r.: '- ;: ` ,te . 1 " }'i:CtUB1 .2 We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? / ------,)11. -}f L'11 7 , )o',�....�j )9L-, ,2.z 7c/ 9) /.. .� g , / ? 7 y . ( 7 97r. 2_7.3,75, /es Fk Duz [5 T ,/�c� X08- )1:11 ‘�.i,‘�.1 Ad G, /--ii, 2-7 h`/L/ L.%/- 5 ‘. 6 - 1. s . oo �d _ ��1� /el 0 _ ; 1R4t,11-- f . 1-.---C,11-rti 7o8 Cnvrc.h; II Or-I'm C 1-4 7s--/,./- --(77?1,z.,,......e.,2 U Cjihna f I c ( € P6 1-c.4. L. ,A C +4 2-7 s i ,l sc � , , T,,d....r1- q 1 s._lz.e--.!r 4, q 4 11,-417L. 24,4' 1 Alft t'i ,-;-61,(.[1.-/v.,r!i t.,./.0- ?^�f(V 7//i AJ 708 o-212- , 7f4 -556-e) -yy? .4„,-,...._ )?-?trifv.." /Ze ,;47„,i_JaW fi( c 7 eL-03 il . 17/4x. ' /7 . r, A a/44,.- / /39)- ,.. C�.�,�. 9'vy ^,.ri/i6 f, -.0 C ( ,lt. i3o�pC 9''a- -3766 Oyii�0y+:•t�:k��., :2>::x:>::>�::•:>::>::�.„kxX+�J.'••vM>: blICIPMMT.444- 41.111 . . ov", .1::..:::',1„,ti,.--,,,2k:::ba • ::"�:::::;::-t:•':i:'i';}NiK}::.i'L.}'yi},�.�y24' +, :g0 ii.'-i:::;;:;y,.',:: : We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed, but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? R / cre fif /90.2 wae 19z4iivs Ad C. h/,.v7.5-/ yes 4,LL It_ NA-6eL.5eh/4idr vol' �7,U,(�e�Ac.c-'-- e•�6l• av'r/9 '' X:5--C--A �C.�CI 5tP rj 4/7 /h ork wend C. [-f /'.?.7-./ V g) , .09A.2 Y 0-7c GAL 1/,S 7W-/P___ /.8z SP A•NCl+eEIi.S Ln/ c y ,z 7'-J f �{j¢,eG'7 /al/Vs A! /09 4/2.2,E41 S-r; G',{-4 ZTS/ !q-LS l§4 I Be./le_ 5703 L JI veob � �* Z7j/LIG _ '. F�,, Qd px.6.4�x / 1'101 Fov•ti'-Ai n,r-� di e_ CH z-zS[q 7-14 ir_ G 001 rooN w - 20 C r+ x �4 'OS • S? tJ4 i i3 4,_ 7grI$ C r te_ -. '_%,917 G es S. Pd /c.-ht-7 07 ✓ 4... Q! L / ;17(---7 L _ _ "L. ` LAS c( � - a7,9. c- Ct 1 04 .�-.,a (£&L- ^n1- (3qD-r LX. pct . a7s/ azif cc C'. cA.i,- /9.0 z (1r1,.,.. -/i ,, /r/,-275.-/ � • .S��S•,:--r}Y,::�::;:••.':: <.5::::::::_ ::}i:::::�:�>::�:�:j�'nom+ �'�.�f �!fif .��A44,i�'''. �:?fi:}�: �;•�{'i. Iii. � � � .I.r yam'¢ •C/.v .^� ~'r y .. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 2.e. Cry 33 2 5 s Fcfrry RI G 7� - � 3so5 Fes,, (2,0 C_ OSI ::.: P ,:, P iii:--A '':;:d:-;,-...,,4k :, 7"iti, p* . attU134',Mt: ...-:,-I'''',':"...';,.09::::: We petition the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed Legitimate concerns of property owner should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? ( wr...`.,,,,,_'C'C¢.,+:�zZ%ZSK,du.,s5„n1 2n C,a ��\�.��t�\C. `/mss 1 1 D aea.nc e_u Cn , vC `22 CJ (,(,; . 0 k0 d (0,-0.,1 ig N c ti3 . Olt ? . . ev 4 i+: :N U :,.4 .; i}t: isi :::. Off .� Q We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? c. c sZ ‘-4-&12-Q-;-. , 1 o Lt �-• Z...,:.,.... e N 2--75- `/ I'l —►44. / .io s6 A-b ,_- ,24S 7 ` es_tr:` C- /-'().___ a- 1 a--s' C„,,„// (i , A 7 n y /) . 8 1- t/11 +'� 'k7 V `r c-/,. -1 5 ( ei I ■ g. AOLel _ 1.-1 c 4- , . . . „ 4rti:_.< t2 ."e 3T11,14-46_,I- Ce i CA/ 95/6 4 — wr. P-04; id67 cN -2 71-1 LI 4/0 e 1 - / f f Lt__ • ,. _./ Aic -)12,s?7 J / I .� .., 1/ cot . GwLa•C� I. . . , /./-'l l �.7s7¢ i p,> r 04= I z, '7 6. -F�ra"-. 1 w. s i`. c/ P.I.-■\I;Pic- _/24 e„.. - ,J..r !c.-. 5 (Pi-�b,.- Z* . C.k�,�L c�-t�' , / l__. __ *1 ..* e_,,Ec ., .. g,,,,ii, m.,./,...,1 1 ,--. .. _ LL..7,t.,.... ‘.);-., //7 CQ.t , • �. � etDr_ , \,-h ,mss•cam. (?r,v;A: .rzo7t C..6)..A.,--Q-. 43,,,,A4 a i»'f::::::l,�r.Wi:. 'y':,.;;; +;;ley '-- ~ tr:Q 1 .. -: P ,i: V WA'.,,A/;?;_,:;Vngt , • 44*,.:...... „4,,, ,.4,4. 45,01,,-. Iflegi4 IOSAMITIBMIDA - 4igx We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Olc for ad? A----LW W C)f OA 1 q vALI? glAit, /C f . xi Cl �, _--- 3 . / "/ r..,. A7. _ `..r.-- - - - •°1 2( -Y_. - Sr 1 .t ti. / "U /;fie -U 6 v �fl� (?-(.t� L! -� lit �4).--- 1I �-1 , p , \ V\I\'' � \ `1�1� kk C\XI�\ \T �`-��,� ,44,7 )--s7MM7 7x 04 i i/// 2X/ _,.. '! ......!. !r>> ,, . . ' ,,f ' --al.Ala 7 r1 h+ - 7?13 _ '/ 471,Y, (; rN a ,5-`i6 (f/J / LvbAe, fie)/1 j7R L ale. 4'T P521 �zQebPn/ iva,., b 1L ' . S n U.C�t c 1 Z.'{ F tzi i Ili1 �T� 4-L Cry ,••‘,.D ra 6- 275/a `- ' ?o7 cc2 - . • r ., - • : /7 • u S, ,U 'F ,eox -6-' 471 y,4 0,�D h Oc 7 7q--(g) V j / J � ' Ter,- — .,v // '7 : _ ./ -. i,e)c, ri. ,k-. .2 73-7 y .(fia./f f/'� /"� X —3 P / , /( ,c. e -.3 ,b1 k,,.,T,0G1 J p,f CFi ?:79.7./V l \i; ! Yn / 2)11/ ,fl.. /.,C !.'ftA,0//J r�,0" (Y/i/.�.:t�9/�//��%574 \ v c �. 1j aj o o ntfl . I c12,,,J .'P 2") I L. • C-1:)(4-Al I lob 1i ,e '4 s';� - 1 .: 0,:.::...-::,/ t Ns.. . me} •5., ir&T , - A:::!::**MM:k45,-: *4;n:ti4:::'}'},:i'MW- -.:t:/..- &:•:::"':::s ljelit Mtaiti.V.= ::'-' 44424 04•.':-:--,1-:.:-:::::4: :::::::::::::::41841:::,:**;77.:z*.i::::?:.;-:.:,.::,- We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed, but the quality and safety of the Public water supply is paramount. Name t Vdress 1 (\ ^-(..).), Ok for ad? LAIA*Talkik) ' i\ 21*".1 A.,,Vt‘''')\.)"\A CI (\KAI-v-ri A , i A \ 4' -. ' - . . wiliMMEMENIMNIff ,c., ,'M _ • ir • _).,1 ■ _ 1 i I e . . 1 e -- ..-/n' -4 l -A. y • R4 160\-',_ 1 (10 *-_ Av-(,- Cf-v0 : q 0 , (t-vi 11._ , , • F _, N�sk�:32{':r;?3:::':^:p.::R:s6fye=.%:>:4;,3i:;'.i:i's.i•�s:�..: i:':<�'+•.:i`{+f.:,•i�iiF{�ry?.k`' .:t::����nY'�%�w�;�'ti v•;•:.r{�.';K J;�S;:""' z 100350 ‘2A,IP . `;fix' ':• 0 t_it A;. We petition the Orange County hoard of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the • public water supply is paramount. Nae Address P Ok for 01:letifika. 14bV-Oledia- leitil.Agl •otitothr/26 RA-) r .A!`i tl:::::::. -- "' ''''' r*-isSi.: -Nt''''''''' ' •:: i::'.... .::}iYY.311> ?Fii'iii'iif:L:Y/+:. We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? ccc:i h v.,.)„.-, r3 16, 1 Scvl CNv (7 6 6 ,t-Vb }l2 I-r c' -ii,c , 1 r -7 r; 1._1U' 4,`..i 040 • ii;j;;L tilija*WW;- 04'4 We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. nme Address Ok for ad? ( ni cfiz o etArrei/4LiA_-( . , g_ - - 'lam`••C c !2�:r +r:: 'n:::i::'•i:y :•::,::;_�i:;j:,i`...• We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? ()--1-0;1\ 1I jS L- !( I,(;c gSlk)ooa C14 27Sr(6 Y s 6.Grp, ". s C r¢ ~1gfi7r An;yv•—• cam J 2p(„ f�� A.1 L�+ Z-1-514 (-7{S cinteprieir 44 SD h1 P°P 'tat'Pt arc �si 0 . k + c '°%cd' ••,�:>:: i';,r :, •. > 2 n,.:c 4 �:,:: . : . 1e: g: I'.:, SG+ `_ • y # ... .SIIEZ.Ftk::::1 6.--,-- -,- Y# SittligWV4.1. — ,1,`:,./ ..1-1,, It*, We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed, but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. • Name Address Ok ford? --in z„. C..4 „4, �.t,4! la1pr2, H?_:ai�.C (IA.w4I -/ . ' C ..275/ 4 ,-az U�i,,,ku 4k,4xe 44s 51: Y/5( �arg4)4 c) N .)'>5/() v I 4Q.,--,. /, „i �,, /1C ,)-2,-/ D 3 i, 2._., (Po e �aK5c( 7—.- 27C/ L(_ ` ` </"" 6-L- 500 v .5-Y Sy -s3 ‘f-ec b ort. ViC, ' 7g-)o �/ � , _t. i/oi,a.P 1 l U G ti " //.6Ca7S6 al-440 /V4/7'1 1 D 6 S",,,,p5:— S'1{.. (arrLLa.� /U� �?/7r,./ / / a r.4 C,......- 3 so,-Sc 6 0-,a1-0-1-4--- .�'„.( G/,.e v,C/ n/G_ 7_, ti J / 7j Cfl 06 N. , ,z,/arb..(/§-c-4,40,27 . 112--f. Z25/o ,3-ea". Bc•61 3=0 A- CPOO.WOOe+ �p...e \d.rJ'l9r.a .14.5/0 I/ MS I 0. F ii 7 :'.:"' cit, kOk_:-Mlf;: i PeLPUBlati.: ::;;10i We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? I af, -v r / / / - Y%/.�itw.vHr�-/_/i.P�/C1/ 'EEif. �l f0li/1•r-r':`w��Ci:! 'rJ'- 4 6.„.. (..A._.__. - - t A.�� n.. _,, f S 1 ;Tete r ,.60.4 eAs 3G o 1 rtes :Cerva )e,1) ( ./0.14- et . lip(, rciAlfur-÷13.. A �Pr/s Q \7(/, " nd NA c '^ , , (-1 � ' • /',:,►L., u� c119. ( i1'/ Pd.. C.y . ``Jy 1 / S - I).lei e C o r n nc I I ?1 ci ?)c:V 4 7&• Char? I ,-Ilr I A r C c 0 Ay'r ko.�` a_glA..a.1.v_ 1 c,$,, j`ri C.1 .1 i k& rU•C. �& :4G...4..1 t 11 4,w 7549 r1�rif' # G :7 ff ==i. Ai(t.L c.,47 c .. pi/ii Of-Pita /5' A Kail 'D 311 1i� �c- !-h I I /UC, 91.5 J "4.1 444L4. -rn t.11,...._ loci-C-. •0 a Pats ,crd 21 C 0.46,„, Nc { , -� a. ^ . - , , A^1 l'r, /, 7 /t-- 44c),--1' t\ /(e-, ''/ 2t-- (.r.)1/. - e5 , plA'2fU E"0, `LL - LI k 9Ifir'" Si, - ( .=-('�i302E - - ...)QPc,r (1-bk71 S 1)C1 -(1'3 I ` 1111140.:,.;.:::::::..4,00de L-it.;_ii,wo Ids : e '::::::oftzt:-..a.:,-.--w,f4-0i , 4- gry:J p,� :.' W: :Yak#. , -4._t We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? 4c�AEt- 4.-EfE 207-A e'4,e,e dT a IA-,L ,� / . AN( ii'"GSp,/ ez)s-fIc- /csr/,.�sgsit,vmS C/,�pr'C/iL L I e1 ratyeA._ r/n�s JA -/n r^4la 2i #iui x yes Y le, , fl c,d& 2/0 1 c, .ool A-c. 0,2 C 11 :9 ...1)Ioc c,,. J .. r' 1aI Ca, c,?LAC-I . Cifl ,);11 �.44-; ,a / , i i ,VOR (''o j �1t1/ ( p,- .riC.G 275/Oc es ff�� r ■ / •D� 725 . Joa D i ;; - �d66 C�N,YE,.r,,7,09(. P `a,`, 1 Ra7Gtl— .— ----,C za7-4 !'..free- sf • 14,k-e._ /rcG ,- C s 450,1--c bac'i�'L ! Q.‘vQaeI I-17:.II ter+%V:■itA. LiO%)*1 7\RolikS4 :!'1•:•'.!;•.:::.•kiN,WW0":".:0:,.:nt,W):.-.7---” ,..-::4...:.::.,-Ni'M x i Yy 5 1.5..v% • olou r• 1 a . : r Y wcii\kvA We petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt strong measures to protect the University Lake watershed. Legitimate concerns of property owners should be addressed,but the quality and safety of the public water supply is paramount. Name Address Ok for ad? dr ,i. I II 0? Skev‘i `.111 RA. ri-,tehltds w._ \5 45S t : • • fr:11r , &Ir./ J,t,.�,,, -os �,co,-„ , U �° I.f0 I-�„�� r z 7s--(6 f/. �;�, /2 37 3 �enQLR)Y2A, Q c.k (I N. C 2:151G dr �?sr iefec; Girr C _ Ai G / ,___... _ r .... , • c r�(2 TS'// r : _ ri 1 nc Y1.51C0 �S "-....= !�!� 11.-4•‘_ 7c52, Pi[4cr1D - & ��007e•�, n k S sit . .u.) _ika 3aS .�►4:a■Alk L M. _1c Q.-1st if .1i' /4„t,/- 90 STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED Water Quality Goal - Minimal water quality deterioration in University Lake Sources of Strategies Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study completed by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) in March, 1989 - 13-Point Agreement prepared by Joint Watershed Work Group in October, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING TOPICS 1. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan & Text 2. Joint Planning Agreement 3. Orange County Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Element 4. Orange County Zoning Atlas 5. Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6. Orange County Subdivision Regulations BASIC STRATEGIES Option #1 Land Use Control Strategy - 5-Acre Residential Zoning - Impervious Surface Limits - Stream Buffers Option #2 - Structural Controls Strategy - 2-Acre Residential Zoning Wetwater Detention Ponds - Impervious Surface Limits - Stream Buffers OPTION #1 Basic Strategy: - Minimum Lot Size of 5 Acres - Maximum Density of 1 Dwelling Unit/5 Acres Existing Lots of Record: - May create up to 5 2-Acre Lots - Remainder divided in accord with "Basic Strategy'° Cluster Development: - Minimum lot size of 1 Acre - Density cannot exceed 1 Dwelling Unit/5 Acres - Land saved by .lot size reduction preserved as permanent open space V) J u u • u -d) u: ,.;u: :u;. ;u. ; :Cry - • I < < rL I' -.4:41 <' I •I: 4 m N 1 0 G)I ' ';'y ', 0. ..i` 'w ) O i._. C u.s1Z V-1 .0: ,.,I•y1,,,0,!;Ct7It 0. I I c: 17) 73 z3C ..S2= .G, «-er) 0 1, d,''.:,...*-;.,csu ... w>-,..... ..->1..) •,.... C "i.) �.+�� L ;0" iii a_ s) / : le.. , 3;•,`.i��,• ,�„';t.f....�..py, 1p N!• q� if ' r' i ,R -. �S'.w:u::l I•... • yl I..y ,„ 1.7,.4.,r X19, .....0-4"4.7r1174, Mai") 7'1 .` LI r� , 1111,;3,;f•-.1..7; �•'5'-3� . i��t.,,{{ H v.. .r•,�r,y.�.�:� ,1;e0d.w- I'r' .I II1 la l , 1' 1 ;Pi .:' . 0 . 1_ .r.y 7Ar.� Cflh iP''' ,pr•c„r14.0G`�•^F'-rl'"°^"c .'""_Ft' .•� i� F ;. Ili ` I `+•�� f �,'r�r `... :r_�' t:I;"'.ri::a..t1e-+n "r"'” .r-...a'(: ���yyy•,��1�g1 T. '--:` 1 . ,, 1' '1i?I ! 1 sR1,:ia..1,...r 1, �r�•.. ,`L.." .'l).r•"' T I..i��a 1 p � ' � ,'I: .�! ,��.i'�.nw:••,.'• ,of �',. .erN,:..,r. I !1 'F + . Rll 14 I Lt .1' i"3yk,,,,:" i•r -„ ' .-6',."• fey p "'''' :L ?�•i .ti :►►:✓v r "--�+ .4.., ,...,....T. k• l •+^"�^' ■•f!I 71�•j.t�• •��'. ..F� :1 �. a: • y -,..r_ :.tom_ _ 'c+ir•N+ ■ l__te r',. ,'1f.F ,. ii ff. ' �I ': q a,,,,• ••' :., :.�{,�J zx...•.. , !' l e- —. . 1 µ' , 4 .'ant,. -14,-,,,.. 7' •a,..1 ---__4'f� ++�• ,/4..11 - y ` �h, — I .11 !1�0 1r.1,1w1, y,1 , r'+.��.'` 'I - r++ : ..°411.; : .�, ' A. f' ,/t`.. , ter. - �t .1. _ala't.s7 •r,Y,-TI i 4/g:4•..�• ,�!o •. .. ,, = -. ,. 4.1 ,a,f., •+n..-'.- -_ � : '. + R •• ' 991 �..,�all./•N: -,,y -�•ar.,.�ej a �+.4..i'.' -7- \ :.-,,� ~- '_.11.11411• {.'�I.I i u� c r I'Td �,• aj y -• .tiw+w,wp'wr - �S • \-•'`- - .-- C?F�'*'�.I',{ I ! :,, �'• „ 1.,-.�” -i4[c= ,_r t ,-•,I...d.f! r ._ -r_ .. ; `1c i;3�+.."4x,iI "� a ..1 hid r ._ _•• �• --. - _ - �1 • -`I .' ,.l ,'L '`'_. .r .e) MIA. rtJ p N� / - .„'..-.i,Irf .''�•y7 127:- f Zn 2?, +• ' Yom. :•.,. ,-t:-- ;�_•- �{� "� ..: i:.-,. _ "_-f,-;�' ,'i.�,y _;y; f:..7 �• Q " r. e st r- .. + = n q-•: sue:! c 2 .. ..fy-:46 r. ..-I ..--.: ,.■,-....-R• fir~ 1, -t, 4•.,A_."' .. 'i-_ = :7 j•'_=F,,i, to• ..l.,- .7,-_,;,-.7.4 r4 r4 IM--fir 74:- I p�� 1 0. 'cw %�w. -: r� �t� is , 1a � 6'. ', l� �-.. a., . `rte-7, --__ rat r a ,.l foil r:••'Ty'I �uY`I'' :� ry:, y�3" ` ► ' 'l }F,"1i. -`1r - 1 ay yak'.{r 'd11.. Trr yr• ,:fir q �'• 1 rS 4� ?:, 7.-, .ai:'!.y,�..�:r- �� 1 IIf.^` ✓• - .1-r1, ,1 2 0 5 ,.A 131. 15 . 1�R�-!►n_ r V tri o �aedi . U..- ' d ' m o 0 , . - tft CA 41 0r.. ( a) Cl) 0 • u u u ° u u u u '� as au. a a a a Q o; o; Tr o n 0, n n ...� U L~ c...4 3n.... N p ILI U " " N n3_ in L 1 0 L. o L ) N • _, w � I � •� a � � Nay mo 0 U 4- a) �. I o L L y i y a F— n& ' 0 Oa Q L L a 9 rceQ a VQ EL X O w r..___._ l .,.^��f' ---..: tit.: 'T^" ••• --i `b 4""•' `*: yI y•tl. ;f.. y,.rr,:'µ't1121 ,i.:' ,y I� . Y ,4...:-�.�.. �::.. nk" 1 •Y' 9���*t�T J .1 �( •.• yy µ-�. p .�• :.;h pry .�a.... , .1'•k.. .•w,:wifT,_t- - :: F+.i_ +~la.-., :.{_ e....' .'-Vey;. + . -4- .!!"--41 ..-.ti•+r,.wn%/:• a` *� 11". '.`�Y,•� .,�.. .L:�, : I• -.+. '.""..` ''''. i '_; t-Liu; (V�Q/ I • 'ddb--}t4 ... yz� LY1r ns / . . •' ]y_r-_;•._ .IJ•w .'• 'Y=' ,w'" _ �.��, ,i ::J...`I••' i a. \v-•4•;----,. •, �,. )� ! .:� . .:.:,e`�- ` .�, �t ' .lam "s • o ._ , -,, ,. • ,‘,....14,1.0... 'f rrit47,1 .4....,1,,,,,,,Ii. ,. -fier,-"' r•-•'-' 'TO17-411,44....1 Pet ` J •w, .•+c1.. �" inR -..,:-e ' .ha y._ Al. , 11,4 • 3•. .'rte f.":.V_ -- ���...ttt���""" _ , ':::.- -'- ' � =T , ; .• IN yA..... . ;': ,..�- .I._��- 5 �': d e .........-m,,. /r, ',I4:•r ".yy'�`±4 Tom.. •-' i - .'-- . , ,1 a._.�- ..1 'f% yam:...:-: - �.�..-,. �. —•'''' j',;FI.-i�- �til N. ,- _•'1., -''.- -.7'I fiM "lF. -,,,, ...-.-.. .--i ,.:•" -f. _-'" .,:- �.1; 'trr^. [ `-'! ' _ . ..•M„,a .cOlVit.x+11-:-Jf, Z r'- °O �t+..? W• r I��” - -r}. ��,y�r t _ " ....:.lam +rf _ '4 Irx- ,�.., �. yr, "•.i", ..i- :iy. -_-4.*y t4 i .:, • yp r ...:; 1`I ' "" i � irrl r. ,7? t-- . e i: F C J;i tS w�t is ,.-sc. ar (� :$"' ,:� plc ..z-44-7•. = C,„,,..„..L,A,,, _ (Ic40 .... c ,i.ii.,„,..,...,,..,,...... ._ . ,-,,,.!,..1.,,, ,_,..i, , .., , .. ,��a r e�5 ,,..,a .l d o ./ad L / L m / L I i m E a a N NO • 3-, 1.. sW.' 0'L. t ' t; a)' Q) . 0 4 L] rJ..� U ..� IV N •u.F.-. 4' 4 -4 ;ol 4: ,Q 4 • V ∎ U CD . • I m H 4 } ) a • ICA C' . a a '+- N :� N .�.' fi • a f— �.. M a o , 0 }.0 1 1;J2 � 1. y Lo ;y � a. a N to I-• �: ; -: O . . `;b :•Q� 0 (n 0 = O .�.. N a� a� :a� Q; H I i 1- cn 1I1U CL ._ O V r `+w:LrwlN rrr,w4aji. .iha '1�G9i7'Ye^] .�..... ,.. j�•+`J ..1�I,. ..,., ....,:.1.r1, ,•rI'••,..d a• q• F ..,vr•'4 ry•{1.•, 7 r +da 'Lr{.m..i•�r..r.•,--,..y..J, n:t.�: n'r�•..rec.. r r'=�.:• So--•,ter.,_— "'" .•1.• ''•i;+.v i.m.• '^u�(11 w-17,,h4. :'.r,f.... " ; �..: ■i►,i Y `.� c; �,• 911�1 i .rl.n •• rR^'�y *�•... _ i „�•..a 't1°••7y."5.e {1 t,�i;�ti •.J,.�, - -,, ,...7. . . . ' th. •:.`....—V. ' F,,_.,...,_. --14 -.•,-, ,,,,Im i,!.„;:i 4.,,gir ••,.jg- ,,,------,..".,; u.....44 ? ' "•."- - • j (�. `y+i r.t��w �4, f lru'N ry4 Arri�",1f11 a ,{•-'a ("�I •+'.iii r .s+., -v: c3 ,a,' •.. ,.* � tr, ;.•1 .-:,.u•• 4 44,1▪ '-Vl 'c{:,,fir . #� ... - :yam•• .".-•i*- Tr:+. /:F „ fie. ..R'(y • •�-..r,;,..,' '.,.•-; r 4i P. -h1` -:1=.Y• t '' - J• • ter-.+ �-y.•H..-,ti,/ ;• ..97.x r? V. 1,-••■ ��.. h'q,rp1 .fl., i ir! '-"N �4L11: --•',4:, '•h'ra.+ru .�r�1. ;i• , .o �! :.,. •�:,, = S : ~wy -1,Y -.YrY'iG,y J-.wrMf t••^^17 Jr01e1. 1�....'" � - '`"_. ... ,p�....�rii..`y`~•'•.^A'•:W',:.:.;;=L�.,.{..:„'ter.. • ,r...,Yw. ,I;::.; .. �)mot 1,Gw +......t•-.r,ii.11- -t '`I /�ail, - �F.i. Fr,;;� �F.-yµ; `+•�••- I,r7,1i•71' r�.. 1�.,7.'-•na• C,7.. :wN. rte':,■7fi1t:f7-,t-V- �: a te- • . rte•,, -,...--7-4D1.:_ .,:1w _ - ^•.. M me{:-•-+•r1 . •«. .. _. i � F` . d � r . Rd_:, .^ - ,'' 4 � =, i^ =+ ii •,,.: _� '� • aill '-t•A - Alt„-;-- ..:..:.r....;:fat.l.r.... ...--, ..,) u.knsa,an7e 1: ��ry ti �r ii Kill Z 0 -.A V! . m / r m 6 E o CD L V) OPTION #2 Basic Strategy: - Minimum Lot Size of 2 Acres - On-Site Wetwater Detention Ponds designed to CDM standards must be provided to trap pollutants Existing Lots of Record: - Lots less than 2 Acres in size can be developed at current size Cluster Development: - Minimum lot size of 1 Acre - Density cannot exceed 1 Dwelling Unit/2 Acres - Land saved by lot size reduction preserved in permanent open space Ili],of/I . ■ .-(1),.cn ,,,t:„it/J.!:iiiiil'.:',fr,4,,tiitlijvl ,,;.;": ', ; ,• 1 II, 111,111_,Iir Ill cf) .j•IRO ' i'w 7 U 'i!;'',.',.0-/ tall .,Ii.lAi lUiv;. 'r..4,. !,I, .:,••• . ,i. ' ',,,,,,:li.1 1-•i 1...• , . 1..,• . .1 ,, 1 . , ... ..lig 44, ezti,u..., lu•drr,0,It.:;• .'l th.. ,'' `in' '..._ 4- »r'"7;,. f.,-,•--ilielg1414- r',0 r Ili lit'.■'I Ir' 1 ' r ‘,'• I-':'if 1! r , 0 '''...__ImI!''. ;‘,..-In ,.,..,11■41%-,,,,iott:1:. . .; .,: ,;;;. . ; ; . !, . i ; , ; i .t-'1 :-7. IN: ' 6 .."I' '• inD.1 L'Zsi'L'1.'•N=t. . , ....J:,; 1 , I 1.11 ., .9■1. In ini .......:0.,;1;i ,;;,;,,,,";,:7. .,,-; .,;I:, . 1 1 . „, 21:1 r ' ” - , : ,.... ----: - , Cu:..'•-•'..1".,-1..! tr.' . 1 '' . i . ,,..0. . ' 1 Ce • ., n • ,. . . . .-n.be'.i • , ' , '. ■ ' I . r I . , , U U). .. ,. , rk.1.. ,,. .t,''14 n‘.I; . ' ,,r I ett . r 0 '.f(1) ,::•• •!'.w ' ::'I 1 .• , 1:N‘,., .. ,, .44 . 4-4N 0 t..' '' ' .. ,4:.. .::1',.■ 1, , . I mon . F./ i . . i 0: ,i.., s ' ...,.... (4....1, 1; ;;11.1 eq ut.l 4.: . :_1;:cp p.z. I.I. •.: 1 I..41. ;: ..; , C ' U UY r*",am.' '1 .. i-.-_, .,oli • ; 1 ; ...i.• •.-Fi ' ‘. CI .I-., CE"'s..,144 ,! :.,.,...11r m 1 i lay .. l■ 0 ii. "•••*"10 .; ; L'" • 4 ' . la N ..... , n , •LE (1)lit, ir ,i.r... .....i10741t ! L in, 4* ■4.'L. ' '1(1);7i-..1r= li'i.....L.L'L'ALM 1 ' . ' • ; C C 421 tcr, :ir.:7 , • , z ... ._,1,0 .77 ER:t .• d'. ,'.: • ' ., I .& is., ..... ..;,- .. • .ra.1, . . CD a 0 ‘ u s=.",i• . 4 El •• ' ' . ' 0 ' .' i a). i;;; • ,, - ; . ' > - ID' W iZ CD'il > 3., 6 3, ......1.. r. _. ll'm ..: , • s C < sex I •4 ic‘ttlo...i._. • ICC , I C1. 0 . 0' U. .. o'r •.r I i.'.': ■7--.7 4-":-..-.'.-......l-,.",:.i..4h.t:_.:'.,i.';:i-t.7..6.,;",.4"..'.....,'1;4.-.'.2'.Yt./'1+t--:!,,11 Z.2_.710,..r:--r,r;•4.'.4tr.L.a?_A,o>i'?mIU.4..A d.4•.,.1,011...I;471:.-77..7:-7V.';.7....:".0:%.•'-,M4.:,■.0 1.'4 7 4;-4;,"Mi•-1f.•14.1r-'t''Ii'.'.4;-4;4''.;M..:-..:'7•ri t,.'.2:.1..":"t.7-1';"...'.-,r.71"".'1.'..4,4 l i 1mt/t k:L.ri1'4 N.,'N41 in-'m■'V.:L iI0 i l I•:t''L4'.;LJr.i i ti1.1i.34L,.,1.,.14,4•1w14•i•"l..•,.!rr.:.I.4..4o-'.......zr0l,.A"...1:r.:7:....;,i.■t.'4'.:1 r.',;LI-.'7 r h i3 1 A- 1 . .. !i-4t■..:'1r4.'.,1.e1.•..+2.•-.0.....'..4,'4 1;14',.;',4'„. 411> r :Z17'7% 4!'• ..N •-■ ---,;,.--*■) al.-7 !, :s. ' '., ' lila tli ,,,IR!,.,. ,'' ,"4 4:liZrii...., .,.+.011 'fl if 1 1 I r•I'''...-,..„;3 r`44-.r'r.„. '4';.-2 '.;77.'.'-'7--- ,'•'7.--1 r'''. 'L. .+ii.•=r- 'r r' P4';# A'' ,tiii:-.. ,;111.4....:.-' ,i,,,,-4,-fJ_ v . A; ikr 1'--•-' - &... ' \ \\ ._••••,....,,,,,,,,,...., ,.c...- Alt,r-••. ifi"... Atli' .7n r•q , t.r .,,tiiiir..$,, .. .,-. , _,,,,,,T.-_,i-,., v-,,.._. ,-.,,, lli,.-., , ,,......... r , ,, 44' ' . L.•.k.6.0:4„,,,,i,,.44 4.1,...W.,..., .4nt,7 , I ,14 •••1,- .:',,",•/:0 41.L'irr't'I'L 1,,r.:-44:"."."-'1.Li.1, -..\:::......7.7-1,72,' 141,.l''....„._ ,-L' O.,..•4.',a tylcovi..!It ' 4 t., .L-• I'1,.....: .:i;af.:4-,;,,......,--.'-le:. , _..t-.%44 ..'......4.1 ...... .'"'1 ._.... -' 1111.44'-'.7 4:`-4, r7i•-■ 2ii 11,1„,.0 itj , ,. r : iim.: 17.'6.:.:;1 . ioit - .dm mtn.104 . 7 -';'27.; .ftgile.44-!...... '41tr":il rr, ...-7 j 1\ • r■, 1 Nr 440,,t1 1.'' 1-,,v,'-'W 4"!""'li;4 1 -!i -...41..'1.-1----■:i: .,. .._ ;: .e,.. jr 1.t:- 11. .......... ,L- A,4„,h:e4,0.1-. ':--,...licr-'; -- 'r,' 2:..4, v-..t---, "7;1.1,,k _Nil.pt ' 01 '0 tr....TT.,• • ..p ., _ -.or" ^• .;:rr-, lea. '' zfart-4■0 .7.:-,:,1/4--'1'- k'r L.-.-,-;:: '-‘' ----.■0 Ir'' lur .....„. 1 0, ,,,,, ,,..,.?:,.,!, ti h.- :, ,,- - ,••-•--.--.....-• I _.„,,, - 7-•,:.4.; '. #,-,,' .Y.---.---0;;-.,-, - ;‘.. ....,,j- -,..--, -...,.........L.„.' I. 01,,i4J--il: It•I ',... ''.1. . ,:,...• z,•:-.-.:J,,-4.:4-.-_,•••.,....7... .„,.,...47 ../4/,_ .e., ,,,..._ , vii,„1-......,,,..... .0.......r. ,0 ri 44, .. .... ,.. ..,„.„• rv? '.. r ...4 iz:5 177:4'..- ,-,:z.A.,....•---- -,,...,.-----.- , ..,,,,..- ,-----....., „„,iii -..,...--.77;1:13 ml.. ........,„,„ , ,,:.. ..-r-... - .---:•:::---r tit ,-1.3• ••• - '',-'• ' - .S. .,,,,,, .;44--.4e.'.--7-'••. .': 1-.. .1'7-77', dr-14V4'.-4'": '4 ' ' 'r ' ' it;11.1P11' ■ ' qv; ,,;c. r:7:-.71‘..'-rzl'h -'77.7.-..k aot;•;',"' :- ' ,=..-.:-...„-:—y ''''''-'-j..,,,-"'-t• ,ftir' '1;7141 '1 ' t'd'I'' ' : I ,.. _ ..1-,:,.,;:.„ I r.-,,:.---.,s• - 11!...??2:tit ....,.. . -- -,-,.,' ., •,--.--, .-_:-.....-„,-I,;..e• , I: h .1 . ..,,,‘,,,,-1-, , :,.,••• - ....-1~ .....4.--.-• v--...- - ''''',''A •=.',..-41, r:-..'-'• ' . L';',,,,,..;.5 '. "--'''cati,:.(Or 4 ' ilillill.•V .4 CZ,llr•Z' r: . 44' ;, ' •/•• 44 '.7-Lri . ."`'''• •--. - . ......... .4:••tt;•,...„Fr..-.- r ....-:,„;.,- .-'2.-, .6W-"4"' _.......' ''-, -.2.5.4%;•..41. • '',..-+- ..• -VI-' '.•SP"dill ''•I ,,,vikc,,F.irr ' 'C.; 'SP ,, 4 .. " ..--7...1_:_t ,,,I.,.•_1` ,,,.i, i .'.,.,,,,iiii.c..111 4.4 '''',...::.;...„_-.L.:1•7_,L,....1.-".'..,...3' .,',-,. josAp,.. ,!.,-;-,,-L_;i..,. .,.'.. /..„, ' I Iti.,,,,T...•,--._,Itit>, ''44.1-.1.4-,5 ;.. , z- .,, '4 - .„9„4.,',.,Abd,..--•••• '''', 0 l'fir..: 47,37 L.....`. ...',..)k 'r,-." ,t II.,4i\f:••- H 1 . 7' 0'1;4 r ,-.71-7,Tolgt ‘1444.„ , - ..- lic - - • ..- ---,-.- li.;.-- -- ..,-• ..../.rn- .-. -„...-1a .. -,--r• ..c 4.4^.,,, ..a....-,..,7,- -, 4,4...ii4.--.4-..—:,,..,..".,.,.„,,,,,r - r4,/ 'IA.„..-.v• ' „;:"4_,..2",r, Nit-:_ -....:71 a.m.; 019E1 s__—_-.-- . . . , .,_-.......,,,,,,,ei,-.,...,—,...34.,,,,,,,,4...:.:„T.,,....-. J.4.1-_-1,•_-,9 j. i 'a •-t.-- ...-........-...t■„,„. • -7, .• ,,...1.-*pi .44,..,t....,,,,in„,....„,'14,a40.44.aim.... _...„......, ' ' C`r.'n,. L''•. ''',.."'"- -"'.,n„ i ..4 74 4"......ilit--.L.-4_-4....-Ltrj '''''''-"L'',144,4.44i ..:1'..''r-L'rit...1:1.4--LLI-Li ,',, 4. • - r-...4'‘'''..r"-•''''''''''' ,71 / -, 1 111:4, I 4,1 Irl IiiN (4.4 777.477r. `N. _, :7'21:...i':.; -.11111./31. ..,...M77,... .... Tr.rr 40' .■-■1;7-,::.• '.....t-t•!"-'''',,,.......-,44''...; '..'...,..-----------''''1, , ..,..i.,".....!-,r-nrrat,,,k._„„ 111,,. .. ,--.•7,171r., ..,.....,,, .„,,.....2....,..--,- :7':-.: 'L.-,.4....z .•...`.4. .,,,-", •,-,,-._,L.:LL."4.07.5;L ----. a. `,7: ,;/, 41,40,..illtr . '0441 .ing k-7-,5..-■• ..."--. '''L'J-•:a• /1/-".-1 '.• ..-- -.''''''''''( . '- ..,- .,. .11;4:-/:.:4- 4 .,....04•Ir...,....I. mil. 11/ .,,,..5...,. .,:,...17-),,,--,_ /. 7-- s;::','-■ p•-.—,i:::„-_,1,i; s,s, —„,,I.r. ......- .1.;,...--- ,. , 1, ,-,9 '-' ' Lb- 44,4.44. Nes4.441401k. tV-.7.1E74,:-:.2:::-:-.--=--41,-.4C-1::,■,,:a".7)..A-4., ',- -. ,4,,. -• !,,-,•• - -, ,..- ..,....- ,.. . -V,b . '' ,'4,.. --- -,-„,_` '----.:4;:::..-=.11F,,-;;;-, .-:, ' ?.•--.-4 v7"--1.4,iii-,,,,, ''`F. 41 .k.444, iie4„....... i TI12 -i: ‘ri^''--..::It • IllA:1 ti a 1 ri'"z","I'v:".''`'-'11'."--'-7-L-4-1.."-'-yi: ''1 d,'LV4 ..•''.;'''''''y.;-:'43:'''iir tr:-.,A. 4 - - 3. '' .7?,.-I T •,*p 4 4 ti I Irri-,-1747=-' '1:'.--7---..-y-,'T. ..V;i4,r,:.1 t.i ',r,,•f•-:'•...1•-•4. .. ..-. . 'WI* ••• •. . ':it4.1..W...:_il. trfl4_,4n. lit.l•r;•17#17 ..."r----*7.r- 7 1 .'r -.'- ..--'''.'-'"7:1' ''1 P4.f, . '• t'- ., -,4 ..:;,.--•t.....1 , •'.'"-.`''."....'',A?"... . -- '' . .4,c 4,Z1 I "'i r•••• —' '..""...-••• ■■-- --..--. -.i:•v'-- •10 11 -'4.1. 4 ., •If II• 1. .-•••'..11.1'.. . a _, 6 ,__.,., „........._,r ., , .., ,, , ,,, ,.,in , ... , ' t - ' • 4 r. ...4.,,,*(. -1,77- • .,- i ;---,t-f_-..--',,- :'-'L', -...„ 4 4' I 4, ' , ..."Vr r r r A,.. 441 4, 4. 1.0.I,,...,I •..ri' - r-, .... ..., " r"giltr.9,4.- -.....19:10,14 L.,...4,•`!"7"."4-7-,-"1".1.i = 0 ''`' I Mittl9t1".471, 1 -,••,-,w,av,--:;:,_,'';,"-'-‘--tli-, •-; .1't'l 1.1 4 7 4 14 4. g.4'''''-. r.--.2,-."--L--,•-•.'-----".r'LF a .. ' lk,4V` ■•,,N"'.;•,1:6,-„k,,',.',•trl'::',. 1-!.--,'.1-A ',,./.i'''1. . V,111 .,.. "114 --ttn n. 1 ' - , •--••••••,y.i, •..•-•,. , ,n,-Ai -,.•••" ',•Alt•1 .4 ' ' .•.•-. - -'.-- i' .'.-.1.•••'.• ' •-.'•.„ Ilkl\74.11•'tbALII.ilit r 0 6 . c •-•.;•,„ -,-,,..‘.,,,..-1•••=.."- • -•, -•,-,,-,....:,,,- ,, „,,•.., ,•-,t,,0 ,, ..- ,,,, .. - , \ r.Z 13 .- o ---- '''-.-:',',1:`-••-•''- ,1'...,,,,,..'•11;miv,,A6111..4,.1.40,i )) ,,11,1,, „ .1-'0.,..--,..,•..;' ..4qt.. .,, .,.-.J.;,..,'..,,,..:.-.:.., .-.; \I . 0_ .944,-. - ...,.:•..•:,1.7,07,13.:1.,,,,Tt„..;,..1::-,..,,_;_,. ••' In -o • . • • -., Paiu ''• -,.t '`411_1k...5,4"'". " 0 . . 0)i . . 0 . 14- I) _,_, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Any surface which does not absorb rain, including buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and parking areas. Both paved (asphalt,concrete) and unpaved (gravel, crushed stone, soil) surfaces are considered to be impervious. Proposal #1 By Watershed Work Group Where Impervious Lot Size Surface May Is: Not Exceed: 5.0 acres 4.0% or above 2.0 to 4.9 acres 6.096 Less than 12.0% 2.0 acres Proposal #2 By County Planning Staff Sliding Scale (abbreviated below) - Higher Impervious Surface Limits Where Impervious Lot Size Surface May IS: Not Exceed: 5.0 acres 6.O% 4.5 acres 7.0% 4.0 acres 8.0% 3.5 acres 9.0% 3.0 acres 10.0% 2.5 acres 11.O% 2.0 acres 12.0% LOT CONFIGURATIONS w L w w L , L Narrow Typical Square Wide Width (Ft) Length (Ft) 5-ACRE LOTS Narrow 165 1320 Typical 330 660 Square 467 467 Wide 660 330 2-ACRE LOTS Narrow 130 670 Typical 209 417 Square 295 295 Wide 417 209 A COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS AND FIVE-ACRE LOTS ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data Total Lots Number Compliance Percent Compliance (SqFt) Road Dwelling Two-Acre Five-Acre Two-Acre Five-Acre Two-Acre Five-Acre Class Area Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots Public 1000 26 42 6 21 23.08% 50.00% Public 1500 26 42 4 18 15.38% 42.86% Public 2000 26 42 2 15 7.69% 35.71% Public 2500 26 42 1 12 3.85% 28.57% A Private 1000 26 42 10 27 38.46% 64.29% A Private 1500 26 42 7 23 26.92% 54.76% A Private 2000 26' 42 4 19 15.38% 45.24% A Private 2500 26 42 2 16 7.69% 38.10% B Private 1000 26 42 14 35 53.85% 83.33% 8 Private 1500 26 42 10 32 38.46% 76.19% 8 Private 2000 26 42 6 28 23.08% 66.67% B Private 2500 26 42 3 24 11.54% 57.14% C Private 1000 26 42 18 37 69.23% 88.10% C Private 1500 26 42 16 35 61.54% 83.33% C Private 2000 26 42 12 33 46.15% 78.57% C Private 2500 26 42 8 30 30.77% 71.43% TOTALS 416 672 123 405 29.57% 60.27% STREAM BUFFERS - PREVENT DEVELOPMENT FROM ENCROACHING ON STREAMS - MINIMIZE STREAM CHANNEL EROSION - SPREADS RUNOFF IN "SHEETFLOW" PATTERN & ENCOURAGES INFILTRATION INTO THE SOIL Required Buffer Widths REQUIRED BUFFER ZONE WIDTHS ALONG PERENNIAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED Type of Groundcover Grass Woods Slope (Ft) (Ft) 2% to 4.9% 100 50 5% to 6.9% 150 100 7% to 9.9% 150 . 100 10% to 14.9% 200 100 15% or greater 250 150 UNIVERSITY LAKE .TIZISFMU \-.;\ - a ,,-" - ., P - • CTED(WATERSHED `; M:o,;. TRICT in �(« ..-, ,. 0 ER AY I: (Existing) ' Vs , ���ii,, m:,,Yes •" 4, .sh, 1'4' l';'' «`:.y.y', z:' - fir ;" 44. 4‘. 1.s.:( J., ,,t51a,,,,,,,, ..,,,, „ .517,,,qv .....ch.c :_..., » ,_ r.., ' °4z ,, .:, "C RBA ■ S r' erg:: -'�'ia - .;.4 r ��'� `� Ilk lotir ......, G G R i\ _ Y` 1 S_•A ,, . 7.3„ �?w'r-:m.,. _., _ �� ,' J J .1. N a:.&�yz �r 4 I reseg row ..p. ___N\ 1 if W - ER QUALITY ULW = —_ . . '. — 1 ITICAL AREA UNIVERSITY - " .,-- _µ-.F. --- ,„;--= - 0 ERLAY DISTRICT (Existing) • — - : _WATERSHED 0� -,, t I- "` ' -_-_- m. _ x DISTRICT (Prop . + -- RB -- RURAL BUFFER UNDERLYING DISTRICT (Existing) 74 Z RiC 1-1 161g 1-1 AA)0/1 '1/ p7 ----G4594=60= 11,1, 6roecri ,fr 3 Rm./0,v ;V pvHD CAvoz .57 C5-011 0 y L-z, c Geack 7, r I qki e 4•14, gr_ A.-, //. , .74-" v4, 41/, . /7 ilaropcv qekeei /r 2.4/_ , I I 1 , . . , 1\ , 1 i I il , I rl , •-,,, , ,I , . :1 . : la, kit\c.stkl . ... ,. ,. , . . ,..—....... , ,, ., . .. ,, .,................_ .,, „, ,, ,1 , . . ... , , , . .. .i . . _ .„ „, .114.„1 ,,,Iirlf.i 1,, ,V. ' ,,1• ( I , . V-.) ,fik. 1 - •-• •1 , • , , . ' i i ' •, .111P1' . , 11 1 tl . . I I, ---,... ,■■■■■■■■■MMEM1111111111111111111' '010.11.0.411■111 / / L/7/ / /44 g=t,m,5L...e7re4.en I A 0 ,/ - e 7s- n 0 v-sajte.),1 ,/ (a,ctt 91 Xtte o y u) -ESLACk: 004.04ICA) YOTEk-S / .Cci..t.; V A. G1-62 Ccito /7. ° N Skalutdet I/ z ,7/4,16(6( ,C1/1 6r-1;-'4( ‘ 4..°76/11, 11\1001 RC \& , 7dePZ 010 ie ,0q47. -ommmn M w ry c__......g. ', N.*.,____ , ..... , ''''S. \\ \.;" Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 COMMENTS TO THE JOINT PUBL.IC HEARING ON UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION Carrboro Elementary School Carrboro, North Carolina February 2A, 1990 Presented by Verla C. Insko, Chairean Orange Water and Sewer Authority GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS VERLA INSKO. I' M SPEAKING AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY. A COPY OF THESE COMMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT: THE JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING. AS YOU KNOW, OWASA OWNS THE 570 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER IN UNIVERSITY LAKE. WE SUPPLY MORE THAN 55, 000 PEOPLE IN OUR SERVICE AREA. AT THE REQUEST OF CARRBORO, CHAPEL HILL, AND ORANGE COUNTY, OWASA ENGAGED THE FIRM OF CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE TO PROVIDE A RELIABLE BASIS r IMPLEMENTING LAND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS IN THE WATERSHED. THE FINAL CDM REPORT WAS SUBMITTED IN MARCH 1989. THE OWASA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THAT CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE REPORT, AND ENCOURAGES THE TOWNS AND COUNTY TO USE IT AS THE TECHNICAL .BASIS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM. THE BOARD REAFFIRMS ITS COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY DRINKING WATER THROUGH A COMBINATION OF WATERSHED PROTECTION AND WATER TREATMENT. THE PREFERRED AND SAFEST WAY TO PROTECT WATER (CONTINUED) An Equal Opportunity Employer f PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS 2 FEBRUARY 28, 1990 QUALITY IS TO USE REASONABLE MEANS TO LIMIT POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS FROM ENTERING UNIVERSITY LAKE. REGARDING SPECIFIC WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES, THE BOARD ENDORSES THE "13 POINT AGREEMENT" ADOPTED BY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORK GROUP LAST OCTOBER. THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT APPEARS TO BE A WORKABLE CONSENSUS OF TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE WATER QUALITY GOAL OF "MINIMAL DEGRADATION OR PREVENTING SIGNIFICANT FUTURE DETERIORATION IN WATER QUALITY. " IN ADDITION TO THESE COMMENTS, I AM SUBMITTING SEVERAL SUPPORTING EXHIBITS: A. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ENDORSING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED STUDY, MARCH, 1989. (A COPY OF THE REPORT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED BY REFERENCE. ) B. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND DISCUSSION PAPER APPROVED BY THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING THE 13 POINT PROPOSED AGREEMENT OF THE JOINT ORANGE-CHATHAM COOPERATIVE PLANNING WORK GROUP. C. CORRESPONDENCE, WITH ATTACHMENTS, FROM OWASA' S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER REGARDING OWASA' S STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY' S SLIDING SCALE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS PROPOSED ON FEBRUARY 5, 1990. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ON OWASA STAFF FOR ANY FURTHER INFORMATION YOU MAY NEED BEFORE THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED STUDY, MARCH, 1989 WHEREAS, the State of tlorth Carolina has granted to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) a leasehold on University Lake and ownership of the water contained therein, which the Authority holds in public trust; and WHEREAS, it is now and has been for many years the established practice of OWASA and the public water supply industry in general to rely both on source protection and treatment technology to assure the quality of its product; and WHEREAS, OWASA employs a dependable and proven technology at its treatment plant, but relies upon local governments for protection of water quality in University Lake; and WHEREAS, OWASA engaged the nationally recognized consulting firm of Camp Dresser & McKee to provide the local governments with a reliable and technical information basis for selecting and implementing land management controls in the watershed; and WHEREAS, Camp Dresser & McKee submitted its final report entitled University Lake Watershed Study, March, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . That the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority endorses and supports the_ findiags and recommendations of Camp Dresser & McKee's University Lake Watershed Study, March, 1989. 2. That the Authority reaffirms its commitment to provide high quality drinking water through a combination of source protection and water treatment, and hereby considers the preferred and safest way to protect water quality is to use reasonable means to limit possible contaminants from entering the water reservoir. 3. That the Authority encourages Orange County, Chatham County, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill to use the Camp Dresser & McKee report as the technical basis for a comprehensive University Lake watershed protection program. Adopted this 11th day of October, 1989. CIA-4-1-4-• Verla C. Insko, Ch irman ATTEST: 6:4P1 14:41411.‘") Riley Wg-on Secreta Treasurer EXHIBIT B Orange Water and Sewer Authority OWASA P.O. Box Jones Ferry Road 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 November 9, 1989 HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Judith Wegner, Chairman Orange-Chatham Cooperative Planning Work Group 301 West Main Street Carrboro, NC 27510 Dear Ms. Wegner: SUBJECT: PROPOSED AGREEMENT - UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION CTION Per your October 19 letter, the OWASA Board of Directors reviewed the Work Group's proposed University Lake watershed dated 10/13/89, y atershed protection Board chose to endorse the attached discussion ion pa r - OWASA staff, Board's adopting a resolution, the as the Boards response to the Proposed Agreement. by We appreciate the Work Group's many hours of effort in f a University Lake protection plan, and look forward its oatits implementation. to Yours very truly, Verla Insko, Chairman OWASA Board of Directors Enc. An Equal OPPottunity Employer UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSED AGREED OF THE JOINT ORANGE-CHATHAM COOPERATIVE PLANNING WORK GROUP A Discussion Paper Approved by the OWASA Board of Directors - November 8, 1989 Back round In November, 1987, Orange County,I Nnvem Agreement. Carrboro, and Chapel Hill entered into a Joint Planning a study Among other items, it included a request for OWASA additional development.y of University Lake watershed's "carrying to All parties agreed not to annex capacity" for watershed for a period of 90 days a completion of the study. y portion of the watershed and not to seek or approve water and sewer service extensions jointly discuss watershed 90 planning days after f cod Theyoal into the which might be incorporated into local ordinances or the Joint They also agreed protection standards Jo t Pl and regulations After completion of the Camp nt Planning Agreement. jurisdictions and Chatham Countyebegan�a McKee of meetings of the Orange-Chatham Cooperative Planning Work study in March, 1989, the three under the auspices a coordinated protection program to be carried out The goal was it formulate participated as an observer and technical resource. by each locality. OWASA On October 12, 1989 the Judith Work Group reached a consensus that Watershed Alderman on ( 10/13789)."Judith Wegner as the was transcribed by Proposed Agreement r University Lake document of Directors for before the Work Group's final meeting been transmitted to the local governing boards and the OWASA Board the OWASA Board instructed staff to p=spa=eu scheduled a for November IS view and comment 8 meeting, at which time the Board would discuss On October 26, resolution requested by Ms. Wegner. paper for its November the content of a possible Comments on The Overall A reement The Proposed Agreement appears to be a workable consensus of issues that, if implemented, will achieve CDM's recommend of "minimal degradation or rec ommended ter a quality Policy of "minimal Preventing significant future deterioration inwater It is noteworthy that all parties followed closely Planning Agreement, and y the process Joint Planning n the technical tool and used OWASA's CDM study prescribed itintended in the watershed policy-making for its intenakd protection program. The Proposed Agreement 8 basis for a University Lake the Work Group closely Bement and the deliberations of Y paralleled the fundamental formulation of a water approach of the CDM report: • . structural versus goal, ocontrolboptions, Y a systematic clustered consideration of clustered development, Pment, and wastewater disposal strategies, 2 The Basic Strategy of 5-acre minimum lot size, impervious surface limits and A individual on-site septic systems is consistent with the CDM recommendations for a nonstructural program. The Cluster Alternative is a variation of CDM's cluster configuration proposed to the Work Group by local and OWASA staff. The proposed grandfathering of existing lots, the provision for a limited number of smaller lots, and Chatham County's 2-acre density were evaluated by OWASA staff using the CDM computer model, and yielded water quality estimates consistent with the goal of minimal degradation. All impervious surface limits specified in the Proposed Agreement are the same as those modeled. The CDM model provided a valuable and appropriate technical tool for testing scenarios generated through the political process. The Proposed Agreement also represents a thoughtful - and thoroughly debated - sharing of responsibility for watershed protection among all three local parties, as well as OWASA. Orange County and Carrboro would exercise responsibility for land use controls, but Chapel Hill would share any legal and compensatory costs if a court found that the watershed regulations constituted a taking (5.b) . OWASA's public stewardship role is recognized through a proposal to fund certain watershed protection and conservation activities (5.d). Specific Items Involving GIASA Three elements of the Proposed Agreement pertain specifically to OWASA, and should be considered by the Board of Directors. Item 5.d requests OWASA "to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in particularly sensitive land, or take other appropriate steps to, encourage preservation of water quality within the county." This is consistent with OWASA's stewardship role of managing a valuable community resource held in public trust, and is much more appropriate than earlier suggestions that OWASA underwrite a guarantee of private property values in the watershed. The stewardship role - apd use of OWASA funds - would logically include the Authority's existing agricultural cost-share program with participating farmers in University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds, and might extend to water quality monitoring and other special technical or educational activities. Creation of a specific Watershed Protection Fund could be addressed through OWASA's budget and CIP cycle next Spring. Item 7 requests OWASA "to conduct a study of the advisability of making public water services available within the University Lake watershed," and "to report to the joint planning jurisdictions by April 30, 1991 on its findings and recommendations." This element arose from concerns about the fairness of regulating the property of residents who might not be allowed to use the drinking water that the regulations were intended to protect. OWASA could commission or conduct a special study similar to CDM's watershed study - with advisory participation by local citizens, elected officials, and technical/legal experts. Such an effort would, by necessity, consider related issues of sewer service. For example, would water • service stimulate a greater demand for sewer extensions, either through accelerated development pressure or through a higher rate of septic system . 3 failures caused by increased residential water use? Could OWASA le all conventional sewer service to an area where it provides water? leg all deny for wastewater disposal might be available? Overall, would the What tour water service compromise the goals of watershed protection? If OWASA were to conduct such a study, the Board of Directors might consider a further extension Hof its "Interim Policy on Water and Sewer to University Lake Watershed." Originally adopted in April, 1 987, this interim have to ban on service extensions was re-adopted-in April, 1989, and will ex Service 1990 unless otherwise acted upon by the Board. pare in April, Unlike the previous elements, Item 8 does not specifically states that "public sewer will not be extended into the University Lake watershed to address a public health hazard or upon agreement address OWASA, but jurisdictions." If this provision is acceptable to the local ajurisdi shed should be incorporated explicitly into the Joint Planning Y joint planning use plans, zoning, and subdivision ordinances of Carrboro and jurisdictions, i. OWASA's Mission and Goals Statement, adopted in December,Agreement and the land commitment "to be guided by the land management plans approved d Orange County. ecampeo, 19 by includes g government the units in the area the Authority serves." In order for OWASA fulfill those units must be clear and unequivocal in their land management ement plans. The decision to prohibit sewer service in certain areas 11 this management policy rightfully executed by local jurisdictions with land authority - not by OWASA. ens �s a land d management It appears, therefore, that Items 5.d and 7 are the only elements of the Proposed that directly affect OWASA. The Board of Directors could, to the extent legally feasible, commit to these items. °posed Spa The Proposed Agreement appears to be a workable consensus of technical and issues that, if implemented, will achieve CDM's recommended water quality"minimal degradation or preventing significant future deterioration"policy University Lake's water quality. The 9 tY goal aids in reaching the Proposed Agreement. sSpecific elements model ring toluablA appear to be consistent with the Authority's Mission and Goals, and can Ab accommodated within OWASA's overall program. It appears a Watershed Protection Fund and institute a study of the issue be providing water service to the University Lake watershed.Ppears that OWASA could study would consider various options available for wastewater disposal. s ny decision to prohibit sewer service in University Lake watershed necessity, such a explicitly incorporated into the land management plans of Carrboro Orange atershed should be County. ro and Orange immr EXHIBIT C Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road I OWASA I P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Moses Carey Mayor Jonathan des Mayor Eleanor Einnaird FROM: Everett Billingsley DATE: February 15, 1990 SUBJECT: University Lake Water Quality At its February 14, 1990 meeting, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority's Board of Directors discussed the contents of the attached letter of February 12, 1990, from Everett Billingsley to John Link. The Board voted unanimously in agreement with the concepts of the letter especially the points regarding the application of the Camp Dresser & McKee's model and the degradation of University Lake water quality. _- _ The Board instructed that the letter be promptly forwarded to the Intergovernmental Work Group and the leadership of the County and the Towns as an official statement of concern regarding University Lake water quality parameter concerns. Everett Billingsley Executive Director mw Enc. cc: (v/enc.) Mr. John Link, Jr. (w/enc.) M$. Sonna Loewenthal (v/enc.) Mr. Robert Morgan An Equal Opportunity Employer 7--.."\ Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road IOVVASA P.O. Box 366 - Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 February 12, 1990 Mr. John Link, Jr. Orange County Manager Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear John: Marvin Collins provided to Ed Holland the County's proposed impervious surface standards for the University Lake watershed. Ed has analyzed this proposal along with other scenarios that have been suggested since last year. The projected impacts on water quality in University Lake have been charted. The results are of serious concern. As various modifications have been proposed to accommodate one or another land use concern, the movement has been progressively away from the objective of preserving water quality in University Lake at an acceptable level of further degradation. It is important to revisit the CDM report both as to the model that was developed and the land use criteria the study suggested. The latest County alternative departs from the universe of alternatives that can be directly examined by the CDM model. The land use concerns that are being mitigated under the recent proposal deserve attention. However, it is important to realize that once a scenario is proposed, and possibly approved, that is outside the responsiveness of the CDM model, the foundation of the scenario is uncertain and further departures may be subjectively made. Therefore, I urge a return to the use of the model which was developed from the CDM study. Secondly, the CDM report assumed a level of further degradation of University Lake water quality. I have always ben uneasy about the acceptability of even the CDM proposed level of degradation. During certain climatological and hydrological situations algae in University Lake become prominent and obnoxious. Water taste and odor are adversely affected and water treatment is more difficult and expensive. Even with more intense operating attention, finished water quality diminishes. With this existing experience, if we are at a threshold level, further degradation may have a much greater adverse impact than has been anticipated. In summary, I suggest that ( 1) the CDM model be used to evaluate scenarios in order to provide as reliable a decision basis as available and (2) that increasing degradation levels beyond that An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. John Link, Jr. February 12, 1990 Page 2 suggested as acceptable by CDM may create pollution of University Lake that jeopardize the use of the lake as a water supply during certain periods of the year. Very y yours, Everett Billingsley Executive Director daw cc: Ed Holland Board of Directors • Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road I OWASA J P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors FROM: Everett Billingsley DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: University Lake Watershed Study The attached memorandum of February 9, 1990 from Ed Holland analyzes a series of proposals that have been made for revised land use regulations on the University Lake watershed. This systematic comparison shows, particularly in the graphs, the degradation impact of the various scenarios. With the extensive involvement and representation of the staffs and elected officials in the development of the Camp Dresser & McKee study, it seems tardy to suggest changes that would allow such major increases in degradation of projected water quality as does the most recent proposal by the Orange County Planning Department. Since the County's proposal cannot be evaluated as directly- by the CDM model as other scenarios, it creates a particularly tenuous situation. If a scenario outside this modeling capability is chosen, the decision basis is substantially weaker and further proposals for either relaxing or tightening standards are more difficult to evaluate technically. Assuming that investigated alternatives for land use scenarios will be kept within the CDM model capability, particular attention is warranted in examining the projected degrees of water quality degradation for each scenario. The CDM recommendation for basic 5-acre density assumed a continuous but constrained degradation of water quality. All other scenarios that have been proposed accelerate the degradation of the community water supply. It is important to reflect again on how the CDM model and recommended scenarios were developed, the pertinence of the CDM model as a planning tool, and the degree of departure each proposed alternative scenario represents from the consultant's recommendation. An Equal Opportunity Employer Board of Directors February 12, 1990 Page 2 I suggest this item be discussed in the February 14, 1990 agenda because of two upcoming meetings. On February 15, 1990, the Intergovernmental Work Group will meet at 7:30 P.M. in the Lincoln Center. On February 28, 1990, there will be a Public Hearing on amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan and to the County's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, at 7:30 P.M. in the Carrboro Elementary School. Al • Everett Billingsley Executive Director mm Encs. cc: Mr. John Link, Jr. c'N Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road 1 OW. ASA I P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Everett Billingsley FROM: Ed Holland DATE: February 9, 1990 SUBJECT: University Lake Watershed, Impervious Surface Standards Proposed by Orange County, February 5, 1990 These comments and data represent a more systematic review of the water quality implications of Orange County' s proposed impervious limits than was available when Marvin Collins called on me during the February 5 Commissioners' meeting. Oranve County Findinas Marvin analyzed a large number of hypothetical development configurations for different 5- and 2-acre parcels. Results showed that only 60 percent of-- the design configurations for 5-- acre lots would comply with a 4% impervious limit, and only 30 percent of the 2-acre patterns would comply with a 6% limit. The average imperviousness of the 5-acre configurations was 4. 03%; the 2-acre average was 7%. County staff have recommended a sliding scale of impervious limits for different lot sizes. The maximum would be 6% for 5- acre lots, and 12% for 2-acre lots, rather than the 4% and 6% recommended by Camp Dresser & McKee and by the October 1989 13- Point Agreement. Additionally, the County proposes stricter site design standards that will require roads, homesites, and septic tank fields to be located outside of stream buffers. Effects on University Lake Water Quality In its present form, the CDM watershed model cannot directly predict the water quality effects of the County' s proposal, because the model contains built-in assumptions of imperviousness and lot size that differ from the County' s. The model does provide an indirect estimate. Table 1 lists total impervious coverage and chlorophyll concentrations predicted by the CDM model for a variety of land An Equal Opportunity Employer Memorandum 2 Impvervious Limits February 9, 1990 use scenarios. Except for Scenario (7) , which is the County' s new proposal, all were calculated with the lot size/impervious surface associations used previously (4% for 5-acres, 6% for 2- acres, etc. ) . As noted in the Table, total imperviousness for Scenario (7) was computed with the corresponding averages reported by the County. Chlorophyll concentrations for that scenario were not computed directly, but were interpolated from the graph in Figure 2. Figure 1 is a plot of these same data points, except for Scenario (7) , which was omitted for the reasons cited above. All were calculated directly with the CDM model. The figure is a good illustration of the general relationship between imperviousness and water quality: degradation (chlorophyll) increases with imperviousness. Figure 2 is an expanded view of a portion of Figure 1. It shows the regressive effects on water quality resulting from incremental changes to CDM' s original 5-acre recommendation. It also provides an estimate of the water quality effects of the County' s proposed higher impervious limits. The 26+ ug/L- chlorophyll interpolation is based on two assumptions: 1. A direct relationship between total imperviousness and chlorophyll in the range displayed by Figure 2; and, 2. Linearity between the two data points bracketing the "FEB PLAN. " Given the consistent pattern of Figures 1 and 2, that shows chlorophyll increasing with imperviousness, the estimate for Scenario (7) appears to be reasonable. What Does It All Mean? As noted in the CDM report, all future land use scenarios will degrade University Lake. Figure 3 shows deterioration in terms of the lake' s present condition, as represented by chlorophyll. University Lake is substantially worse than the Cane Creek Reservoir. Even the original 5-acre CDM recommendation (Scenario 3) represents a 17 percent deterioration in water quality - a level that is supposed to represent the "minimal degradation" goal. After adjusting the original 5-acre recommendation to reflect Chatham County' s 2-acre zoning, grandfathering all existing lots of record, allowing property owners to create up to 5 two-acre lots, and finally mitigating the administrative and political burden of stringent impervious limits, the "February Plan" (Scenario 7) represents a future water quality that is 36 percent Memorandum 3 Impvervious Limits February 9, 1990 worse than today' s. Figure 2 shows that imperviousness and chlorophyll levels associated with the February Plan are closer to the 2—acre development scenario than to the original 5—acre recommendation. CDM staff advise that the watershed model' s margin of error is about 10 to 15 percent. In other words, predicted water quality differences of less than 10 or 15 percent may not be "real. " Incremental differences between successive land use scenarios in Figure 3 are probably not real in a statistical sense, but the apparent difference between the "February Plan" (Scenario 7) and the original 5—acre CDM recommendation (Scenario 3) is notable. As stewards of the community' s water supply, can we responsibly endorse a plan that the CDM model indicates will produce twice as much deterioration than the report originally recommended? 211, Edward A. Holland, AICP Research b Planning Administrator • r � TABLE 1. LAND USE, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, AND PREDICTED CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CHLOROPHYLL LAND USE SCENARIO (% OF TOTAL WATERSHED) (UG/L) ( 1 ) ALL FOREST 0. 5 10. B (2) EXISTING LAND USE 3. 6 19. 2 (3) 5-ACRE LOTS, PER CDM 6. 3 22. 4 (4) 5-ACRE LOTS, 2 ACRES IN CHATHAM 6. 4 22. 7 (5) EXISTING LOTS GRANDFATHERED 6. 7 23. 4 ("CDM PLUS") (6) PLUS 5 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 7. 1 24. 5 (THE "OCTOBER PLAN") (7) INCREASED IMPERVIOUS LIMITS 7. 4 26. 2 - (THE "FEBRUARY PLAN") (8) ALL 2-ACRE LOTS 7. 6 27. 4 (9) CURRENTLY APPROVED L. U. PLANS 8. 1 (10) ALL 1-ACRE LOTS 11. 9 32. 4 NOTES: ( 1 ) Assumes no development in watershed; 95. 5% forest, 0. 5% roads. (2) Actual land use, as estimated by CDM, using characteristic impervious coverage with each land use: 4% for 5-acre lots, 6% for 2-acre, 12% for 1-acre, etc. (3) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 5 acres. (4) Same as (3) , except that Chatham County develops at 1 unit per 2 acres. (Continued) Table 1 Notes Continued (5) Same as (4) , except that existing lots smaller than 5 acres are developed at their platted densities. (6) Same as (5) , except that owners may create up to 5 2-acre lots from existing parcels. (This scenario was proposed in the October 1989 13-Point Agreement. ) (7) Same as (6) , except that average impervious coverage is increased from 6 to 7% for two-acre lots, and decreased from 20 to 15% for half-acre lots, as proposed by Orange County on February 5, 1990. Chlorophyll concentrations were interpolated from values derived with the CDM model. (8) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 2 acres. (9) Assumes 90% buildout according to currently approved local land use and zoning plans. (10) Assumes 90% buildout at density of 1 unit per acre. N I- . - O - cl W ^y CC V a - W 0 o Q CC a) •I - 61 0 r W CO Q % O� � H W r� 4U OJ ` t D ► 1 1 47 a , CM . 09 t CC co ► CI I CI IX Z W g �, ■■ u7 ,' 0 N ` . "' !E — eo re I W 4 0 - W - j I ? M � � O - 't W CC wa O J I 0 � N T CC 0 0 J — LT J a 1 I I 1 I I , 0 in el en N in N IT! 0 in 0 (i/on) V i1AHdO21O1H3 . \ W @ aJ OZ _ W a 0 )- W a Ct z cc 2_a ,- m W CC I LaJ -J ZJ JIZO. W a > > CCac0 J _ 1 qwo -- - CC z a N O ilk .rrrrrrrrr*rw 10 ...... I- < w \► CO y ........� ~ kt M- ,r M 'il ...1 oD be a0 a O J • I za N N cc s° U)c o x� 7, - (..)J al 4 0 Q. a 1- m W 5 0 I . I 0 OC C.) CO CO I a 0 I - ' 0 N C.) d . a) 0 I I I I 1 I tO Cl al co N N N N N N N C0/On) V 11,1,HdO 01H3 1 Ei 7 Er 41. 41. ..a ikL. LI 4♦r��♦�«rte#• �° 43 "OA e4 e Z + %i%*i's«i' a• o CA F— a ., Ili 0.• fir"�1 4• % ‘1��♦ ix d N ►' .. , vii AI D J ° °z X ►r e+ W --I a • �I 1 r.r n .►*t . 0 i--1 -I- p■-. - . -16\L‘IIIL\k < „, ,„ 0 ... .. to LLI z W Z X W V Y ce \ W 6 ilk 0 CO 0 *t N 0 CO CO It N 0 0 tD * N 0 ref N N N N N r T— r r r Ci/Dn) 11,1,HdO O1H0 (As Presented to Intergovernmental Work Group February 15, 1990) TABLE 2, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED As Estimated by CDM and Orange County Planning Department Methods (*) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LAND USE SCENARIO (% OF TOTAL WATERSHED) CDM ORANGE COUNTY ( 1 ) ALL FOREST 0. 5 0. 5 (2) EXISTING LAND USE 3. 6 3. 6 (3) 5-ACRE LOTS, PER CDM 6. 3 6. 3 (4) 5-ACRE LOTS, 2-ACRES IN CHATHAM 6. 4 6. 4 (5) EXISTING LOTS GRANDFATHERED 6. 7 6. 7 ( "CDM PLUS" ) PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL 2-ACRE LOT 6. 8 7. 0 PER FAMILY OR TWO 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 6. 9 7. 1 OR THREE 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 7. 0 7. 2 (6) OR FIVE 2-ACRE LOTS PER FAMILY 7. 1 7. 4 ( "OCT PLAN") ( "FEB PLAN" ) (7) ALL 2-ACRE LOTS 7. 6 8. 3 (8) CURRENTLY APPROVED L. U. PLANS 8. 1 8. 7 (9) ALL 1-ACRE LOTS 11. 9 1 1. 9 NOTES: (e) The Orange County method increases CDM' s assumed impervious coverage on 2-acre lots from 6% to 7%, and decreases the coverage on half-acre lots from 20% to 15%. Average coverage for 5- and 1-acre lots remains at 4% and 12%, respectively, in both methods. ( 1 ) Assumes no development in watershed; 95. 5% forest, 0. 5% roads. (CONTINUED) r Table 2 Notes 2 Continued (2) Actual land use, as estimated by CDM, OWASA, and local staff. (3) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 5 acres. (4) , Same as (3) , except that Chatham County develops at 1 unit per 2 acres. (5) Same as (4) , except that existing lots smaller than 5 acres are developed at their platted densities. (6) This scenario was proposed in the October 1989 13-Point Agreement. (7) Assumes 90% buildout of all undeveloped land at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. Does not account for existing lots of record that may be smaller than 2 acres. (8) Assumes 90% buildout according to currently approved local land use and zoning plans. (9) Assumes 90% buildout at density of 1 unit per acre. 1 i i tu 111 fez LT) ;* iL vi‘, = g 1L \' eig Jo' 0 I I ig; ZA 011em w ° r. 7 W O W U 1 Bo co 0 + • k , + z I— o ■f. We. W cv ►I L al ILI CC C-5 0_ i.._ . + �� NN W cs v) A W Es i N pr' 0 . wi_ 04 2 4 C +11�� co ii a. N , �00 '� cv W 1 + \ �js � � I D " \ !co re k 1r 11 ►I 1I` . X. ' N I I I b N C 40 0 0 0 O O 0 LO I' WI N I- (esoeJauI IIKUdoJo1143 %) NOIIV a03a ■ ' Feb. 28 Public Hearin /06 ORANGE COUNTY N. . . Hearing on Proposed Revisions To And To The Comprehensive, Plan, Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County, N.C. To The Orange County Commissionsers: Thank you for this Public Hearing in order to speak out`� l�1f4�*� , on the Protection of the University Lake Watershed. ' , ,l"IW ! a.70-4-, I am Margaret Holton, a citizen of Orange County and chapel , Hill , who has been studying and workingao protect water since the early 1980 ' s so that clean water will be here for the next generation. Two months ago citizens had understood that this PUBLIC HEARING was called on Protection of the University Lake Water- shed for comments on the agreement of the Joint Orange-Chatham Work Group who worked for two years on the pros and cons of how to protect University Lake. This Group came to consensus on a 13-P nt Agreement which was based on information from the 1988'"s'tudy by Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) of University Lake Watershed. I support thit 13- oint Agree en o the Int governmental Work Grou0-0 University Lake is the �- y pri cipal source o dr�n Ong wa� for the 55 , 000 citizens that Orange Water and Sewer Autho -it � ,'� (OWASA) serves in southern Orange County which includes Chap i . 0 0451-11-j Hill/Carrboro as well as the University of North Carolina(you know that Cane Creek water is piped into a tributary that feeds into University Lake. ) During the past two months the reports through the media of the Orange County Commissioners meetings and hearings, as well as the suggestions from the Orange County Planning Staff, have left the citizens somewhat confused. Luckily I learned on Sunday that you had a notice of a Public Hearing for tonight on Land-Use Amendments in the newspaper. Now this is a big zoning issue hearing that is presenting alternatives , and these changes seem to be moving away from the Camp, Dresser, McKee study recommendations . We do understand that the study recommends land-use controls such as density and that structural controls can be used as a last resort. This Public Hearing needed to be centered on Drinking Water Protecti r tt n alternatives. I wish to comment on the pibposed revisions under the Orange . County Zoning Ordinance concerning changes on the overlay Ii zoning district recommended o be chag to University Lake Watershed(ULW) District, AJ tki.,--ett..4., 1 1 . There still needs to be a 0tical Areas esignation $v extending at least one-half mile from the water ' s edge. Vrhe word critical makes the public aware of the need to achieve the goal of pollution prevention that close to water source of the ULW District. Within this Critical Area structural controls for stormwater runoff should not be allowed, neither should community alternative wastewater treatment systems . When commenting on alternatives , one should call attention to the fact that community alternative wastewater systems in N.C. have had a history of a high number of failures ,and show n t be allowed an where in the watershed. Citd-WL:1214222tger /4'11,4:ttlet:ielli,, 114;"41-921' 21)2t64h444 i r '11-irgl' PUBLIC HEARING, cont. Feb. 28, 1990 Carrboro Elementary School 2.'When discussing options the Commissioners should look at the overall picture of pro- . tecting University Lake Watershed. Former 2-acre and 5-acre lots would be grandfathered in but the recommendations of the 13-Point Agreement should hold on impervious sur- face requirements as well as buffer zones. Please note that the Public Hearing Notice has omitted information on Impervious Surface Requirements as well as Buffer Zones. 3. Cluster developments need to be defined not only with density but with distance from the water source, either main tributaries or University Lake water line, not in the Critical Area. 4. In deciding on options for stormwater control, if you do, please state that the option of 2 acre lots with structural controls not be allowed in Critical Area, the designation you left out. Detention ponds have a history of poor maintenance. Mandate that they be publicly maintained and that homeowners pay a fee for public oversight. of Natal Some of you know that I serve as Water/Natural Resources DirectorAthe UWV of North Carolina and have been working statewide since 1985 bringing infoxb►ation to citizens. Tonight I speak to you as a local citizen and for my community, but with information from state agencies. 5e In 1986 the Environmental Management Commission passed new classifications (voluntary) for Water Supply Watersheds with WS-I being the highest classification which OWASA applied for and received in 1988. The Division of Environmental Management of the new Department of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources is now proposing 5 classifications which the new State Watershed Advisory Council is considering in order to follow the mandate of HB156 on Water 5�p Jj Watershed Protection. New WS-I would be undeveloped and uninhabited watershed forest land, and our present classification would be WS-II on a five item scale. The density requirement is one dwelling per 5 acres in both critical area and remainder of the watershed. No engineered controls are allowed. Classification deadline is Jan. 1, 1992. If you decide on the options instead of sticking with the 13-point Agreement you are lowering the protection level of University Lake and we would be down a class on the state scale of protection. The sources of clean water for drinking purposes in our area are particularly limited. Orange County has been in the forefront for Watershed Protection and has been a model since its passage of the Watershed Ordinance in 1981 and then updated in 1984. OWASA has taken its responsibility of stewardship by getting the WS-I Classification and having the Camp, Dresser and McKee Study, in order to protect the drinking water for the 55,000 people that it serves. You Commissioners as elected officials are charged with protecting the public health and safety of the citizens. Please continue with strong regulations on the prevention of pollution into University Lake. Margaret Holton 411 Holly Lane Chapel Hill, N.C., 27514 bat§RECOMMENDATION TO tHE WATERSHED PROTECTION ADVISORY COUNCIL • COMM*j $ al: thsisitc AND 01000ttb 1 ATE 10000 mASSIfICAticks 1 AiticitiA0 blichirdert Notipoint soiirroe Propoeed biacharderi Idepoint Source Male, Controls ClAga. Cobtrolk i15-I None Undeveloped a uninhibited eatersbed (old A-I) tIt-I %he eacapt i'rnddidnentlf un- it5-lI Node except trecaiiintintl$ Un- MAW Pool developed Aatersbed; airi!lEiitlN Pool developed atter- filter beck- local land Manant filter beck- abed; local land OSA (.0131) proNrae for star+ t,et (.0131) ifanaq at; fin i' engibeered cad- ' trols C15-I1 kikatic or non- Loa to elf dev- US-Ill No new diAche a Lail to ioderate otoomd industrial eloped 0a ; local in critical area; developed hater- aasteotter land iianagelient prowl Witted &tic abed; local lend for atotaeater or aae-$regte ilkingtaient N tea- , industrial taiga- pc xible for der of siterehed chattered con- troll WS-IV No bee indd§trial toderateelf to diacbarqe in ccit- higbl$ devel- ici1 Area; UMW coed 0atershed; ddleatic ct Indus- local land fan- trial tintinder of amt t tea- elaterabed ponsible for eb- gineered control • US-A do te0 iblittrim Local land Sen- discharsp6 ib skit- agent t rel- ical area; liaited pobkible for dodestit Or Indus- engineered cob- trial ih Satet troll in anpplfr t critical Area xs-Iit Ito testtictloos No testfictiobe & are t Rolioda too dick N O O 6 1 1 U3 bt L I in m I L• a ; l I I Xam1 I Xy I I I 3 • Innis 23 21 T I. 3 • ?.S ...-� i + wr IA VI T-• ++ 3'.-• w .+ I I � ro ro ` b ro I ,,`pp IA \ +1• 4i\ +1\ \ N1 1 Q, w.r ~4 - --+:1 AI z 0 � '� ff -4•e- I.. a�.4.,, -g I e� t" a ; I 1 C C d b 0�u��++ �7 -I .. a C m C 3 L") torX z z Z Q Z 2 Z 8o4- ; J .•• 8 O O 143 11 I a 41 IA Z �� � 3o ' 0 — A � O 1 I , roEV 0 fn D w I— E ? 1 1 C C C ., .4�} IA E -+ E IAC 41 < Da I)0 Z° z z 2 _i _I 1 6 0 ro Z _ d ~ 4m ro xe� •m,, 1 co '0 �D/Ay t U W t•1 T 4c Q1 • X /. P. /ti F1 L--'.. �.1 tr Lai 3L I I A . 10ro AC o a 00 b U -' L a. t` 3 E 4- t-cnt~ti 4•mU.N •.1 tA 3 n D 4C.3 6 d, 6 •"_11 pC •..\\ ..r 1 ... 1 ..■ 1 ..1 I M C W G o C o : tiG.Q s R E .-1A el s .Ns 0 cra Om6 c _ } trio z Z r.U7 3m -.ti. vI•,.."v vc......., u L m 00 12 IAw F S 7 I u u u u U ...•ip • • 3 to a.1 I ro ro ro ro co u u A ro 1 •+ I I 1!7 U] Irl N N ro ro • *•-+ N Ul W LY t� 1 1 N. N. \ \ \ \ O C Al 3 i1 C III 1 1 . 3 3 7 3 3 3 T C d w 0 1:1 -' - ti -a — v • L 'U .• Z a--1 L I N 11 m u1 Z � d 1 W l7 v'" .•.-1 ro tO • 1 � a a oo eroalm N � 0 E m to ••• O 0 a I b- •. 0. 1) 0 17t I W a D••• t ab am 0 ro C0 to a L I .0 0 > �•-• • IL uI •C13 i ea -vT so' al0.� wC 8 ..1 0 1 O .5 a _I TI 2r r e .4 m .. & m � w a imm ¢ s ECar+) -0••• 00+1 Dw to O I C1 II C ro C L C re 1 .0 I y w �V1 Vm -a 41 � y Emma O. u 0..4 8, O. me E3 � e mL » 1 0 oo� ao oc oo �pain� 61 Z Z DC DG D -+ DC . y- 3- 4.1-0 —.3.0 W 'Y ro 0— alnwL ro A •• Lmm3 h is Is h cw�1 m e . In U u In • a U In A I ( 1 I L I • I L� � 4) 0 V 2 V I U 3 L1 3 L Z I 4-: I Co 1.A .. I oi I I i"ro I" I L) in rf ix ILD E Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill '\ •CUAI Durham&Chapel Hill 20 W Colony Place • Suite 180 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 • Phone 919/493-8899 ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES WATERSHED PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENT The Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill supports all reasonable efforts to protect the quality of water for all citizens. In protecting the quality of water, due consideration should be given to the property rights and the reasonable use to which landowners should be able to put on his or her land. In general, the HBA supports Option #2 which allows 2-acre zoning with on-site detention ponds. We support the 12% impervious surface ratio for 2-acre lots as well as the sliding scale of impervious surface ratios as proposed. We feel the watershed area will develop at densities lower than 2-acres because of the percability of the land thus reducing pollutant loading even further. If option #1 is chosen with 5-acre lot minimums, the HBA supports the clustering alternative as well as the impervious surface ratios proposed by the Orange County Planning staff. The 4% impervious surface ratio proposed by the Orange- Chatham Work Group is impractical, we feel, for people wanting to live and build in the watershed. If option #1 is approved, the HBA supports allowing existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 to create up to five lots of not less than 2-acres while the remaining land shall be developed with a minimum lot size of 1 unit per five acres. The HBA supports the articles as they relate to impervious surface regulations; stream buffers; existing vegetation; placements of streets, driveways, and buildings, and water supply/sewage disposal facilities. The conditions that exist in this watershed and others will be continually changing as well as the technologies and methods used to treat our water. We feel that an on-going Watershed Task Force should be established to evaluate these ever changing conditions and options. In conclusion, the HBA of Durham and Chapel Hill whole heartedly supports reasonable efforts to protect our water supply. A polluted water supply that is untreatable would do more harm to our business than almost anything else we could imagine. We applaud the effort to protect our water even though we may disagree on how to protect it. .,`-4 ,G7rz V7/`LLu,te of In GllRtiorzo Qgssociaiion of Slome 2 uitdot • ; , � Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill dDurham_• " "HdI 20 W Colony Place • Suite 180 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 • Phone 919/493-8899 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN WATERSHED PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENT The Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill supports all reasonable efforts to protect the quality of water for all citizens. In protecting the quality of water, due consideration should be given to the property rights and the reasonable use to which a landowner should be able to put on his or her land. Specific comments concerning the Joint Land Use Plan and Text: 1. Concerning the rewriting of Section II Natural Environment Subsection B Water Resources: The HBA feels 2-acre zoning with on• site detention ponds would allow property owners a reasonable use of their land and still ensure water quality. Also, because of the percability of the land, actual densities would probably be much lower than 2-acre on average throughout the watershed. 2 . Concerning Section V Joint Planning Operating Principals: The HBA concurs with the Town of Carrboro that a cluster alternative served by central water and sewer is the better method of protecting water quality. 3 . Concerning Section V Joint Planning Operating Principals: The HBA supports option #2 which allows 2-acre zoning with on-site stormwater detention ponds. As stated before, we feel the entire watershed will develop at densities much lower than 2-acres because of the percability of the land. 4 . Concerning Section VI Future Land Use Joint Planning Area: The HBA supports option #2 . 5. Concerning Section VII Overview of Implementation Strategies: The HBA supports a study on the possibility of allowing public water and sewer extensions in the watershed. The landowners who are helping to ensure water quality should be able to benefit from these efforts. . .not be penalized. 611 � d{a c-4ffif'ate of tkc ci V ationaf cAlociation of dome uirc(em LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO,NC STATE=T x OR UBLiC HE,42TNG Carrboro Elementary School, February 28,. 1990 Agenda Item: Proposed amendments to land use plans and development regulations which would, if approved, i_nlement actions for pro- tecting University Lake Watershed. I an Roberta Black, President of the League of Women. Voters of Chapel Hill/ Carrb•oro. The local League thanks you for the oppor- tunity to spew_ at this public hearing. The League of Women Voters, naticr_ally, supports management of land as a finite resource not a commodity, since land ownership, whether public or Private, carries responsibilities for stewardship. The League has a long history of concern for conser ation. of natural resources, especially protection of sources of drinking water. Locally, we have made public statements on man - occasions in support of watershed protection. The citizens of Chapel gill. and Carrboro are fortunate that Orange Count y has two watersheds (University Lake and Cane Greek) with the premier classification of WS--l. Such drinking water supplies are magificent natural resources that must be managed and _protected in the public interest. We strongly support establishing the University Lake Watershed District in order to -prevent significant water duality deterioration in University Lake. The land use controls that are being sugg e s ted --five acre zoning that permits a limited number of two acre lots-- are realistic and flexible. They fairly address the concerns of landowners about the development and value of their property. '. e are aware of the intense and conflicting -political pressures. that have been. building. It is important to the democratic political. process that the concerns of different citizens be considered with respect and fairness. Furthermore, it is necessary that relevant technical data be available. This has been done through the Camp, Dresser', McKee report. But, in the end, courageous leadership by the elected officials will be needed to protect the watershed and the water supply. We urge you to exercise extreme caution in. allowing watershed development. Once excessive development has occurred its negative effects can never be reversed. .XG e p+ I n 4-hc. 4-else.. o� Q.. po 6 f lc- h ea_I ,rner e. l � v b ;c.b a