Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-26-1991ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING .AUGUST 26, 1991 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW) 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request.If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 966 -4501. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN B. 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 any 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. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 07 1. Proposed State Watershed Classifications and Development Standards 85 2. Special Use Permit Applications a. SUP -1 -91 Green Hill Bed & Breakfast 3. Zoning Ordinance.Text Amendments 125 a. New /Used Car Sales - Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table 129 b. Efficiency Apartments - Article 22 Definitions 133 C. Density Bonuses (1) Article 6.27 - Affordable Housing (2) Article 7 - Planned Developments 143 d. Vested Rights (1) Article 8.4.11 - Time Limits on Special Uses (2) Article 8.8 a) - Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses (3) .Article 8.8.27 - Site Specific Development Plans (4) Article 14.3.2 - Site Plan Review (5) Article 22 - Definitions 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 143 a. Vested Rights (1) Section II - Definitions (2) Section III -D -2 - Preliminary Plan Approval 155 b. Payments in Lieu of Dedications - Section IV-- B- 7--b -6 159 5. Schedule of Planning Fees a. Re- Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats b. Site Plan Approval -- Non - Residential Projects (1) Plans Requiring Certification (2) Plans Not Requiring Certification D. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION NO SOONER THAN ITS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1991. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL CONSIDER THE ITEMS FOR DECISION NO SOONER THAN OCTOBER 7, 1991. APPROVED 9 -17 -91 MINUTES QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 26, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Quarterly Public Hearing with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, August 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice - Chairman Stephen Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (arrived at 9:25) and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Betty Eidenier and members Paul Hoecke, William Waddell, Dan Eddleman, D. Kent Scott, Clinton Burklin, Virginia Boland, Amanda Carol Cantrell and Larry Reid. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planners, Gene Bell, Mary Scearbo and David Stancil. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Moses Carey, Jr. deleted Item C2 - Special Use Permit for the Green Hill Bed & Breakfast has been deleted from the agenda. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This was presented by David Stancil. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed State watershed classifications and development standards. The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989 requires each local government in the state to protect water supply watershed, at a minimum, to the level of new standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission [EMC1. The EMC has proposed preliminary classifications for each of the 11 water supply watersheds that are completely or partially within the county's boundaries. The classifications as proposed by the EMC were illustrated on a map and described by Planner David Stancil. Recent legislation in the N.C. General Assembly has delayed the final classification of watersheds until July 1, 1992. A series of public hearings on the classifications and standards were held in mid - August by the EMC. The hearing for jurisdictions in L� the Triangle region occurred on August 15, 1991. Although the hearings have been concluded, the EMC is accepting written comment as part of the hearing process until October 31, 1991. In addition, the EMC has indicated that it will hold a second public hearing (currently unscheduled) for the Triangle region prior to October 31. The hearing process that closes on October 31 may offer the only chance for local governments to request different classifications and standards for watersheds than those proposed. As such, A staff report was presented to the Board of Commissioners on August 5 that: 1. Identified the classification of each watershed as proposed by the EMC; 2. Compared existing and proposed development standards applicable in each watershed; 3. Identified issues of both regional and watershed- specific importance; and 4. Listed possible alternative actions to those proposed by the EMC and adjoining local governments. The report was presented to the Planning Board at its July 15, 1991 meeting. Comments were provided by the Planning Board in the form of a "Summary of Recommendations" (copy attached). THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Nancy Mueller spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She indicated that the Leagues believes that protecting the source of the water supply is the most economical and effective way to protect the quality of the water. They support the Critical Watershed designation for University Lake as well as rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities. They also support the new rules proposed for agriculture in WS -1 watersheds and WS -11 Critical Areas. A copy of her statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Lois Herring spoke on behalf of Orange Water and Sewer Authority. She indicated that OWASA supports standards which promote the protection rather than degradation of our water. A copy of this statement in its entirety is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Ed Harrison, a resident of Chapel Hill and a member of the North Carolina Sierra Club, requested support for a strong statewide water supply protection program. He asked specifically that the Critical Area designation be strengthened and protected. He also requested that Orange County take whatever action is necessary to control agricultural pollution. �L- Barry Jacobs commended Orange County Government for once again taking the time to involve its citizens in the governmental process. He asked that the Eno River Basin receive a more restrictive classification than the WS--4 that the State is proposing. If, in fact, the classification is going to be changed it must be done only after careful planning. Marty Mandell, a Carrboro property owner, thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to protect the area drinking water. She presented a petition containing 150 names in support of HB --156 and the proposed WS--2 classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. This petition also supports recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area. She requested that the Public Hearing remain open in order to receive comments from citizens who were unable to attend this meeting. Bobby Nichols spoke on behalf of Hillsborough Savings and Loan. In response to his question, David Stancil indicated that the State has made provisions to allow non - conforming uses to continue on a case by case basis. He indicated that he personally supports the minimum State requirements. Ellie Kinnaird spoke in favor of keeping the watershed standards high. She mentioned that Orange County is still in a position to avoid the serious problems that many parts of the world are now facing and she emphasized the importance of making the necessary decisions to protect the water. Billy Ray indicated that he wanted to be fairly compensated for any land that the county took as a result of these watershed restrictions. Ben Lloyd indicated that the county was overregulated which was making it impossible to run a profitable dairy farm. He was against the higher standards. Louis Cheek indicated that his land is located at the headwaters of Morgan Creek which is the main stream which flows into University Lake. He indicated that his land has been a dairy farm since 1925 and he believes that the cow manure filters out of the water before it reaches the lake. He asked that the regulations be made with the farmer in mind. John Kent, a member of the New Hope Audobon Society, indicated that he supported stricter standards for the water. He thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to address this issue. Commissioner Carey entered a Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill encouraging the designation of University Lake as a Critical Water Supply Watershed with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussion and study. He also entered comments from Allen Spalt to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on proposed amendments to rules for surface water supply watersheds. Both of these documents are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Dan Eddelman indicated that the 10 foot buffer and the possibility of building water management structures seem to be the major issues for the farmers. He asked for clarification from those in disagreement with these regulations as to what exactly they see as the problem. Ben Lloyd indicated that these regulations would require building a fence around the stream and pumping the water to the COWS. He believes this is an impractical solution. Commissioner Willhoit asked if a fence would be required only in the water quality critical area of WS -II. David Stancil indicated that there are two provisions and that neither of the two provisions would by themselves require fence around the streams. They both apply in critical areas of the watershed in WS -2 and WS- 3 categories. Commissioner Gordon asked if there would be circumstances which would require a landowner to fence off a stream and pump water out to another area. The staff will research this question and forward a written reply to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Willhoit also indicated that we need to point out to the State that if the farmers are to bear any of this burden it would put them at an economic disadvantage with the farmers in areas which are not required to follow these practices. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to hold the Public Hearing open to receive written comment until September 13th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS a. SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL BED & BREAKFAST This item was deleted from the Agenda. 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. News /Used_Car Sales - Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the Table of Permitted Uses to allow car sales in industrial districts. A citizen request was made to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted and are not opposed to the request. The proposed amendment would allow car sales within all industrial districts (EI, I1,I2,I3). QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon asked why the Ordinance was not originally drawn up as it is currently worded. Betty Eidiener indicated the EDC stated that industrial areas usually have a higher use. The current proposed use is a lower one. However, this particular use falls around the boarder between the two and a case could be made for either use. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Efficiengy Apartments - Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment to clarify that a mobile home may be considered an efficiency apartment. On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment may be attached or detached provided that the requirements found in the definition of "Efficiency Apartment" are met. The definition states that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick - built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactured /Mobile homes.) The Proposed amendment adds the proper technical reference needed to accomplish the original intent of the Ordinance. QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon requested that the language be clarified. She indicated that "efficiency apartment" has a certain meaning which confuses the reader in this context. She also suggested that staff review the entire Zoning Ordinance to assure that it is not contradictory as a result of changes which have been made. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair J Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Density Bonuses (1) Article 6.27 - Affordable Housing (2) Article 7 - Planned Developments This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In Summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow application of density bonus provisions for affordable housing to all residential development projects. In May, 1990, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow a density increase of up to 50% for developments which reserve a percentage of the units for occupancy by low or moderate income households. At this time, the density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments. Recent legislation provides the authority for Orange County to extend the provisions to all developments subject to the Zoning Ordinance. The bonus provisions could then be applied to Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Subdivisions. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, OR PLANNING BOARD None. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Jeff Peloquin asked if other concessions could be made for affordable housing, such as a leniency in the area of building permits, where the housing could be located, or to downsize the lot size. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Vested Rights (1) Article 8.4.11 - Time Limits on Special Uses (2) Article 8.8 a) - Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses (3) Article 8.8.27 _ Site Specific Development Plans (4) Article 14.3.2 - Site Plan Review (5) Article 22 - Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented, in conjunction with item 4(a), to receive citizen comment. See 4 (a) for the presentation and motion. 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Vested Rights (1) Section 11 - Definitions (2) Section III- D -2 Preliminary Plan Approval This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary these provisions were presented to receive citizen comment for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 776, ratified July 22, 1990. Senate Bill 776 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 776 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently„ the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance on an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation is in addition to this current law, and requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval, after a public hearing, of a "Site Specific Development Plan ". A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Payments in Lieu of Dedications - Section IV- B -7 -b -6 This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991, this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment -in -lieu funds, by not developing the recreation area with monies from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu of dedication. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Chair Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING FEES (a) Re- Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats (b) Site Plan Approval - Non - Residential Projects (1) Plans Requiring Certification (2) Plans Not Requiring Certification This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented in order to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Planning Fee Schedule to include fees for the re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats and Site Plan Review. Re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats was presented for public hearing on May 28, 1991. At the public hearing the Board of Commissioners requested that fees be established for the process which reflect the County's cost for processing applications. The recommended fee is $60.00. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1989 to establish application requirements and review and approval procedures for Site Plans. No fees were established. It is recommended that a fee of $117.00 be considered for site plans which require certification by a surveyor, architect, landscape architect or engineer, and $60.00 for those which do not require certification. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further The next regular meeting of on September 3rd in the Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk business, the meeting was adjourned. the Board of Commissioners will be held Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman DaGlffp 1 MINUTES QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 26, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Quarterly Public Hearing with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, August 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice-Chairman Stephen Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (arrived at 9:25) and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Betty Eidenier and members Paul Hoecke, William Waddell, Dan Eddleman, D. Kent Scott, Clinton Burklin, Virginia Boland, Amanda Carol Cantrell and Larry Reid. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planners, Gene Bell, Mary Scearbo and David Stancil. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CH,�IR Chair Moses Carey, Jr. deleted Item C2 - Special Use Permit for the Green Hill Bed & Breakfast has been deleted from the agenda. r B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This was presented by David Stancil. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed State watershed classifications and development standards. The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989 requires each local government in the state to protect water supply watershed, at a minimum, to the level of new standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission [EMC1. The EMC has proposed preliminary classifications for each of the 11 water supply watersheds that are completely or partially within the county's boundaries. The classifications as proposed by the EMC were illustrated on a map and described by Planner David Stancil. Recent legislation in the N.C. General Assembly has delayed the final classification of watersheds until July 1, 1992. A Mrs k,� r`'' •; �. � �� l,� is - -, .. � .�_, ,.� � 2 series of public hearings on the classifications and standards were held in mid - August by the EMC. The hearing for jurisdictions in the Triangle region occurred on August 15, 1991. Although the hearings have been concluded, the EMC is accepting written comment as part of the hearing process until October 31, 1991. In addition, the EMC has indicated that it will hold a second public hearing (currently unscheduled) for the Triangle region prior to October 31. The hearing process that closes on October 31 may offer the only chance for local governments to request different classifications and standards for watersheds than those proposed. As such, A staff report was presented to-the Board of Commissioners on August 5 that: 1. Identified the classification of each watershed as proposed by the EMC; 2. Compared existing and proposed development standards applicable in each watershed; 3. Identified issues of both regional and watershed - specific importance; and 4. Listed possible alternative actions to those proposed by the EMC and adjoining local governments. The report was presented to the Planning Board at its July 15, 1991 meeting. Comments were provided by the Planning Board in the form of a "Summary of Recommendations ". THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Nancy Mueller spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She indicated that the Leagues believes that protecting the source of the water supply is the most economical and effective way to protect the quality of the water. They support the Critical Watershed designation for University Lake as well as rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities. They also support the new rules proposed for agriculture in WS -1 watersheds and WS -11 Critical Areas. A copy of her statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Lois Herring spoke on behalf of Orange Water and Sewer Authority. She indicated that OWASA supports standards which promote the protection rather than degradation of our water. A copy of this statement in its entirety is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Ed Harrison, a resident of Chapel Hill and a member of the North Carolina Sierra Club, requested support for a strong 3 statewide water supply protection program. He asked specifically that the Critical Area designation be strengthened and protected. He also requested that Orange County take whatever action is necessary to control agricultural pollution. Barry Jacobs commended Orange County Government for once again taking the time to involve its citizens in the governmental process. He asked that the Eno River Basin receive a more restrictive classification than the WS -4 that the State is proposing. If, in fact, the classification is going to be changed it must be done only after careful planning. Marty Mandell, a Carrboro property owner, thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to protect the area drinking water. She presented a petition containing 150 names in support of HB -156 and the proposed WS -2 classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. This petition also supports recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area. She requested that the Public Hearing remain open in order to receive comments from citizens who were unable to attend this meeting. Bobby Nichols spoke on behalf of Hillsborough Savings and Loan. In response to his question, David Stancil indicated that the State has made provisions to allow non - conforming uses to continue on a case by case basis. He indicated that he personally supports the minimum State requirements. It Ellie Kinnaird spoke in favor of keeping the watershed standards high. She mentioned that Orange County is still in a position to avoid the serious problems that many parts of the world are now facing and she emphasized the importance of making the necessary decisions to protect the water. Billy Ray indicated that he wanted to be fairly compensated for any land that the county took as a result of these watershed restrictions. Ben Lloyd indicated that the county was overregulated which was making it impossible to run a profitable dairy farm. He was against the higher standards. Louis Cheek indicated that his land is located at the headwaters of Morgan Creek which is the main stream which flows into University Lake. He indicated that his land has been a dairy farm since 1925 and he believes that the cow manure filters out of the water before it reaches the lake. He asked that the regulations be made with the farmer in mind. John Kent, a member of the New Hope Audobon Society, indicated that he supported stricter standards for the water. He thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to address this issue. 4 Commissioner Carey entered a Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill encouraging the designation of University Lake as a Critical Water Supply Watershed with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussion and study. He also entered comments from Allen Spalt to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on proposed amendments to rules for surface water supply watersheds. Both of these documents are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Dan Eddelman indicated that the 10 foot buffer and the possibility of building water management structures seem to be the major issues for the farmers. He asked for clarification from those in disagreement with these regulations as to what exactly they see as the problem. Ben Lloyd indicated that these regulations would require building a fence around the stream and pumping the water to the COWS. He believes this is an impractical solution. > Commissioner Willhoit asked if a fence would be required only in the water quality critical area of WS -II. David Stancil indicated that there are two provisions and they both apply in critical areas of the watershed in WS -2 and WS -3 categories; one is that there would need to be a 10 foot vegetative buffer along all perennial waters; second, any animal operations greater than 100 animals would be required tokemploy Best Management Practices. Commissioner Gordon asked if there would be circumstances which would require a landowner to fence off a stream and pump water out to another area. The staff will research this question and forward a written reply to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Willhoit also indicated that we need to point out to the State that if the farmers are to bear any of this burden it would put them at an economic disadvantage with the farmers in areas which are not required to follow these practices. 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by 3 Commissioner Halkiotis, to hold the Public Hearing open to receive written comment until September 13th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS a. SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL BED & BREAKFAST __ This item was deleted from the Agenda. 5 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. News Used Car Sales - Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table_ This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the Table of Permitted Uses to allow car sales in industrial districts. A citizen request was made to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted and are not opposed to the request. The proposed amendment would allow car sales within all industrial districts (EI, I1,I2,I3). QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon asked why the Ordinance was not originally drawn up as it is currently worded. Betty Eidiener indicated the EDC stated that industrial areas usually have a higher use. The current proposed use is a lower one. However, this particular use falls around the boarder between the two and a case could be made for either use. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Efficiency_ Apartments - Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment to clarify that a mobile home may be considered an efficiency apartment. On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment may be attached or detached provided that the requirements found in the definition of "Efficiency Apartment" are met. The definition states that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick - built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactured /Mobile homes.) The Proposed amendment adds the proper technical reference ,1 needed to accomplish the original intent of the Ordinance. QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon requested that the language be clarified. She indicated that "efficiency apartment" has a certain meaning which confuses the reader in this context.- She also suggested that staff review the entire Zoning Ordinance to assure that it is not contradictory as a result of changes which have been made. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Density Bonuses (1) Article 6.27 - Affordable Housing (2) Article 7 - Planned Developments This item was presented by Mary Scearbo . In Summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow application of density bonus provisions for affordable housing to all residential development projects. In May, 1990, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow 3 a density increase of up to 50 %,for developments which reserve a percentage of the units for occupancy by low or moderate income households. At this time, the density bonus provisions apply only 3 to Planned Developments. Recent legislation provides the authority for Orange County to extend the provisions to all developments subject to the Zoning Ordinance. The bonus provisions could then be applied to Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Subdivisions. 3 5 3 3 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, OR PLANNING BOARD None. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Jeff Peloquin asked if other concessions could be made for affordable housing, such as a leniency in the area of building permits, where the housing could be located, or to downsize the lot size. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Vested Rights (1) Article 8.4.11 - Time Limits on Special summary receive motion. 7 Uses (2) Article 8.8 a) - Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses (3) Article 8.8.27 - Site Specific Development Plans (4) Article 14.3.2 - Site Plan Review (5) Article 22 - Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In this item was presented, in conjunction with item 4(a), to citizen comment. See 4 (a) for the presentation and 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Vested Rights (1) Section 11 - Definitions (2) Section III- D -2 Preliminary Plan Approval This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary these provisions were presented to receive citizen comment for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 776, ratified July 22, 1990. Senate Bill 776 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 776 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently,, the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance on an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation is in addition to this current law, and requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval, after a public hearing, of a "Site Specific Development Plan ". A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Payments in Lieu of Dedications - Section IV- B -7 -b -6 This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991, this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment -in -lieu funds, by 8 not developing the recreation area with monies from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from Payments made in lieu of dedication. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Chair Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING FEES (a) Re- Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats (b) Site Plan Approval - Non - Residential Projects (1) Plans Requiring Certification (2) Plans Not Requiring Certification This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented in order to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Planning Fee Schedule to include fees for the re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats and Site Plan Review. Re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats was presented for public hearing on May 28, 1991. At the public hearing the Board of Commissioners requested that fees be established for the which reflect the County's cost for process recommended fee is processing applications. The $60.00. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1989 to establish application requirements and review and approval procedures for Site Plans. No fees were established. It is recommended that a fee of $117.00 be considered for site plans which require certification by a surveyor, architect, landscape architect or engineer, and $60.00 for .those which do not require certification. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on September 3rd in the Old Courthouse. Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk of ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS N DDEV E ANDTSUBDIIVIs ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, ZONIN REGULATIONS AMENDMMEN , AND NADDITIONS G E TO TEE SCHEDULE NORTH CAROLINA FOR ORANGE COUNTY, Pursuant to the requirements of the General �Statutsectiorsy�h 240 323, and 343; Article e; Cha ter 153A, � Zoning Ordinance; and Section Carolina, P of the Orange County 20.5 and 20.6, Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby VIII of the Orange County will be held in the Superior Courtroom given that a public hearing (New), 106 East Margaret 1� at 7:30 of the Orange County on Monday, August 26, Hillsborough, North Carolina, of giving all interested citizens an p.m. for the purpose items: opportunity to speak for or against the following PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS squires every The 1989 Water Supply Watershed Protection supply watersheds, overnment in the state to protect water supp Y local g adopted by the at a minimum, to the level of new standards has also Environmental Management Commission (EM e County's 11 proposed preliminary classifications for each of Orang water supply watersheds. On August 15, izens ° 1991, the EMC will conduct one of six = egional public hearings for local governments and interested cit P ub watershed classifications and wadop adopted The comment e proposed licable in each type development standards app m. at the Archdale Building public hearing will be held at 7:00 pislation in the General in Raleigh, N.C. Recently adopted leg e Gene process, Assembly will delay the classification and implementation to request be the only opportunity but the public hearing may osed. different watershed classifications than those P ro P 15, public hearing is being held on August te�nber 30, Although the p h Sep written comments will be f acc( si uershw would like to receive EMC: 1991. Thus, the Boar Y the comment on the watershed classifications as proposed '- 02 Will Watershed Upper Eno Lower Eno Flat River Little River Cane Creek University Lake Back Creek Haw Creek Haw River Jordan Lake South Hyeo Creek Following the Oran Proposed EMC Classification WS -IV Ws -IV WS -II WS -II Ws -II WS -II WS -II WS -II WS -IV WS -IV WS -II be prepared and submittedttoptheiEMC�arin response, the Board of Commissioners will cons g' a written response In preparing the received at the public hearing, der the comments SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS The application for a Special Use Permit to be consider as follows: ed is 1• SUP -1 -91 Green Hill Bread & Breakfast A bed and breakfast establishment is located on the southwest corner of U, proposed property Lawrence Road (SR 1561 S• Highway 70 Bypass specificall ). The property contains 6.46 ce'and specifically y described as Lots 66 and 67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno Township. The existing zoning classification is R -1 Residential. Bed and breakfast establishments are district upon the a - Rural County Commissioners. a' of a Special Use Permit pbym the eBoardtofs ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AENDMENTS The proposed amendments e Orange Count are as follows: to the y Zoning Ordinance 1• Amend ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE by expanding Of zoning districts in which the sales and rental of ne used motor vehicles to include Existing Industr' the number Industrial -1, Industrial -2, and Industrial -3. w and currently "al' Y Permitted in General Commercial -4 and uExisting are Commercial -5 zoning districts. 2. Amend ARTICLE 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS by removing which allow density bonuses where planned developmentlsros include housing for low and moderate - income families. T provisions are to be moved to ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION O projects DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS where a new section 6. he Housing g] is proposed. The new provisions would expandithedable types of development applications which may qualify for 03 density bonuses to include planned developments, site plans, special use permits, and preliminary subdivision plats in zoned townships. 3. Amend ARTICLE 8 TIME LIMITS ON under a Special approval. Where the Special Use month extension SPECIAL USES by adding.a new ARTICLE 8.4.11 SPECIAL USES which requires that construction Use Permit be started within one year of construction is not started within one year, Permit becomes null and of no effect. One six may be requested. The amendment also permits an applicant to request a vested right to carry out his /her project within a period of not less than two years and not more than five years. This latter amendment is one of several proposed for the purpose of implementing Senate Bill 766. 4. Amend ARTICLE 8.8 REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL USES by adding to subsection a) the requirement that 26 copies of a preliminary plat be provided if the project involves a subdivision rather than the site plan for a specific use. 5. Amend ARTICLE 8.8 by adding a new subsection entitled 8.8.27 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS which would require the submission of additional information where an applicant wishes to obtain approval of a Site Specific Development Plan and acquire a vested right to carry out his /her project. The proposed amendment also establishes standards for evaluating Site Specific Development Plans. 6. Amend ARTICLE 14.3.2 SITE PLAN REVIEW by permitting an applicant to request a vested right to carry out his /her project within a period of not less than two years and not more than five years. To become vested, the Site Plan for the project must be approved by the Board of Commissioners as a Special Use, pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Amend ARTICLE 22- DEFINITIONS by amending and /or adding the definitions of "Efficiency Apartment," "Site Specific Development Plan," and "Vested Right." The definition of "Efficiency Apartment" is being expanded to include a mobile home. A "Site Specific Development Plan" is defined generally as a plan approved by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing and which describes, with reasonable certainty, the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels within the County's zoning jurisdiction. Such plans are required only where an applicant wishes to vest his /her property rights for a period longer than otherwise permitted by ordinance. "Vested right" is defined generally as the right to undertake and complete the development and use of a property under the W terms and conditions of an approved Site Specific Development Plan. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as follows: 1. Amend SECTION II DEFINITIONS by adding the definitions of "Site Specific Development Plan" and "Vested Right" as described above, and by amending the definition of "Minor Subdivision" to exclude those subdivisions where an applicant, at his /her option, requests a vested right for a period of greater than one year. The net effect is to classify minor subdivisions, for which approval of vested rights are requested, as major subdivisions. 2. Amend SECTION III -D -2 PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL by permitting an applicant to request a vested right to carry out his /her subdivision within a period of not less than two years and not more than five years. To become vested, the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision must be approved by the Board of Commissioners as a Special Use, pursuant to Article 8 of the zoning ordinance. 3. Amend SECTION IV- B -7 -b -6 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF DEDICATION by expanding the purpose for which payments in lieu of parkland dedication may be used. Currently, payments in lieu may used only for land acquisition-purposes. The proposed amendment would permit payments in lieu to be used for development of a park site as well as land acquisition. i40=`�,I1 ##4de#aiAAuYj,f :41114 4 Z� Three new application fees are proposed for addition to the Schedule of Planning Fees. The first application fee is for the re- approval of preliminary subdivision plats for which the time limits have expired. The proposed fee is $60.00. The remaining application fees both pertain to site plan approval for non - residential projects. For those site plans which require the certification of a registered engineer, architect, landscape architect or surveyor, the proposed application fee is $117.00. For those site plans where such certification is not required, the proposed application fee is $60.00. 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, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural 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 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: August 14, 1991 August 21, 1991 05 W y U! ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 26 1991 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: —X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Staff Report (previously David Stancil X2590 provided) 7/15/91 Planning Board Minutes PHONE NUMBERS: Summary of Recommendations Hillsborough 732 -8181 by Planning Board Mebane 227 -2031 Vicinity Map Durham 688 -7331 OWASA 8/15/91 Comments Chapel Hill 967 -9251 Alamance County 8/15/91 Comments Durham City /County 8/12/91 Comments Chapel Hill 7/8/91 Comments PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed State watershed classifications and development standards. BACKGROUND: The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989 requires each local government in the state to protect water supply watershed, at a minimum, to the level of new standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission [EMC]. The EMC has proposed preliminary classifications for each of the 11 water supply watersheds that are completely or partially within the county's boundaries. The proposed classifications as proposed by the EMC are as follows: Watershed Upper Eno Lower Eno Flat River Little River Cane Creek University Lake Back Creek Haw Creek Haw River Jordan Lake South Hyco Creek Proposed EMC Classification WS -IV WS -IV WS -II WS -II WS -II WS -II WS -II WS -II WS -IV WS -IV WS -II N: Recent legislation in the N.C. General Assembly has delayed the final classification of watersheds until July 1, 1992. A series of public hearings on the classifications and standards were held in mid - August by the EMC. The hearing for jurisdictions in the Triangle region occurred on August 15, 1991. Although the hearings have been is accepting written comment as process until October 31, 1991. has indicated that it will hold hearing (currently unscheduled) region prior to October 31. concluded, the EMC part of the hearing In addition, the EMC a second public for the Triangle The hearing process that closes on October 31 may offer the only chance for local governments to request different classifications and standards for watersheds than those proposed. As such, a Staff report was presented to the Board of Commissioners on August 5 that: 1. Identified the classification of each watershed as proposed by the EMC; 2. Compared existing and proposed development standards applicable in each watershed; 3. Identified issues of both regional and watershed - specific importance; and 4. Listed possible alternative actions to those proposed by the EMC and adjoining local governments. The report was presented to the Planning Board at its July 15, 1991 meeting. Comments were provided by the Planning Board in the form of a "Summary of Recommendations" (copy attached). RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that citizen comments received at this public hearing be referred to the Planning Board for consideration and preparation of a final recommendation at its September 16, 1991 meeting. The Board of Commissioners may then consider the Planning Board recommendation and citizen comments at its October 7 and /or October 18 meetings. An official position statement, including requested changes in watershed classifications and development standards., could then be submitted to the EMC prior to the close of the hearing process on October 31, 1991. WATERSHEDS: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE 09 CASWELL PERSON usisol VAN CETVILLE Us -1SS ROx ORO 1 � t • 1 FR \\, t I BC t 1 GRAHAM -1 ,a- ORANGE t � J t t U E HILL uRi'�}pGH :-; I . F Af HC t i CC ALAMAN CE i CHATHAM UL / HR � r IIS -a/ 00, , rlrr DORo 1 r L 1 IIS- I3lflpl J Scale 1:500,000 1 inch equals appro+imalely b miles c� ��10 1 1 -es DUR M DURHAM \r -4o t WATERSHED KEY ED WATERSHED 0 NOT CLASSIFIED bC - BACK CREEK CC - CANE CREEK FR - FLAT RIVER HC - HAM CREEK HR - HAW RIVER HT - HAM TRIBUTARIES JL - JORDAN LAKE JT - JORDAN LAKE TRIBUTARIES LE - LOWER ENO RIVER Lit - LITTLE RIVER NE - NEW HOPE CREEK NH - NORTH HTCO CREEK SH - SOUTH HTCO CREEK UL - UNIVER31TT LAKE U - UPPER ENO RIVER "J Presentation by David Stancil. Stancil produced large maps which represented the following: 1. Classifications recommended by Orange County Administration to the State; 2. State's recommendation to Orange County; 3. Changes in critical areas around water supply reservoirs that would be implemented through the State regulations; 4. Official water supply watershed maps from the State Division. of Environmental Management which shows the water intakes where water is drawn for each of the water supply watersheds in Orange County (there are 11). 5. Two maps which indicate the requested classifications to the State For each of the water supply watersheds and the State recommendations. Stancil reviewed the report summarizing the most critical points of � information and alternative courses of action for the County. he also pointed out the various watersheds and their sources on the displayed maps. (A complete copy of the report: Watershed Protection: Procedures and Imn ica -ions for Orange County is on __le in the Planning Department.) Stancil also noted that the Board of Commissioners would consider the report on August 5 and decide whether to send�a representative to the August 15 public hearing in Raleigh to present the concerns of Orange County. Adjournment time was reached. Cantrell moved, seconded by Reid to continue the meeting. The vote was unanimous. 11 Excerpt from July 15, 1991 Planning Board minutes b. Watershed Report © n (A copy of information the abstract with background is an attachment to these minutes on pages ) Presentation by David Stancil. Stancil produced large maps which represented the following: 1. Classifications recommended by Orange County Administration to the State; 2. State's recommendation to Orange County; 3. Changes in critical areas around water supply reservoirs that would be implemented through the State regulations; 4. Official water supply watershed maps from the State Division. of Environmental Management which shows the water intakes where water is drawn for each of the water supply watersheds in Orange County (there are 11). 5. Two maps which indicate the requested classifications to the State For each of the water supply watersheds and the State recommendations. Stancil reviewed the report summarizing the most critical points of � information and alternative courses of action for the County. he also pointed out the various watersheds and their sources on the displayed maps. (A complete copy of the report: Watershed Protection: Procedures and Imn ica -ions for Orange County is on __le in the Planning Department.) Stancil also noted that the Board of Commissioners would consider the report on August 5 and decide whether to send�a representative to the August 15 public hearing in Raleigh to present the concerns of Orange County. Adjournment time was reached. Cantrell moved, seconded by Reid to continue the meeting. The vote was unanimous. 11 12 Stancil continued reviewing the watershed specific issues included in the report. Stancil indicated that the issue of existing development could also be a critical issue. MOTION: Reid moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that a representative be went to the August 15 public hearing in Raleigh. Seconded by Waddell. VOTE: Unanimous. Board discussion indicated the following issues should be addressed: the Upper Eno Basin, a definition of impervious surface that will allow the use of the sliding scale as in University Lake Watershed, the equity question of inter - jurisdictional development, Haw Creek industrial area be taken into consideration for WS -IV, the use of Orange County's WQC of one -half mile rather than one mile as proposed by the State, South Hyco Oee: issues, and campus restrictions for Jordan Lake. The concern was also expressed ;.ha;. Sep-ember 30, 1991 should not be the cutoff dame. Tt was felt that this was insufficient notice for developments already in process. c. Planning Work -Plan (1) Fiscal Impact Analysis Marvin Collins informed the Board that this analysis was based on a spreadsheet memplame created by the University of Florida using the "averaging approach ". P_ percapita cost is figured using the cost of different functions of the County and the population of the County. Some of the Commissioners had seen the spreadsheet analysis and had asked Collins noted that another critical issue is that of whether the County wants the �JU J�-Lj responsibility role of overseeing wet water detention basins and a monitoring program. Another issue is the clarification of the definition of impervious surface and the use of a sliding scale. Stancil indicated that the issue of existing development could also be a critical issue. MOTION: Reid moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that a representative be went to the August 15 public hearing in Raleigh. Seconded by Waddell. VOTE: Unanimous. Board discussion indicated the following issues should be addressed: the Upper Eno Basin, a definition of impervious surface that will allow the use of the sliding scale as in University Lake Watershed, the equity question of inter - jurisdictional development, Haw Creek industrial area be taken into consideration for WS -IV, the use of Orange County's WQC of one -half mile rather than one mile as proposed by the State, South Hyco Oee: issues, and campus restrictions for Jordan Lake. The concern was also expressed ;.ha;. Sep-ember 30, 1991 should not be the cutoff dame. Tt was felt that this was insufficient notice for developments already in process. c. Planning Work -Plan (1) Fiscal Impact Analysis Marvin Collins informed the Board that this analysis was based on a spreadsheet memplame created by the University of Florida using the "averaging approach ". P_ percapita cost is figured using the cost of different functions of the County and the population of the County. Some of the Commissioners had seen the spreadsheet analysis and had asked 1- ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY PLANNING BOARD FROM DISCUSSION ON STATE WATERSHED PROTECTION EFFORTS, JULY 15, 1991. On July 15, 1991, the Orange County Planning Board received the draft report State watershed Protection: Procedures and Implications for Orange County. After discussion of the implications, issues.and alternatives addressed therein, the Board identified the following areas of concern to be submitted to the Board of Commissioners for appropriate action. Specifically, the Planning Board requests that these issues be addressed in preparing comment to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on adopted watershed rules or preliminary classifications to be presented at the August 15, 1991 hearing. • Stormwater Control Responsibility: The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners closely evaluate the implication of the EMC rule that would require local governments to bear ultimate responsibility for maintenance and monitoring of new stormwater controls such as detention /retention ponds. e Definition of Existing Development: The EMC is currently using 9 -30 -91 as a deadline for lots or projects to be considered pre- existing development under the new regulations. The Planning Board is concerned that adherence to this deadline, with the adopted delays in classification, will create a moratorium of sorts for landowners and developers before classifications are adopted in 1992. • UNC Campus Concerns: The University of North Carolina is within the five -mile "protected area" of the Jordan Lake watershed and will be affected by proposed regulatory changes. The Planning Board feels that Orange County might want to take a position in support of the University (which is in Chapel Hill jurisdiction) if comments are presented to the EMC on August 15? • Upper Eno - Reservoirs /Classification: Several issues concerning the Upper Eno watershed have been identified. Among these are:.l) a potential decision . on which of the three proposed reservoirs in the watershed are feasible as proposed; 2) the question of splitting the basin (north /south) for the purposes of allowing a higher level of protection for future water supplies; and 3) if a WS- II classification is proposed for the northern portion off the Upper Eno watershed as alluded to above, the: consideration of a request that the 7 -Mile Creek basin remain in a WS -IV classification might be appropriate. • Impervious Surfaces: The concept of a sliding scale for impervious surfaces was adopted by Orange County in University Lake watershed as a means of providing 14 flexibility to existing lots affected by the coverage requirements of the University Lake Watershed ordinance. This limit can reach 15% for smaller lots (for example, 1/2 acre) but is only 4% for large -lot development. The Board requests that the County Commissioners consider asking the EMC to utilize a sliding scale for surfaces, and further consider categorizing impervious surfaces into two classes: completely impervious - asphalt, concrete, etc. where the level of imperviousness is 95% plus; and quasi-impervious - gravel or dirt roads which are approximately 65% impervious. • Equity Considerations: Should watershed protectors (individual or jurisdictional) be compensated for providing a unique service as a public benefit? Methods of compensation could include monetary, in -kind, water service extensions, et al. Orange County is the headwater jurisdiction for 11 water supplies, most of which are utilized by other entities. • Inter - Regional Cooperation/ Disputes: Along the same lines as equity consideration, is it possible to create a mechanism to resolve disputes caused by differing goals of jurisdictions which share watersheds? Inter - regional meetings might be a helpful forum, and inter - jurisdictional allocation of permitted non - residential development might be a potential tool. • Critical Area Definition: The new critical area under new state rules for reservoirs /river intakes would extend beyond current Orange County Water Quality Critical Areas (WQCA) and necessitate revisions to the zoning ordinance. Presently, the County definition of a critical area uses "the portions of the water supply watersheds which drain directly to water supply impoundments and which drain directly to the main channels of trunk streams which feed these impoundments." Several members of the Planning Board support the current definition of critical areas. • Commercial/ Industrial Activity Nodes: The Board proposes that the Haw Creek and South Hyco Creek Watersheds be classified WS -IV for several reasons, including existing Commercial/ Industrial or Rural Industrial activity nodes in Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships. The Haw Creek watershed in particular contains substantial industrial base in the Mebane area. In accordance with the Upper Eno concerns listed above, the possibility of a future transit corridor along 1--85 would also impact the Seven - Mile Creek basin. Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.Q. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968 -4421 COMMENTS TO NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED RECLASSITICATIONS AND REVISED WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS RULES FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION Archdale Building Raleigh, North Carolina August 15, 1991 Presented by Lois T. Herring, Chairman Orange Water and Sewer Authority Good evening. My name is Lois Herring. I chair the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, and am speaking tonight on their behalf. OWASA serves drinking water to Carrboro /Chapel Hill area from University Lake and Cane creek discharge treated wastewater t, where OWASA holds a 10 million supply storage allocation from 55,000 people in the two high quality sources - Reservoir. Additionally, we a major tributary of Jordan Lake, gallon per day Level lI water the EMC. Our comments are directed at issues which are both statewide and local in scope. Let me start by commending DEM and DCA staff for compiling such an outstanding package of information that accompanied the proposed reclassifications and rule changes. This material has been invaluable for understanding these complicated issues. Thanks to your staff for an exceptional job. OWASA's comments include two issues of statewide relevance. First, we encourage the EMC to reclassify water supplies to categories that will promote protection rather than degradation. For example, we hope tha-t one or two minor non - conforming uses, such as existing discharges from rural schools or mobile home - parks, will not disqualify a water supply from a higher classification that would otherwise promote better long term protection. An Equal Opportunity Employer 15 AUG -15 -91 THU 11 11 30 0, W. A, Y i Verbal Comments to EMC Public Heara.riS August 15, 1991 Page 2 he definition of "existing not that t Paragraph (s) Should Secondly, OWASA believes n Section .0104, but development >�� pro 'IV i ly zoned for a particular use, that are situp advanced in the include areas to Pro sufficiently Accordingly, ro a vested• should be limited for zoning rights to b - , or areas zoned as went process which reads; �� areas for which develop h t the warding to . we suggest t a �� be changed $epte'M 30 1 date Prior to of the closing been established P a zoning vested right has 1991." the University osed reclass'ficatiol1 of the prop We note that section OWASA su orts Creek Reservoirs to WS -11. tain Cane the EMC to designate ceX Lake and ra h (k) enables and thereby .0104, ParaB p water supply Watersheds, ent than the �� critical" re string r the watersheds as uiremeats that are mo nation fo impose management req request such a designation Camp We hereby submit by reference the statewide minimum• and s Study and the 1Tniversi.ty Lake watershed, Lake Watershed S than a Dresser and McKee University that were enacted nlorradation- stringent 1oca1 zoning ra ulations nom future deg the rotection from, ensure that re the lake 1 Watershed will future year ago to ensu a critical ram is Prot from EMC designation as strong University Lake program currently weaken it• actions that might from agricultural rotection luntary that the most effective F but through vo We recognize through ulation, such.as Pollution will not come and utility provide =s> h (4) to collaboration between farmer he addition of paragrain water Nevertheless, we su ort t OWASA• rtain agricultural 'Practices requirin8 .0104, requiring ce that the r Section we believe around all agricultural watersheds; furthermore, ,at supply buffers of at least ten opera tions vegetated special B4,9s for animal Waters and requiting to peren *.i al Areas activities should apply Critical greats,' than► 10D animal units rather than just the ically hout.WS -ll watersheds' Lake and Cane Creek typ ollution :hxou university may be PIS" icant P ;,latersheds such as that xicultural activities regulated accordingly- include a9These watersheds should be to sources. development, we ask the EMC to all perennial and stream buffers around new ui.rement 'aphis Regarding stream buffer req shown on USGS topog the 100 foot only to extend irk WS -1 watershe s intermittent streams in 5ection .0211 (d)(3)(B)(VI) apply at rules maps. Preae perennial Streams r nA nu. � J jdbb4421 P. 04 1'7 Verbal Comments to EMC Public Hearing August 15, 1991 Page 3 We hope the Commission and staff accept OWASA's remarks with the constructive spirit in which they are offered. We may submit additional written details before the end of the comment period; but, in the meantime, please feel free to contact our staff for any further information. We appreciate your Consideration E: Richard L. Honeycutt Assistant County Manager /Operations ALAMANCE COUNTY Department of Administration COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 124 West Elm Street Graham, North Carolina 27253 19 Telephone 228 -1312 Area Code 919 August 16, 1991 - WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS HEARING COMMENTS The attached comments were presented to the Environmental Management Commission at the hearing held in Raleigh on August 15, 1991. These copies are provided for your information. Should you have any questions, please contact me or Chuck Kitchen. Richard L. Honeycutt Assistant County Manager /Operations 0 Recycled Paper 24 Al=mtcP Cra=tq OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY �+ 124 WEST ELM STREET S.C.Kitchen GRAHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27253 COUNTY ATTORNEY TEL. (919) 228.1312 Elizabeth A Hansen CLERK TO THE BOARD FAX (919) 570.3264 HUMAN RESOURCES ATTORNEY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO WATER SUPPLY RULES ADOPTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 13, 1990 The following comments are made on behalf of the County of Alamance regarding the proposed revisions to the Water Supply Rules and Proposed Model Water Supply Watershed Management and Prevention Ordinance: STORMWATER DISCHARGES The proposed rules have included control of stormwater discharges as well as non -point source pollution. To the extent the rules endeavor to do this, it exceeds the statutory authority granted by G.S. S 143- 214.5(b).. The General Statutes give the Commission rule- making authority to "adopt rules for the classification of water supply watersheds and that establish minimum statewide water supply watershed protection requirements applicable to each classification to protect surface water supplies by (i). controlling development density, (ii) providing for performance -based alternatives to development density controls that are based on sound engineering principles, or (iii) a combination of both (i) and (ii).11 There appears no enabling language to develop rules which regulate the discharge of storm - water, and specifically no authority to require, as is done in .0104(v), local governments to implement comprehensive non -point source and stormwater discharge control programs. Additionally, the requirement that local governments develop and enforce programs regulating forestry, landfills, mining, toxic and hazardous materials, and transportation all exceed both the authority of the Environmental Management Commission and the authority of local governments. SILVICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE The requirement set forth in .0104(g) that there be maintained a ten foot vegetated buffer along all perennial waters for all agricultural activities exceeds the authority of the Environmental Management Commission as provided in G.S. 5 143- 214.5. Further, to the extent that paragraphs (g) and (u) are intended to require local governments to enforce best management practices, these rules exceed the authority of the Environmental Management Commission and are in direct contravention of G.S. S 153A -340. The primary enforcement tool of local governments in these areas is its zoning powers. G.S. 5 153A -340 specifically states that the zoning power of the county is limited. The exact language reads as follows: "These regulations may not affect 40% Recvcled Paoer 2] bona fide farms... I, to the extent the regulations attempt to have the counties use their zoning power to control agriculture and silviculture they are in violation of this statutory restriction. "GRANDFATHERING" AND COMMENCEMENT OF NEW ACTIVITIES .0104(s) and (t) permit the "grandfathering" of existing development on the date of the close of the public hearings. The commencement of new activities following the closing date of the public hearings must comply with the rules. These two provisions violate the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. First, on the closing date of the public hearings, unless rules are adopted on that date, no one knows what the rules will be on July 1, 1992 with which they will be required to comply. Further, the local government will have no authority other than to permit development in the watersheds until such time as these rules become effective and local ordinances are adopted implementing the rules. At present, the deadline for the approval by the Environmental Management Commission of county ordinances is set at January 1, 1994. Until such time, a county government will have no way to regulate the development which is being continued in the watersheds. As such, these two paragraphs should be amended to reflect that development is "grandfathered" in on such date as the local ordinance is adopted and becomes effective in each local jurisdiction. Additionally, the last sentence of (t) which provides that if the local government permits activities subsequent to the closing date of the public hearings that the remainder of the jurisdiction will have to compensate for these permits, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina Constitution insofar as it provides for differing regulation of two identical pieces of property by one government. STATE - CONTROL OF LOCAL PROGRAMS .0104(1), (w), and (x), together provide for intrusion on the local government authority in violation of Article II, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution limiting the legislatures authority to enact local or private laws relating to health and non - navigable streams. As the General Assembly does not have the authority directly to control a local government program dealing with a specific variance on a_given Piece of property, it does not have the authority to vest the Environmental Management Commission with the authority to regulate the local program or permit variances on individual tracts of land. Further, the attempt by an appointed administrative agency of the executive branch of government to control local legislative bodies is a violation of Separation of Powers Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. Additionally, the ability to grant variances for zoning appeals, is granted to the local Board of Adjustment by G.S. § 153A -345. Any change -2- 22 from this procedure would require a modification by the legislature of the statute. MODEL WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION ORDINANCE The model ordinance with two exceptions provides a good basic ordinance for a county which has no subdivision ordinance or zoning ordinance. However, for counties which already have such ordinances, this model ordinance provides absolutely no guidance whatsoever. It would be of much more benefit to such counties if model ordinances could be developed which would contain language to implement density controls in subdivision ordinances and zoning ordinances. To the extent the model ordinance attempts to regulate . agriculture and silviculture activities, this is prohibited by G.S. S 153A -340 as indicated above. Also, the model ordinance fails to include language providing for the "high density" option asset forth in the regulations for development. PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS The proposed amendment to the rules which disallows new permits for land application of petroleum contaminated soils is supported by the County. The County believes that this has been a shortcoming of the rules which allowed petroleum contaminated soils in critical areas which provides for a much greater chance of contamination of drinking water supplies than does development. Respectfully submitted, this.the 15th day of August, 1991. S. C. Kitchen County Attorney UK]= ,. 4 r• Richard L. Honeycutt Assistant County Manager /Operations ALAMANCE COUNTY Department of Administration COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 124 West Elm Street Graham, North Carolina 27253 COMMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WATERSHED RECLASSIFICATIONS Hearing Date: August 15, 1991 Location: Raleigh, NC Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the reclassifications of watersheds in Alamance County. Telephone 228.1312 Area Code 919 Proposed Alamance County has been a leader in adopting watershed protection regulations as recommended by the State. Our ordinance has been on the books since 1987. The proposed reclassifications for the watersheds in Alamance County could severely limit growth in some areas of our County. The Alamance County Board of Commissioners have authorized S. C. Kitchen, County Attorney and myself to present the Board's concerns about the proposed regulations. I will present the' County's position on each proposed watershed classification, and Mr. Kitchen will discuss some of our concerns on the newly proposed regulations. Taking each watershed separately, Alamance County proposes the following: 1. Stoney Creek Watershed State Proposes WS II Alamance County Proposes WS III Comment: There are currently almost 28 acres per dwelling unit in the watershed. The Alamance County Board Of Commissioners submits that outside the water quality critical area the minimum lot size should be one unit per acre as allowed in WS III. The soil conditions of this watershed will naturally limit growth. We would submit that if soils on a one -acre lot will allow a home to be built with septic tank, .then a one -acre lot should be allowed. Recycled Paper 23 24 Watershed Reclassifications Page Two 2. Quaker Lake State Proposes WS Ii Alamance County Proposes WS III Comment: In Alamance County's jurisdiction of this watershed there are over 26 acres per dwelling unit. Alamance County would again submit that one acre lots outside the critical area should be adequate in this watershed for the same reasons as in the Stoney Creek Watershed. 3. Big Alamance Creek Lake Macintosh State Proposes WS IV Alamance County Proposes WS III Comment: Only a small portion of this watershed is in Alamance County, all of which is critical area. Alamance County's watershed ordinance already provides for an 80,000 square -foot minimum lot size for residential lots. Current residential development in this critical area is 18+ acres per dwelling unit. Lake Macintosh, when completed, will be the primary water supply for several cities whose total population approaches 50,000. 4. Haw Creek (Proposed Lake State Proposes WS II Alamance County Proposes WS IV Comment: This reservoir has been in the planning stages since 1969. To our knowledge, no real progress is being made to actually build the reservoir. The upper reaches of the watershed take in Interstate -40/85 and southern Mebane's growth area. A WS II would severely limit the planned growth for this area. 5. Cane Creek (OWASA) State Proposes WS II Alamance County Proposes WS III Comment: Alamance County submits that one acre lots are adequate to protect the water supplies in this area of Alamance County. Only a small area of the watershed is in Alamance County. The existing development is approximately 26 acres per dwelling unit. 25 Watershed Reclassifications Page Three 6. Rocky River State Proposes WS III Alamance County Proposes WS III Comment: The State and Alamance County are in agreement on the classification of this watershed. 7. Haw River B num State Proposes WS IV Alamance County Proposes WS IV Comment: The State and Alamance County are in agreement on the classification of this watershed. Alamance County urges your consideration of the above requests in the reclassification of these watersheds. Respectfully submitted: Richard L. Honeycutt Assistant County Manager /Operations 26 . • -" (919)560 -137 Memorandum August 12, 1991 To: Orville W. Powell, City Manager Paul Warren, Interim County Manager From: A. Paul Norby, Planning Director Terry Rolan, Water Resources Dir cto Subject: Watershed Protection: Adopted Rules, Proposed Rules and Proposed Classifications Recently, City and County elected officials requested additional information on the State's watershed rules and classifications being implemented in response to House Bill 156. In general, almost everyone involved with these rules and classifications concede that they are complicated and confusing. The attached report is intended to shed some Iight on the subject and to highlight the implications for Durham City and County. At the end of this report, the staff recommends several comments that the City Council and Board of County Commissioners might consider making to the Environmental Management Commission at upcoming public hearings or soon thereafter in writing. I hope this information is useful. cc Ken Wright, City Engineer Keith Luck, Principal Planner 2'7 EAX liuol 29 Watershed Protection: North Carolina Environmental Management Commission's Adopted Rules, Proposed Rules and Proposed Classifications Report to the Durham City Council and the Durham Board of County Com umoners Revised August 13, 1991 The purpose of this report is to provide general information about the watershed rules and classifications being considered by the State in implementing House Bill 156. First, background information is provided about the general approach to watershed protection and about statutory deadlines. Then, the adopted rules and proposed classifications are reviewed relative to current local ordinances. Next, the report explores land use and Comprehensive Plan implications of the rules and classifications as well as several alternatives. Finally, the staff makes recommendations about what the City and County should comment to the State at upcoming public hearings about watershed protection. I. Background Information. In June 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted House Bill 156, entitled Water Supply Protection Act. This Act establishes a process for the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to develop and implement minimum land development rules for protection of surface water supplies. Local governments will have to put zoning provisions into place to apply these minimum requirements to land development activities in their jurisdictions. In general, the approach is to prevent pollution of the State's rivers, lakes and reservoirs that are used for water supply by restricting the intensity of development and point Source pollution discharges permitted in their watersheds. This was to be accomplished in three steps: ■ By January 1, 1991, the EMC was to adopt a new system of water supply classifications, with land development and discharge rules for each individual classification. ■ By January 1, 1992, the EMC was to place all surface waters of the State used for water supply into one of the new classifications. ■ By July 1, .1992, local governments were to adopt and submit to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) local ordinances that implement the State's minimum rules. On July 1, 1991, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted House Bill 873, extending the deadlines for watershed management steps required by House Bill 156. The deadline for the EMC to complete classifying of all existing surface water supplies in the State was extended six months to July 1, 1992. The deadline for all local governments to submit ordinances implementing the new requirements was also extended. Now, municipalities with population of 5,000 or more must submit adopted ordinances no later than July 1, 1993, a one year extension from the previous requirements. Counties must submit adopted ordinances no later than January 1, 1994, offering a full 18 months of relief from the previously established deadline. 30 II. Proposed Rules and Classifications. A. Proposed Water Supply Protection Rules. In December 1990, the EMC adopted water supply watershed protection rules to satisfy the first of these statutory deadlines. The EMC established four classes of water supply protection: WS- I, WS -II, WS -III and WS -IV. In addition, the EMC adopted rules for land use and intensity, stormwater management and point source discharges within classification. These are minimum rules; local governments are encouraged to adopt more stringent standards. The rules are summarized in a table provided by DEM, included as Attachment 1. Since WS -I classifications are oriented toward undeveloped watersheds, this discussion will focus on the other three classifications and their rules. I. WS U. The classification of WS -II is appropriate for watersheds that are predominantly undeveloped. A Critical Area would extend one mile from and draining to a river intake or to the normal pool of a reservoir. In the Critical Area as well as the remainder of the watershed, only existing wastewater discharges would be permitted. Density limitations for both areas would be one dwelling unit per two acres or a maximum of six percent built - upon area. No high density option would be allowed, although the rules would permit up to ten percent of the area in the watershed to be developed for non - residential purpose to a maximum of 70 percent built -upon areas without stormwater controls. No sludge application, landfills or industrial uses would be permitted in the Critical Area. In the remaining portions of the watershed, sludge application and non - discharging landfills would be permitted. 2. - WS -111. The classification of WS -III is appropriate for low to moderately developed watersheds. A Critical Area would be defined as described for WS -II. In the Critical Area, no new wastewater discharges would be permitted. Density limitation would be one dwelling unit per two acres or six percent built upon areas. However, a high density option could be used, permitting up to 30 percent built -upon areas provided runoff from one inch of stormwater is controlled. No new industrial uses, landfills or sludge application sites would be allowed. If the high density option is used, local governments must assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater controls. Restrictions would also apply to the remainder of the watershed. Only domestic and non- process wastewater discharges would be permitted. Density limitations would be one dwelling unit per acre or 12 percent built -upon surfaces, but a high density option is available. If development projects control runoff from one inch of stormwater, density limitations are relaxed to permit up to 50 percent built -upon areas. Likewise, local governments must'assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater controls. As with WS -II, up to 10 percent of the watershed area outside of the Critical Area could be developed at up to 70 percent built-upon areas without stormwater controls. Sludge application sites are allowed, but no new discharging landfills would be permitted. 2 3. WS - -IV. 31 WS -IV classification is appropriate for watershed that are moderately to highly developed. Within a one mile Critical Area, new domestic wastewater discharges would be permitted, but new industrial discharges would not. Permitted density would be one dwelling unit per acre or 12 percent built -upon surfaces. Under a high density option, built -upon areas could be as high as 30 percent, provided that runoff from one inch of stormwater is controlled. The rules would apply no additional restrictions to non - residential development. No new landfills or sludge application sites would be permitted. Outside of the Critical Area, the new rules would establish a Protected Area. It would extend five miles from the normal pool of the reservoir or to the ridgeline, whichever is the shortest distance, or for "run -of - river" water sources, 10 miles upstream of and draining to the river intake. In the Protected Area, domestic and industrial discharges would be permitted. Density would be limited to two dwelling units per acre or 24 percent built - upon areas. Under a high density option, built -upon areas could go to 70 percent if development controlled the runoff form one inch of stormwater. Non - residential development, landfills and sludge application sites would be permitted. Also included here are Tables 1, 2 and 3 which compare the proposed State rules to the City and County ordinances currently in effect for watershed protection. With a few minor changes, the City and County ordinances as they apply to the watersheds of Lake Michie and Little River would meet or exceed the proposed State rules. As shown in these Tables, the proposed rules for protection of the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs are similar to the City and County. ordinances, except that the State rules allow greater- density in the Critical Area and propose a Protected Area of five miles from the normal pool elevation for the entire reservoir. In contrast, the City and County ordinances apply different levels of protection depending on the classification of waters as originally applied by the EMC in 1983. These differences are described in more detail below. B. Proposed Water Supply Classifications. In May 1991, the EMC proposed classifications for each of the water supply rivers and "reservoirs in the State as part of its process to satisfy the second of its statutory deadlines. The proposed classifications affecting Durham County are as follows: ■ Falls of the Neuse Reservoir (excluding Lake Michie and Little River tributaries): from multiple classifications (WS -III, B and C) to WS IV. ■ Jordan Reservoir: from multiple classifications of WS-M, B and C to WS -IV. ■ Lake Michie Reservoir watershed: from WS -III to WS -II. Little River Reservoir: from WS -III to WS-H. ■ Eno River (upstream from the emergency water intake): from multiple classifications of WS -Ili and C to WS IV. 3 32 Revised Aut•ust l9. 1991 T meats COE111m oa of ILQCg'an�d . State '' able ,.; Regiure ''' ,: , Ial� Michle artd tittle' River Reservoirs Wags- Pcopaed WS-II' •` ..:..::.: .... ....:..:::::.:.. :5'tIft Rules'; :::::.:::::.. ::' ,: City RequirGO>eats Co itrem�ts Critical Ares Critical :::::: •' 'Critical Area Low Density Option 1 DU /Acre or 6 percent impervious surfaces 1 DU /2 Acres, (without stormwater 6% built -upon plus 1/2 inch storm runoff 6 percent impervious surfaces controls) High Density Option Not allowed Control 1 inch of runoff, may Control 1 inch of runoff (with stormwater exclude residential roofs (may exclude residential roof controls) Stormwater Controls NA Control first 1/2 inch of runoff NA Non - Residential No new industry No industry, limited No industry; Special Use Development commercial Permit for commercial Stream Buffers 100 ft. on perennial 50 ft. on major, 150 ft. on perennial, 25 ft. on minor 50 ft. on intermittent Landfills No new landfills allowed None allowed None allowed Discharges Only general, no domestic or None allowed No new discharges allowed industrial allowed Sewers Allowed Gravity only with dev. No new sewer lines agreement prior to June 1, 187, or to correct health hazard :6f Watae : ...... Bain Area Low Density Option 1 DU /2 Acres or 12% w/o public sewer, 30576 1 DU /2 Acres, (with stormwater 6% built -upon with public sewer 6% impervious surfaces controls) - High Density Option 1 DU /2 Acres or Less than 30`Ro with public Control 1" runoff, may (without stormwater 6% built -upon sewer and Special Use Permit exclude residential roof controls) Stormwater Controls NA Control 1 12" runoff NA Non - Residential 10% of watershed, maximum Limited industrial None Allowed Development 70% built -upon and commercial Stream Buffers 100 ft. on- perennial 50 ft. on major, . 150 ft. on perennial, 25 ft. on minor 50 ft. on intermittent Landfills No new discharging allowed Allowed Allowed Discharges Only general, no domestic or No new private, no expansion None allowed industrial allowed of existing private allowed Sewers Allowed Allowed =No new, except to correct health hazard Notes: 1. Perennial streams indicated as solid blue line on USGS; intermittent streams indicated as dashed blue, line 'on USGS. 2. Major streams mean drainage area greater than one square mile; minor streams mean drainage area less than one square mile and greater than 50 acres. Revised August 13. 1991 3'� Falls 'Table and Jordan Reservoir Wa Tab 2' Comparison Of Focal and Proposed — rra�ea ws-ry Reservoir State nts, r Ca State Rules city �q ... County uiremcatts Critical Az k : ;' ::.. . Critical Area Critical Am Low Density Option 1 DU /Acre or 6% impervious surfaces (without stormwater l DU /50,000 $q. Ft., 12% built -upon 656 impervious surfaces controls) High Density Option 12% to 30% built -upon areas, Control 1" of runoff, may 9% impervious surfaces with (with stormwater may exclude residential roofs exclude residential roofs Special Use Permit and controls) control 1" of runoff Stormwater Controls Control 1" of runoff Control 1/2" of runoff Control 1/2" of runoff Non - Residential Allowed No industry, limited No industry allowed Development commercial allowed Stream Buffers 100 ft. on perennial 50 ft. on major, 100 ft. on perennial, 50 ft. on minor 50 ft. intermittent Landfills No new landfills allowed None allowed None allowed Discharges Domestic only, no new None allowed No new discharges allowed industrial allowed Sewers Allowed Public gravity only; Public gravity only; no new no new private allowed private allowed IE Protected Aiea :::;:; Lrmihed Indtistnal, Area' !'':; ; Basin Area Low Density Option 2 DU /Acres or 12% without public sewer, 1 DU /40,000 Sq. Ft., (without stormwater 24% built -upon 30% with public sewer 15% impervious surfaces controls) without public sewer, 30% with public sewer High Density Option 24% to 70% built -upon Not more than 30% with 20% impervious surfaces (with stormwater public sewer and with public sewer, controls) Special Use Permit 40% without public sewer, with Special Use Permit and control of 1" of runoff Stormwater Controls Control 1" of runoff Control 1/2" of runoff Control 1/2" of runoff Non - Residential Allowed Limited industrial Limited industrial and Development uses allowed commercial allowed Stream Buffers 100 ft. on perennial 50 ft. on major, 50 ft. on perennial, 50 ft. on minor 50 ft. on intermittent Landfills Allowed Allowed Allowed Discharges Domestic and industrial allowed Allowed for non -water supply Private allowed class; no new private, by Special Use Permit no expansion of existing to water supply class Sewers Allowed Allowed, gravity flow Allowed only on tribs. to WS Notes: 1. Perennial streams indicated as solid blue line on USGS; intermittent streams indicated as dashed blue line on USGS. 2. Major streams mean drainage area greater than one square mile; minor streams mean drainage area less than one square mile and greater than 50 acres. md Revised August 13, 1991 ". Table :3 G+a of Local a� Prupa®ed S ` mpanson tats Requirements; Eno River: Watershed (Emergency Raw Waier Intakej- Proposed WS-IV . City Raluirementg .' :. County Requirements Critycal .Area . Critical Area Low Density Option 1 DU /Acre or 12% No Change No Change (without stormwater built -upon areas controls) High Density Option 12% to 30% NA NA (with stormwater built -upon areas controls) Stormwater Controls Control 1" of runoff NA NA Non- Residential Allowed Allowed Allowed Development Stream Buffers 100 ft. on perennial NA NA Landfills No new landfills allowed Allowed Allowed Discharges Domestic only, no new Allowed Allowed industrial allowed Sewers Allowed - Allowed Allowed ... immmod .Industrsal tected . i<: Basin'Area Low Density Option 2 DU /Acres or No Change No Change (without stormwater 24% built -upon controls) High Density Option 24% to 70% built -upon NA NA (with stormwater controls) Stormwater Controls Control 1" of runoff NA NA Non - Residential Allowed Allowed Allowed Development Stream Buffers 100 ft. on perennial NA NA Landfills Allowed Allowed Allowed Discharges Domestic and industrial allowed Allowed Allowed Sewers Allowed Allowed Allowed Notes: 1. Perennial streams indicated as solid blue line on USGS; intermittent streams indicated as dashed blue line on USGS. 2. Major streams mean drainage area greater than one square mile; minor streams mean drainage area less than one square mile and greater than 50 acres. C. Reaction to the Proposed Rules. 35 On May 6, 1990, the City Council adopted a resolution strongly urging the EMC to reconsider its final rules; to give opportunity for the affected public to become aware of those rules as proposed; and to receive public comment on those rules prior to their implementation. As a result of these concerns by the City and others, the EMC decided to delay the effective date of the rules adopted in December, 1990 until after receiving public comment on the proposed reclassification of all exiting surface waters used for water supply purposes. Attachment 2 is information provided by the DEM to summarize the proposed rules and classifications and answers some commonly asked questions. D. Public Comment on Rules and Classifications. The EMC has set eight public hearings around the State in August to receive public comments on the rules adopted in December, the proposed reclassification and another set of recently proposed amendments. The hearing closest to Durham will be in Raleigh on August 15, 1991 at 7:00 pm. (See Attachment 3 for a list of other public hearing places and dates.) Written comments will be accepted before, during and within 30 days after completion of the hearing procedures. The last day for acceptance of written comments will be September 30, 1991. After the public hearings, the EMC can adopt rules and /or classifications that are more or less stringent than those proposed if the EMC determines that the provisions adopted are a logical outgrowth of the proposed criteria and information received during the hearing process. For this reason, it is important that the City and County comment on areas where there is a concern that the rules and /or classifications remain the same or become more stringent, as well as those areas that should be more flexible, Modifications to the final rules and /or classifications could potentially affect persons who are not currently affected under the what is proposed. Therefore, it is very important that all interested and potentially affected persons make their opinions known to the EMC hearing officer concerning all provisions of the proposed rules and classifications. . III. Implications of the Proposed Rules and Classifications. Presented with this report is a large display map (not incorporated here due to production difficulties and its size) with overlays showing the implications of the proposed regulations and several alternate scenarios. These are intended to graphically depict the land area in Durham County that would be defined as Critical Area and Protected Area under the adopted rules and proposed classifications. A.. Present City and County Watershed Protection. The City and County of Durham both have been regulating land for watershed protection since the mid- 1980's. Although they generally approach watershed protection in the same way, some of the specific elements of the City and County requirements are different. The City's regulations define an inner ring Critical Area and an outer ring Limited Industrial Area (LIA). At present, the City has jurisdiction over a small sliver of land that would meet its requirements for Critical Area. The City does, however, have two areas of LIA. According to the ordinance, LIA is applied to the area within 1/2 mile from the public property acquired 7 36 for the reservoirs. For the Falls Reservoir, the City's LIA covers a one square mile area on the Eno River near Old Oxford Highway. (See the Table 4: Watershed Protection Areas, Present and Proposed). For the Jordan Reservoir, the LIA covers a considerably larger area in the vicinity of the New Hope Creek tributary. This ten square mile area generally extends from Chapel Hill Blvd. on the north to I-40 on the south. The County's regulations define a Water Quality Critical Area and a Water Quality Basin Area. The Critical Area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir. The Basin Area extends throughout the remainder of the watershed where the watershed drains to lake waters classified as water supply (WS). In areas not draining to a WS- classified water, the Basin Area extends two miles from the normal pool elevation. The County has Critical Areas and Basin Areas around each of the four reservoirs in Durham County. The amount of land in each of these two types of areas for each of the four reservoirs is shown in Table 4. The City and County ordinances do not currently address the "run -of - river" intake on the Eno River, except where existing land use and zoning might coincidentally be similar to that required by the State rules. The City's emergency raw water intake on the Eno river was last used prior to the completion of the Little River Reservoir. Given the City's current water supply capabilities, this intake would only be used now in the case of a significant interruption of the water supply from either Little River or Lake Michie Reservoirs. However, the City may want to maintain this water supply capability for future use both in case of emergencies and for possible use in connection with the development of the Nelio Teer Rock Quarry at some point in the future as a water supply storage facility. B. Implications of Adopted Regulations and Proposed Classifications. Table 4 shows the geographic areas covered by present City and County regulations. In addition, the Table shows the extent of areas of Durham County covered by the EMC's proposed rules. Included here are watersheds for Lake Michie, Little River, the Eno River water intake, Falls Reservoir and Jordan Reservoir. As indicated earlier in this report, the EMC has proposed the classifications of WS-IV for the entire Falls and Jordan Reservoirs. This represents a change from the way that the reservoirs are presently classified. For both reservoirs, the portions of the reservoir closest to the water intake structures and dams are presently classified as a water supply source. However, the upper reaches of the reservoirs, i.e., the portions more distant from water intakes and dams, are.presently classified as B and C, indicating waters that are not appropriate for water supply. This recognizes several features about the Falls Reservoir. The Reservoir is long (18 miles) and is segmented by causeways for road and rail crossings, but connected by causeway openings. Therefore, in some ways the Reservoir performs like a "chain of lakes ", each with its own characteristics regarding pollution settling and transmission. Under the adopted EMC rules, Durham would delineate a Critical Area approximately one mile from the normal pool of the reservoirs or at the ridgeline, whichever is the shortest distance. Likewise, a Protected Area for the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs would be delineated approximately five males from the normal pool of the Reservoirs or at the ridgeline, whichever is the shortest distance. 8 3r 1 . .. W Protection; Area s s:,present, aud;', .:. W• 1. Falls Reservoir. For the Falls Reservoir, the Critical Area would be about 17 square miles (a slight increase) and the protected area would be about 35 square miles, more than doubling the present Basin and LIA combined. These figures exclude the water surface area of the reservoirs and the Corps land purchased for the Reservoirs and, therefore, reflect potentially developable land. (For the purposes of these figures, the normal pool of the Falls Reservoir is defined in accordance with the Board of County Commissioner's actions on June 24, 1991. Under this definition, the normal pool is located on Ellerbee Creek and the Eno River where the County's consultant surveyor, KCI; located the 250.1 foot MSL water surface elevation. The normal pool elevation is located on the Flat River in accordance with the 1987 USGS quadrangle map's delineation of the 250 foot MSL contour. Staff at DEM has yet to receive and review this definition.) Land Use Plan Compatibility. For the Falls Reservoir, most of the .land that would be delineated as Critical Area is outside of the City's Urban Growth Area, except for an area near Red Mill Road and the Eno River. The County General Development Plan 2005 Future Land Use Map projects land uses in the Critical Area to be primarily open space, agricultural and rural. A major exception is this same area near Red Mill Road and the Eno River, which the County's.Plan projects to be more intensely used for commercial, office, research and industrial purposes. The State's rules are generally compatible with the Critical Area land use density proposed for south of the Eno River, but incompatible with planned uses in the small area north of the Eno River. The area that would be delineated as Protected Area under the State's rules encompasses substantial land inside the City's Urban Growth Area. The City's Future Land Use Map shows a mixture of projected uses for this area, although the majority is low density residential. Several areas projected for higher intensity land uses are included in the Protected Area: a commercial and industrial center at I -85 and Glenn School Road, and industrial center near Hamlin Road and Old Oxford Highway, ,high density residential areas between Roxboro Road and Old Oxford Highway, a commercial center at NC 98 and Mineral Springs Road. (Several landfill sites have been suggested for the Protected area; note that landfills are allowed.) The land use density proposed under the State's rules is generally compatible with suburban density residential development envisioned in Durham's Plan. However, -under the low density option, the State's rules for other development conflict with Durham's long range Plan. Under the high density option, development restrictions, and thus conflicts with long range plans, are not as severe. To date, no small area plans have been completed in this Protected Area. 2. Jordan Reservoir_ For the Jordan Reservoir, the Critical Area would be about 1 square mile (about a two - thirds reduction) and the Protected Area would be about 21 square miles (about a one -third increase). Again, these figures exclude the water surface area of the reservoirs and the Corps land purchased for the Reservoirs and, therefore, reflect potentially developable land. The Protected Area would include less area on New Hope Creek tributaries than is presently regulated, but more on Northeast Creek in the vicinity of NC 55 and NC 54. 10 �� Land Use Plan Compatibility. For the Jordan Reservoir, all of the land that would be delineated as Critical Area under the State's rules is outside of the City's Urban Growth Area and, therefore, projected for rural land uses. The area is indicated on the County's General Development Plan 2005 Future Land Use Map as appropriate for open space and low density residential, less than three units per acre. The density required by the State's rules is reasonably compatible with the County and City Plans. The area that would be delineated as Protected Area is mostly inside the City's Urban Growth Area. As indicated on the future land use maps of Durham's adopted small area plans, projected land uses for this area included residential uses at various densities and commercial and office uses. Under the low density option, many of these high density residential and non - residential uses would be limited, but under the high density option, development restrictions are easier to accommodate. Research and associated developments in and around RTP would also be affected, but present RTP development restrictions are similar to the State's built -upon area limits. 3. Lake Michie and Little River Reservoirs. The EMC has proposed classifying these two reservoirs as WS -II. These are relatively high classifications, indicating their. desirability for water supply. Under the adopted rules, Durham would delineate a one mile Critical Area around each reservoir. The remainder of the watershed would also be subject to new State rules. The State's Critical Areas would cover about the same area as Durham County's presently defined Critical Areas. Consequently, the areas regulated would remain the same. The Critical Area for Lake Michie is about 11 square miles, and the remainder of the watershed in Durham County is about 22 square miles. The Critical Area for the Little River Reservoir is about 13 square miles, and the remainder of the watershed in Durham County is about 21 square miles. Again, these figures exclude the water surface of the reservoirs and the City land purchased for the reservoirs. Land Use Plan Compatibility. Very little of the watershed for the Lake Michie and Little River Reservoirs is inside the City's Urban Growth Boundary. However, approximately 2 square miles in the areas of Mason Road and the east and west batik of the Little River Reservoir are within the Urban Growth Boundary. Land uses in these area are projected on City and County Plans to be almost exclusively low density residential uses. Due to the zoning restrictions already applicable to development there and the low density character, there are no significant problems with land use compatibility. (Several landfill sites have been proposed for these watersheds; note that no new discharging landfills are permitted under the State rules.) 4. Eno River Emergency Raw Water Intake. Under the proposed rules and classifications, a Critical Area of about 1 square mile and a Protected Area of about 22 square miles would be established for the area upstream of and draining to the City's emergency raw water intake on the Eno River. This intake is located near the river oxbow between Roxboro Road and Old Oxford Highway. 11 . ' Land Use Compatibility. Almost all of the Critical Area and the Protected Area are inside the City's Urban Growth Area. With the exception of the commercial and office area at Roxboro Road and Latta Road5nfinity Road, most of the land in these areas are projected to be used for low density residential or park/open space purposes. The density restrictions associated with these watershed protection areas are generally compatible with Durham's adopted plans and established land use patterns, except as they relate to future non- residential development. Overall, these regulations represent a significant increase in the geographic area regulated for water supply protection purposes. Durham's two water supply watersheds, Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir, are much less affected than the southern watersheds. This is because the State's rules in these areas are similar to present City and County zoning ordinance provision. However, the State's proposed rules do not spell the end of development in Durham. Development using the high density option is limited to slightly less than three - quarters the density that could be permitted without these rules. The required stormwater controls, either on -site wet detention ponds or regional facilities, will add to the overall cost of development. Although, details are not yet finalized, this type of stormwater management will be required of the City by forthcoming EPA regulations (see below). IV. Relationship to EPA- Mandated Stormwater Regulations. The City of Durham will soon be subject to new EPA stormwater management regulations in addition to the State's water supply watershed rules. (The County will not be subject to these rules.) The City will be required to obtain from the State a stormwater permit, not unlike the NPDES permit obtained for point- source discharges. EPA's regulations for stormwater management are not yet final, so details of how the City will comply with the requirements have not been worked out. Consequently, it is difficult to assess exactly how these EPA requirements will mesh with the proposed water supply watershed rules. In general, EPA will require that the City require of private developments stormwater control measures similar to what is contemplated by the State for watershed protection. Consequently, the additional impact on development of the proposed State rules will be minimal. However, the City's interests will be served only if the State's rules for watershed protection are similar, or at least not incompatible with, the EPA requirements. The City Council and Board of County Commissioners should formally make this comment to the State. Also, if areas outside of the City but within the Urban Growth Area develop under the high density option of the State's rules, the County would have to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater control - devices. Therefore, if the County wishes to allow any development beyond the rather significant constraints of the low density option, the Count may be better served by joining the City's stormwater management utility. V. Alternate Scenarios for Watershed Protection. Several other watershed protection methods might be suggested to the EMC as alternatives to those proposed by the State. These could expand upon present water supply classifications or presently adopted and enforced local ordinances. Three examples are outlined below, with some indication of their land use and Comprehensive Plan compatibility. 12 41 A. Alternate Scenario A. Multiple Classifications, WS-TV and B /C. At the time of the last classification in 1983, the EMC reviewed technical information and heard citizen comments that convinced them to apply the dual classification to the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs. Reasons for these classifications included the shallow depths of the upper reaches of the reservoirs, the distance of these upper reaches from existing or projected water intake locations, the "chain of lakes" affects mentioned above, and the general unsuitable waters in the upper reaches for water supply purposes. As an alternate, Durham could suggest that this multiple classification remain. All of the Falls Reservoir tributaries on the dam -side of a point near Lick Creek (Durham Co.) and Beaverdam Creek (Wake Co.) would be classified as WS -IV, while tributaries upstream of this point would be classified as B or C. Likewise, all of the Jordan Reservoir tributaries on the dam -side of a point near Farrington Road (NC 1008 in Chatham Co.) would be WS -IV, while tributaries upstream of this would be classified as B or C. These classifications were appropriate in 1985 and remains appropriate for the same reasons. The one mile Critical Area and the five mile Protected Area definitions would still be used with this scenario. Under this alternate, the Falls Reservoir Critical Area in Durham County would include about 9 square miles while the Protected- Area would include about 46 square miles. (Again, the figures for the Falls Reservoir exclude the water surface area and the public land around the reservoirs.) The Critical Area would be outside the Urban Growth Area and is indicated as appropriate for agricultural and rural density residential uses on the County Plan. The Protected Area would cover about 28 square miles of the Urban Growth Area. Projected land uses from the City's Future Land Use Map include primarily low density residential with some areas of high density residential, commercial and industrial use. To the extent that these could not use the high density option, the density permitted by the State's rules would be less than compatible with the City's Plan. For the Jordan Reservoir, no Critical Area and no Protected Area would exist in Durham Count because of the distance from the WS portions of the Reservoir to the Durham County line. B. Alternate Scenario B: WS-1V One We Critical and Two We Protected Areas. Another alternate approach that Durham could suggest would be to reduce the geographic extent of the Critical and Protected Areas around the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs. A reasonable Critical Area could be at one mile with a modified Protected Area of two miles. If the EMC embraced this approach, consistency would be maintained in the mapping of watershed protection areas used in regulations that Durham County has been enforcing for the past six years. With this alternate, the Falls Critical Area would include about 17 square miles while the protected Area would include about 35 square miles. Likewise, the Jordan Reservoir Critical Area would be about 1 square mile and the Protected Area would be a little less than 4 square miles. (Again, these figures exclude the water surface area and the public land around the reservoirs.) The land use implications for Durham are obvious: much less non -Corps land is affected by the State's rules. In fact, none of the Critical Area and only about half of the Protected Area is inside of the Urban Growth Area where Durham has envisioned suburban and urban intensity 13 W land development. Yet, a substantial low density buffer would still be provided around the edges of Falls and Jordan Reservoirs to minimize potential pollution. C. Alternate Scenario C: WS -iV Protected Area Measured from Intake. The definition of a Protected Area related to a run -of - -river water intake uses a 10 mile criteria. By proposing this rule, the State has indicated that this distance is sufficient protection for in- stream water intakes. Durham could reasonably argue that 10 miles is, therefore, a sufficient protection measure for reservoir water supplies. This alternative would propose that the State maintain its one mile Critical Area definition but to define a Protected Area as 10 miles from existing or proposed water intake structures. With this alternate definition of a Protected Area, the amount of land restricted in Durham County would be much less. For both Reservoirs, no Critical Area would exist since the intake structures are far from the County line. For the Jordan Reservoir, no Protected Area would exist for the same reasons. For the Falls Reservoir, a 10 mile Protected Area would cover only about 12 square miles on the far eastern edge of Durham County. Only a small portion of this Protected Area would be inside the Urban Growth Area, between NC 98 and US 7Q on the southeast edge of Durham County. The County General Development Plan 2005 indicates the area appropriate for open space and rural density residential development. The proposed density restrictions in the State's rules are compatible with the land use patterns envisioned in the County Plan. VI. Other issues. A. De&n Specific Water Quality Objectives. For Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoirs, Durham conducted a scientific study upon which to base land use regulations. The study identified a water quality, objective and the intensity of development that could be permitted while achieving that objective.. The County then designed and implemented zoning regulations that would permit this level of development and no more. This approach establishes a clear and rational nexus between the public objective being served and the specific regulation -of private property. The State's adopted watershed rules and the proposed classifications do not use this approach. No water quality objective for the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs have been established. Likewise, no systematic study of the reservoirs has been or is intended to be conducted to provide a base of information upon which to judge the relative effectiveness and cost of protection measures. Therefore, it is difficult to judge what degree of land use restrictions are appropriate for what level of water quality protection. Is what has been proposed sufficient? Or too much? Other than "more regulation means more water quality protection," Durham and other jurisdictions have no guide about how extensive the regulated areas should be and how strict the land use restriction should be. The Staff recommends that the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners should formally comment to the EMC that water quality objectives for each reservoir are needed. In addition, a systematic study of each reservoir needs to be conducted to be able to judge the 14 59 water quality effects of different land use regulatory schemes and the social and economic tradeoffs. The Staff would also recommend that the EMC consider including provisions in the rules that would accommodate a detailed site - specific watershed management study as the basis for rules. This would anticipate a local jurisdiction's initiative to have such a study prepared as a more accurate guide to land use intensity that could be permitted in order to achieve water quality protection objectives. The State's rules would set watershed requirements in lieu of such a study, but provision could be included for the EMC to approve such a study as a more detailed, site - specific guide. In this process, the State could rely on technical information to establish the rational nexus between land use regulations and the public purposes being served. The availability of this process serves as an incentive for local governments to perform the more detailed watershed management studies needed to establish cost and effectiveness of watershed protection strategies. B. WS II and WS -III: Transfer "10 Percent at 70 Percent" Across County Lines. The proposed rules for WS -II and WS -III watersheds permit up to 10 percent of each jurisdiction's non - Critical Area of the watershed to be developed at up to 70 percent built -upon area without stormwater controls. However, no provision exists for transferring these among various jurisdictions in the same watershed. For example, Durham could use this provision to permit limited amounts of intensive industrial and /or commercial development in the Lake Michie and Little River watersheds. However, Durham's adopted General Development Plan 2005 indicates that these watershed areas are to remain primarily rural. Consequently, the "10 percent at 70 percent" would likely be unused in Durham County. The County may wish to negotiate a transfer of this development potential to other portions of the watershed, specifically Orange County or Person County, where industrial and /or commercial may be a more appropriate land use in a location farther from the reservoirs. This could represent a substantial incentive for upstream jurisdictions to embrace a higher classification. Durham should comment to the EMC to consider establishing some mechanism to permit the transfer across jurisdictions of "10 percent at 70 percent" development potential. C. Eno River Watershed for Emergency Raw Water Intake. The Eno River emergency raw water intake is a special category of water supply. Because of the temporary nature of use of this water source, watershed protection to the same degree of others is not as important. However, at some time in the future, this intake could become a permanent water supply source. On one hand, Durham could acknowledge this and request that the watershed upstream of the intake be protected with the full range of Critical Area and Protected Area requirements. On the other hand, the usefulness of this water supply as a permanent source is limited because of low flow and quality problems. If any additional development restrictions are appropriate, they may be in the nature of stream buffers and discharge limits, as well as additional measures to control spills of hazardous materials in the watershed. 15 M . D. Definition of Existing Development In addition to proposing surface water classifications, the EMC in May 1991 proposed several modifications to the rules adopted five months earlier. One of these changes affects the definition of existing development. For the purposes of implementing water supply classifications and rules, existing development would include.... ....projects already completed or in progress as demonstrated by significant resources having been expended on building the project, or projects with a recorded plat or areas zoned as of the closing date of the public hearings for .the January 1, 1992 reclassification. (Emphasis added.) Existing development would be required to comply with the new rules "to the maximum extent practicable", although the rules offer no guidance as to how this would be applied. Recently, the General Assembly established a process for vesting rights to develop under existing zoning without the threat of the zoning being changed to prohibit the envisioned use and intensity (Senate Bill 766, Vested Rights). The EMC should be encouraged to adopt a definition of "exiting development" for the purposes of these rules that recognizes this vested rights process. The proposed definition is unclear as to how it could be interpreted and seems to exempt much development without understanding its impact on water quality. VII. Summary of Recommended Comments to the EMC. The Staff recommends that the City Council and Board of County Commissioners express to the adopted rules, proposed rules and the proposed water EMC the following concerns about the State's supply watershed classifications: A. The City Council and the Board of County. Commissioners support-the classification of WS -II for Lake Michie and Little River Reservoirs. Durham applauds Elie FMC's proposal to protect these two very high quality watersheds with the WS II classification. The adopted rules for WSII are generally consistent with current local ordinances. B. The City Council and the Board of County Commissioners oppose the classification of the entire-, Falls and Jordan Reservoirs-to a WS classification and support the multiple classification of WS- IV and non -WS for these Reservoirs (reflecting their current multiple classification). These surface waters drain extensive areas of intense urban development and, therefore, qualify under the requirement for WS -IV as "moderately to highly developed watersheds ". However, the water quality in the upper reaches of these Reservoirs clearly not appropriate for water supply purposes. In addition, given the lack of technical information to justify a large Protected Area, the EMC should reconsider this portion of the rule and use definitions of Critical and Protected Area that are similar to those presently used in Durham County's water supply watershed protection regulations. C. Water quality objectives for each reservoir classified are critical to determine the relative effectiveness and costs associated with various watershed management strategies. The EMC should establish water quality objectives for the State's water supply sources. 16 45 D. The EMC should include in the watershed protection rules a process whereby local governments could prepare a detailed site - specific watershed management study. This study would be the basis upon which the local government could propose to the EMC case -by -case changes to the rules that would satisfy water quality objectives with minimal negative impact. Under this process, EMC approval would subject other watershed jurisdictions to these modified rules. E. The EMC should include in its rules for WS -H and WS -III the ability for local governments to transfer development potential permitted under the "10 percent at 70 percent built -upon" provision to other jurisdictions within the same watershed. F. The Eno River emergency raw water intake operated by the City should not be considered a permanent water supply source, and the WS -IV Critical Area and Protected Area should not be so designated. However, additional discharge restrictions, stream buffers and hazardous materials spill protection measures may be warranted in the watershed. G. The proposed definition of "existing development" should be modified to exclude "zoned land ". The definition should recognize Senate Bill 766, Vested Rights, in order to grandfather existing development only to the extent that development rights are vested in accordance with the procedures established to implement Senate Bill 766. H. The EMC should recognize that some municipalities in the State will be subject to EPA stormwater control requirements and that State regulations should be compatible these. 17 V m w O 1 v 0 i U 1 a 1 w 1 +► 1 w 1 w 1 H 1+ 1 ( U 1 oc 46 w 1 M 1 W 1 � � � z .v 1 a 1 . 1 1 •d rl 1 � �•1 1 H 1 v QC t C C O d x o 1 1 O •.+ w a ,y1 pup,l� �. C 9 i d. O 6EJ OI 1 d Q 1 pl .•1 y 1 .1 . a w pyj � p 1 O 1 N bl 1 x vxi U W A i �• r1 poi d wW .m1 H 1 04 .n N 0 F AC O C 1 x -1 x +1 ul A 1 1 x +1 X b .4 .07 i k .r m x .• .a 1 • m t q. 4.1 - y a 1 r01 m w m A w .Ei U w m � a r,�1 w v lu 9c C E id w 1 N 1 i 1�1 I+ 1 i va 1 q 1 G O x V m w O 1 v 0 i U 1 a 1 w 1 +► 1 w 1 w 1 H 1+ 1 ( U 1 oc C C w •.+ w 0 ..+ w w .1 . a 0. 4 w .-1 .-1 .1 bl ri w -a �• r1 b 3 -1 x +1 x +1 X b .4 k .r m x - m w m A w 0 w m A w 0 G w v C E id 4 c w o x b O z •A ed is r1 o z s r•1 o� z v O'1 x .+ ro w a. a v v � k 9 61 O = G m k [ m Cm O G m m O ra L .-. Y A.1A ~ O -a .1 O +1 r•1 O +� CO 4 r°a I.a H -a w H m C O 1 ++ i O .r F al •O m ar 4b x al v dp O w o 0 4 x 0 O w A -1 C R y 'm W to 1 y W m w O w +O + w O H Y O 0 .G U C ti m C ? • �� '� •4 m H O 0 -A ++ -1 ° z 4 a u "m a °' m 3 A x4 a' :* P. w w 4 > w m m w .6 C °' m k O w W O .••1 w .•1 rl H .-1 M m O O - +Gi y t 7 w 00 w y 00 la Y 00 w al 00 w Y CC w 0 .1 Ai v Y v h w .40 y yl w it w N w al w w -4 A m G w h m CO o- - o- O. 4J 4 m v O C w C u �+ '+ u ra 4 a to m m w' ava c 0 m r! m it m •� F H w ami .,1 yl .i R. H O o U Is m A G v G •-1 v b m Y al y :3 o b o v 0 m 6 w Ep .•0a v• wY 0l 0 A o A m A m m m 4 •.Aa a+ -11 rl m A H H F+ w 41 r. O w W m H v U 4 k• b w A dr If A 4 C 47 .-1 A A w G 0 (D ,r o 0 o z 0 w .1 m w 0 yl •-1 b Q G N C M G r C G m U i 41 U a' O. 0 N p•1 1 0 O. ' N 0 0. 1 N O O. 1 a O Pa .C1 m y G n C A 11'4 M b '4 7 .a 7 rl 7. N 7 A -1 N 4 o m la m' o v o v .va Y 41 A W w 11 v .•1 m O O G C C G O G G .a O w w al P m w La O O w O O O w 0. w 06 W w b N r. `-' G O ; O y O P a O 7 m m -•1 6n N W H N •- m O U Y U 4J A Y Y .1 G- 1 • 06 O 4.) OI 1 m yl m A > J w N .a 4 A N .. ++ N -4 +•1 d -1 .•a -4 r•1 -4 1y .•1 P. U 4.1 w d yl w w i � U 0 2 A � O 7 A -1 LL P. 7 m G b .•. 97 A .� A A •Q 9 _f U w m A rl d! .•a en r1 eY r•1 .s ' r•1 N N dp y N w w w "1 N aD i .• .•4 N m w L4 b O m b LL C y r•1 G y1 m J k o1 O C A G N v. y > G x 0 m A A a0i • C O 1 1 0-0 E 41 C'4 (D H w a ,� v O 7 O ++ O ^I G C I A A C E V m A H v A Y x 0 v vl a c m X w w a m d p 7" .w r O w ••+ A H -0 w b1 O m C A G M a d• w y N O .. Y 'O b G. Um' x A U u E tr' m w x w+ .Ca N 14 w -14 O n C w Y C b1 v 0 4 "too 0 y '1 w w w 0 O 0 1 C v1 CT '-1 m '-' - U U U •� U +1 O m "'1 M J. W b •0 4 y c d A w 0 -1 O w x w Y w y .1 •11 m y H .a r as # al w A Go I A ~ @w m» [ qwq 'J .m•1 C 47 awi +Gd b 0 +GI n G 4 O m O O O O O O C q m w +l 0 v w M Ti O G 6 G A +� U W w +1 O• -40 A W '1 G aw aml w tm1 M F .1 4 Q' w n m.0 F' w M1 ~ 'a A A x 0 b U i1 l+ W U b 0. •- 1 A a m 'd w 0 3 v t v m ,� v d w m 1 .-1 .+ m C U A 3 m A C r4 b 4J 40 C b w U 0O W 0 y C N A tl Z X U' y Y U W Gq +1 y .1 0 E O ha N w 1"1 rya 1 N 1 N 1 N Attachment 2: DEM Information Package BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4'7 In June of 1989 the General Assembly of North Carolina adopted House Bill 156, the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, which called for mandatory minimum statewide watershed protection requirements for all surface waters used as a source for raw drinking water (Copy included as Appendix A). In accordance with this Act, water supply rules and classifications were developed and taken to public hearing in August of 1990. These rules were developed with the assistance of a Water Supply Watershed Protection Advisory Council created by HE 156. This Council consists of 19 members from state and local governments as well as representatives with development, environmental and industrial /commercial concerns. The Council reviewed related information and discussed a number of key issues involved in the development of the watershed protection requirements. In conjunction with the rules, eight public hearings were held across the state and numerous local governments, individuals and organizations provided verbal and written comments on the rules as proposed at that time. Based on these comments and recommendations from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) staff and the hearing officers, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules in December 1990. Adoption of the rules allowed the EMC to satisfy the first of three statutory deadlines mandated by HE 156 - adoption of rules for the classification and protection of all surface water supplies by January 1, 1991. Although the rules have been adopted, they are not currently effective and will not become effective until early 1992. The second deadline established in HE 156 requires the reclassification of all existing surface waters used for water supply purposes according to the adopted rules. DEM, along with assistance from the Division of Community Assistance (DCA), gathered information on existing wastewater discharges and land use within water supply watersheds. This information was used to develop proposed water supply classifications which the EMC approved for this hearing process at their May 1991 - commission meeting. These proposed classifications along with some proposed modifications to the adopted rules and portions of the rules previously adopted are open for public comment during this hearing process. Additional information on comment procedures is outlined later in this public information package. Summary of Adgpteg Ruleg Table 1 in Appendix C of this information package provides a summary of the adopted classifications and their associated protec- tion requirements. The adopted rules outline four (4) surface water supply classification: WS -I,, WS -II, WS --III and WS -IV. There has been some confusion that all surface waters in the state will be reclassified under one of these four classifications. This is not the case. Only those surface waters used or intended to be used for drinking water purposes will be reclassified in this 1 W . • W process. A number of provisions are utilized in the rules for. protecting surface water supplies. Specifically, restrictions include limits on the number and types of wastewater discharges, limits on development densities and guidelines governing allowable land use practices. Limitations within the critical areas defined as 1 mile and draining to the normal pool elevation of reservoirs or 1 mile and draining to a river intake are more stringent than requirements outside the critical area. The normal pool elevation for impoundments is the water level at which the impoundment is usually maintained. In "backwater" areas, this level can be difficult to determine. Staff has made its best interpretation based on existing maps and data.' Limits on wastewater discharges are controlled on the state level by DEM through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. Based on the classification of a potential receiving stream, DEM determines whether a discharger is appropriate in a certain area and if so, establishes appropriate effluent limits on the discharge to assure that the use of the waters is not negatively impacted. Wastewater discharges of certain types are prohibited in some water supply critical and watershed areas. WS -I watersheds, the highest classification, are protected as natural and undeveloped with no wastewater discharges allowed except for groundwater remediation projects where no other alternative is feasible. Restrictions on the allowance for treated wastewater discharges become progressively less stringent as you move to subsequent classifications. In developing watersheds the effects of urban growth on water quality have been documented by a number of sources. The addition of built -upon surface area - such as roof tops, roads, parking lots, etc., which prevent the natural infiltration of rainfall into the soil surface - increases the amount of rainfall that becomes surface runoff. The nature of the land uses - associated with the built -upon areas also increases the types and amounts of pollutants that are available to be carried by the surface runoff. As rainfall runoff flows across these surfaces it picks up soil particles and other pollutants. The runoff then flows to surface waters where these pollutants can have significant impacts on water quality. The water supply protection rules, in an attempt to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff from highly developed areas, place limits on development densities. These limitations are to be administered by local governments through the implementation of land use management plans, zoning and ordinances. In developing management strategies to minimize the effects of stormwater runoff, the DEM feels that the most effective practice is maintaining low density development through lot size or built -upon area restrictions. Maintaining low density development prevents the need for the engineered stormwater control structures which are required for high density development. These structures capture and hold stormwater runoff for time periods that will allow for removal of some pollutants through settling and biological processes. Where local governments choose to utilize these structures it is essential that appropriate design, operation and 2 W. maintenance procedures are utilized to assure the structure's performance. In WS =III and WS -IV watersheds, local governments may choose to allow higher density development with the utilization of engineered stormwater control structures. However, in these cases local governments must assume the ultimate responsibility for the operation and maintenance of these stormwater control structures. Where these structures aze used, a number of national studies have shown that wet detention ponds are the most effective devices in addressing water quality problems associated with stormwater runoff. As additional information becomes available, DEM will review these requirements to determine if other alternative controls will provide similar levels of protection. If this proves to be the case, more flexibility can be added to.the rules to allow alternative designs. At this time, however, DEM feels that wet detention ponds are the most appropriate form of stormwater control when such engineered structures are required. A number of allowable land use practices are also addressed in the adopted rules. New sites for the land application of sludge materials and new landfills are allowed outside the critical areas of WS -II, WS -III and WS -IV watersheds. In some instances - critical areas of WS -II and WS -III watersheds - new non - residential development in the form of industrial facilities is restricted. In dealing with the issue of the use, storage or production of hazardous materials, these rules address these issues by requiring local authorities to maintain inventories of materials of this type in the.watershed and also to develop plans to deal with potential spill situations. Information Under Consideration at These Hearings The EMC, at their May 9, 1991 Commission meeting, approved proposed water supply watershed classifications to be taken to public hearing. These classifications will allow all existing surface waters.used for water supply purposes to be reclassified to their most appropriate classification under the recently adopted water supply classifications and rules. Also, through review by staff, a few new issues have been addressed and are proposed for modification to the adopted rules. These modifications are also under consideration during this hearing process. In addition, the EMC and DEM feel that these hearings offer a good.opportunity to receive additional comments on those areas of the rules that were changed during the last hearing process. WREN CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION AT ISSUE, IT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED THAT THE COMMISSION CAN ADOPT RULES AND CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ARE MORE OR LESS STRINGENT THAN THOSE PROPOSED IF THE EMC DETERMINES THAT THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED ARE A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF THE PROPOSED CRITERIA AND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED DURING THE HEARING PROCESS. FOR THIS REASON IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU COMMENT ON AREAS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE REMAIN THE SAME OR BECOME MORE STRINGENT AS WELL AS THOSE THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD BECOME MORE FLEXIBLE. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINAL RULES OR CLASSIFICATIONS-COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT PERSONS WHO ARE 3 50 NOT CURRENTLY AFFECTED UNDER THE PROPOSED CRITERIA. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ALL INTERESTED AND POTENTIALLY AFFECTED PERSONS OR PARTIES MAKE THEIR OPINIONS KNOWN TO THE HEARING OFFICERS CONCERNING ALL PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULES AND CLASSIFICATIONS. When submitting comments or other information, it is requested that written copies be provided to assure that all pertinent information is included in the hearing record. Written comments will be accepted before, during and within thirty (30) days after completion of the hearing procedures_. The last day for the acceptance of written comments will be September 30, 1991. Verbal comments will also be accepted during the public hearings. It is requested that all presenters also provide written copies of the information presented orally at the hearings. Pr=sed Classifications Proposed water supply watershed Schedules of Classification for each river basin are included in this information package'in Appendix B. Two river basins - White Oak and Chowan - do not currently have any surface water supply sources and are not included in the list. This list outlines all major waters and their named tributaries which are proposed for,reclassification according to the water supply protection rules and classifications. All waters currently classified for water supply use are proposed to be reclassified according to these criteria. Unnamed tributaries that do not specifically appear in the list are proposed to carry the same classification as the waters they flow directly into. As you may notice in the list of proposed classifications, the class designation often includes more than just the primary WS -I, II, III or IV label. For example, a stream may be designated "WS -II Tr The additional "Tr" designation is a supplemental classification indicating that this stream is protected for the propagation and survival of natural and stocked trout. Other supplemental classifications also appear including: Sw - Swamp Waters, NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Waters, ORW - outstanding Resource Waters and HQW - High Quality Waters. These supplemental classifications already exist as part of the current classification of these streams and Ao not represent a proposed classification change. A sumtpary of classifications other that water supply can be found in Appendix F. In addition to the supplemental classifications discussed above, a "CA" designation may be included for a listed stream or stream segment. This indicates that these waters are within the defined one (1) mile water supply critical area. The "CA" designation is not a specifically defined primary or supplemental classification within the rules. However, the water supply watershed protection rules do specifically define the critical area boundary limits. Based on the defined critical area the "CA" is included and will appear in the Schedule of 4 Classifications for each river basin so that interested 5 1 will be able to easily determine the appropriate critical area. boundary limits along streams and rivers. The schedule of Classifications are based on hydrographic data depicted on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) topographic maps. It should be noted that local governments will be responsible for delineating the outer boundary limits of their critical areas. Since they may utilize land marks, roads, property boundaries or other features in this delineation, there could be a slight difference between the stream segment description and the delineation on land. . In the water supply protection rules local governments may choose to extend their critical or protected area boundaries beyond the state minimum limits. Proposed classifications and maps have been developed based on the minimum requirements established in the adopted rules. where local governments choose to modify or extend these boundaries, DEM should be advised of the intended changes so that the proposed boundaries can be reviewed and records made consistent as appropriate. This is especially important where local governments choose to extend their critical or protected area boundaries. Local government should provide copies of the appropriate USGS 7.5 minute quad maps to DEM indicating any modifications of the boundaries. In some cases local governments have indicated that waters currently classified for water supply areas are no longer being used and there are no plans for future water supply use of these waters. Thus these waters are being proposed to'be reclassified to a classification other than for water supply use. If there are other areas where waters are no longer being used for water supply Purposes and there are no plans for future use, comments should be provided by the local governments who have land use authority around these waters during the hearing process so that these areas can be reclassified in a similar manner. It should be noted that all reclassifications must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In other cases waters that are not currently classified for water supply use but are part of a water supply watershed or protected area are proposed to be reclassified as water supply waters. There are some instances where waters flowing into other states from North - Carolina are currently classified as water supply waters. These classifications were based on downstream uses or standards in the other states involved. Retaining these areas as water supply waters would require that local governments impose land use controls and protection ordinances to protect these waters. At this time it is proposed that these areas be reclassified to a classification other that water supply. Local governments in North Carolina would not be required to adopt water supply protection ordinances for these waters. In developing the proposed classifications, information on existing wastewater discharges and existing land use-practices was evaluated to determine the most appropriate proposed classification 5 52 for each watershed. For the purpose of these reclassifications, the intent of "most appropriate classification" was interpreted to be the highest classification for which a water supply qualified, according to the adopted rules. A questionnaire was sent to each affected local government requesting information on existing land uses within their jurisdiction. The questionnaires were sent along with specific instructions for providing explicit information on existing development, including lands that had been platted or zoned for specific uses. The information that has been provided in response to the questionnaires, in general, was not sufficiently explicit regarding platted and zoned lands. Therefore, the proposed classifications have been based upon the-best available information and, in some instances, represent the best professional judgement of the Water Quality Section staff of the DEM. Corrections, updates and comments regarding the proposed reclassifications may be directed to the Division during this public hearing process. In order to document that a classification other than the one proposed is more appropriate, supporting documentation, including additional specific information on platted and zoned lands and existing-land uses, should be provided during the hearing process. L40difigations to A Eules In reviewing the adopted water supply protection rules a few issues were targeted for additional modification. In general, these modifications are proposed to clarify requirements in the adopted rules. The adopted rules with proposed modifications are. included in Appendix C (proposed additions are underlined and proposed deletions are struck through). The following list outlines the proposed modifications to the rules as adopted by the EMC. • Stormwater Discharge. When the rules were adopted in December 1990 it was not clear how federal stormwater rules would be implemented on the state level. ftertreviewlarge the stormwater requirements it became apparent number of facilities would be required to implement stormwater control practices to comply with the federal criteria. To allow for compliance with federal stormwater rules, provisions to allow stormwater discharge are proposed to-be added to the adopted rules. These provisions will allow stormwater discharge permits in water supply watersheds as applicable. The additional provisions are included in Sections .01010, .0211, and .0300. • DOT Best Management Practices. The Department of Transportation has developed a document (Water Supply Watershed Best Management Practices) outlining BMP`s that will be utilized in water supply watersheds. - Section .0104(m) 2 53 • Agricultural Practices. The proposed modifications to the rules outline the provisions that agricultural activities must now meet through existing regulations. In addition it is proposed that in WS -I watersheds and the critical areas Of WS -II, WS -III and WS -IV watersheds a 10 foot buffer be maintained around perennial waters and that BMPs be required for animal operations greater than 100 animal units. - Section .0104(q) • Silvicultural Practices. Silvicultural activities are currently required to implement water quality protection measures through the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality. This existing requirements are clarified in the proposed modifications. - Section .0104(u) • Other Proposed Changes in Section .0104. Other additions or modifications are proposed in Section .0104 to clarify issues as noted below: -- .0104(1) exemption to these rules may be granted by the EMC - .0104(n) cites related water supply protection rules administered by the Division of Environmental Health - .0104(r) expansion of existing discharges - .0104(s) definition of "existing" development - .0104(t) requirements of "new" activity and provides protection of water supplies during interim period between classification and adoption of local ordinances - .0104(v) this provision previously appeared in the specific criteria for all four classifications but is now consolidated in this subparagraph - .0104(w) clarifies the FMC's authority when assuming a local watershed protection program .0104(x) approval by the EMC of nonconforming activities proposed by local governments - .0104(y) references model local ordinances • Clarification of Allowed Discharges. Proposed wording has been added for each classification to more accurately explain discharges that are or are not allowed in the watersheds. + Petroleum Contaminated Soils. New.permitted land application sites for petroleum contaminated soils are not allowed in.water supply critical areas in conjunction with existing restrictions for sludge /residuals. - Section .0211 • Allowable High Density Limit in WS -III Watershed Area. In those areas outside the critical area of WS -III watersheds, if high density development with engineered stormwater control structures is allowed by the local governments it is proposed that the maximum built -upon area limit be increased from 30% to 50 %. - Section .0211(e)(3)(B)(i)(IV) FN 54 of r Comments During the initial water supply hearing process a number of comments were received which led to the adoption of the water supply protection rules in their present format. The EMC feels that these public hearings offer an excellent opportunity to gather further comment on some of the issues that resulted in changes to the originally proposed rules. The information outlined below summarizes the changes that were made from the original proposed rules to those adopted in December 1990. it is important to note that of the major changes made in the adopted rules, only one change (critical area around reservoirs) is considered to have made the rules more stringent. o Critical Area. The critical area size was changed to 1 mile for all water supply areas to allow for uniform protection in all watersheds. This change increases the critical area size only for those water supply areas where intakes are located within impoundments. Previously a l --z mile critical area was proposed around water supply _. impoundments and a 1 mile critical area for surface water intakes located directly in a stream or river. + Protected Area. The protected area size for larger river segments was modified to be a uniform size - 5 miles and draining to water supply impoundments or 10 miles and draining to intakes located directly in a stream or river. The original proposed wording for protected area sizing was that these areas would be established on a case -by --case basis. The wording of HS 156 indicates that protection measures should be implemented within all surface water supply "watersheds ". With this as a mandate, the case -by -case determination of protected area size would necessarily begin by considering the entire drainage area for the water supply source. In many cases this would include thousands of square miles and the majority of most major river basins in the state. While DEM staff did not feel that it would be practical or necessary to include the entire area of the larger water supply watersheds, they did envision that a significant portion should include protection measures. The 5 and 10 mile boundaries were accepted as alternatives by the hearing officers and the EMC as "minimum" protection criteria which are consistent with the protection measures afforded to smaller water supply sources. + Nonconforming Uses. In the adopted rules, modifications were added to specifically address the allowance of nonconforming uses. These modifications clarified that existing uses and development would be "grandfathered" in as existing development. It should be noted that any measures that may be utilized to minimize the impacts of nonconforming activities are strongly encouraged. it should also be noted that it is proposed that nonconforming uses be allowed on a case -by -case basis by the EMC at the request of M local government after the reclassification has occurred. • Clustering. In the adopted rules, cluster type development is allowed in all areas of ws -II, WS --III and WS--IV water- sheds, including the critical areas. Previously clustering was not allowed in critical areas. Clustering, if utilized by local governments for future development, must conform with the density limits of the water supply protection requirements or utilize appropriate stormwater controls. • Land Application of Sludge. Requirements for land application of sludge materials were relaxed in the adopted rules to allow existing permitted sites in WS-II, WS -III and WS -IV critical areas and to allow new sites outside the critical areas of these watersheds. • Sewer Line Extensions. The restriction on new sewer lines was eliminated in the adopted rules so that sewer lines are allowed throughout WS -II, WS -III and WS -IV watersheds. • Buffers. The original proposal for required buffers called for a sizing criteria based on an equation which took into account average slope around the waters. As this requirement created considerable confusion and appeared to potentially affect large areas of land, the adopted rules utilize a minimum 100 foot buffer requirement for all perennial waters in a water supply watershed. • Hazardous Materials. The adopted rules eliminated specific restrictions on the use of hazardous materials in water supply watersheds and require only that local governments maintain inventories of all such materials used, stored or produced and develop spill /failure containment plans. It was felt that other programs adequately cover the major sources of hazardous materials. The initial thrust of these rules should be to require local government knowledge of the hazardous materials in their watershed and contingency plans to deal with accidents. . During the previous hearing process (August 1990) numerous comments were received concerning the impacts of agriculture, silviculture and Department of Transportation (DOT) activities. While no specific requirements for these three areas were included in the adopted rules, the EMC did instruct the DEM staff to review these activities and conduct meetings with representatives from these groups to discuss possible protection measures. In response to these reviews, modifications to the adopted rules have been proposed to clarify current requirements and practices and to provided alternatives for additional protection. Agricultural activities currently must comply with the Food Securities Act 1985 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. These acts require control of soil loss from highly erodible cropland. If the provisions of these Acts are not 9 5s met, farmers risk losing benefits for federal programs. In addition, agricultural operations must comply with DEM's water quality standards with any violators subject to appropriate enforcement and penalties. in addressing surface water pollution problems, the state's Agricultural Cost Share Program (ACSP), administered by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation, provides technical and financial assistance for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the purposes of improving water quality. Current programs are showing significant progress and it was not felt that major requirements through the water sup- ply protection rules would be required at this time. However, pro- posed modifications to the adopted rules would impose additional requirements for certain agricultural activities in water supply watersheds. These modifications would require that in WS -I water- sheds and the critical areas of WS -II, WS--III and WS -IV water sup- plies, agricultural activities utilize a 10 foot buffer,.or equiva- lent approved control, and that animal operations of 100 animal units or more utilize appropriate BMPs. Silvicultural activities are currently required to implement the provision of the Forest Practices Guidelines-Related to Water Quality. These requirements are outlined in the North Carolina Administrative code at 15A NCAC lI .0101 - .0209. The provisions contained here essentially eliminate the exemption of silvicultural activities from the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Laws. The water supply protection rules utilize these existing requirements to abate impacts from silvicultural activities. In addressing DOT activities, a document has been developed and accepted by DOT and DEM which outlines BMP's and.design considerations that will be utilized to minimize the impacts of the siting, construction and operation of highways within water supply watersheds. neT,EMENTATION OF CLASSIFICATIONS AND RULES A5102tion of Clas-gifications gn Rialpa The hearing record for these public hearings will be open until September 30, 1991. After this time all comments and documentation will be reviewed and the hearing officers and DEM will provide recommendations on final rules and classifications to the EMC. The EMC is tentatively scheduled.to consider_the reclassifications and proposed modifications to the adopted rules at their December 12, 1991 Commission meeting. If adopted by the EMC at that time, the rules and classifications are expected to become effective on March 1, 1992. Lor,al Gove-rnMent Rgspo sibilit-ip—s Land Use Management Plans Once the classifications and rules are finalized, local governments will be required to develop manage enl by July 1, 1992. ordinances to be submitted to the EMC for approva 10 57 These local programs must be at least as stringent as the state minimum requirements. Local governments may choose to adopt protection measures more stringent than the state minimum standards. Local ordinances should address all the provisions outlined in the water supply protection rules. This includes encouraging the use of best management practices where practical for all activities in the watershed area, establishing appropriate limits for development densities and allowable land use practices as well as implementing plans for maintaining hazardous materials inventories and spill /failure containment plans. The DCA has worked with DEM staff to develop a model ordinance that local governments can utilize in developing their water supply protection programs. The intent of the model is to reflect the requirements of the water supply protection rules as adopted by the Commission. A draft model ordinance was not available for inclusion in this package, but will be available, as noted in Appendix D, for your review and comment. Administration Local governments will be responsible for administering the land use management and protection plans associated with the water supply protection rules as outlined in HB 156. If a local government fails to implement or appropriately administer their program according to the minimum requirements, the EMC may assume responsibility for the program, impose the state's minimum or more stringent requirements and access civil penalties on the local government to recover the costs of administering the program. Local governments should be aware that once their programs are approved by the EMC, notification should be given to DEM and the EMC of any proposed modifications. In some cases modifications (changes to critical or protected area boundaries) may require that the EMC conduct a public hearing on the proposed changes. RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS • How is existing development defined and what is the effect on zoned land? Staff have received numerous questions asking for clarification of what would be required of projects that are already in prog- ress or projects that are to be built in phases. The rules have therefore been proposed to be modified to include a defi- nition of various categories of existing development. This existing development is required to comply with the rules to the "maximum extent practicable ". Since the "maximum extent practicable" leaves room for interpretation, the Commission is very interested in receiving comments on this issue. The fol- lowing is how staff would interpret what would be required. Depending on the comments received, further clarification may be added to the rules. The modified rules state that existing development would 11 A' •J - include projects already completed or in progress, projects with a recorded plat or areas that have been zoned as of the closing date of the public hearings for the January 1, 1992 reclassification proceedings (September 30, 1991). However, as noted above the rule goes on to state that existing development is required to comply with these rules to the "maximum extent practicable ". For projects that are already completed or in progress, no modifications would be expected. For a recorded platted project that does not conform to the water supply requirements, it would be the responsibility of local govern- ment to determine if there are practicable options that could be required to bring the project in line with the requirements. If a project does not have a recorded plat, it could still be allowed if under existing zoning it has a site specific devel- opment plan approved prior to September 30, 1991 by local gov- ernment in compliance with G.S. 160A- 385(b) or if significant resources have been expended on building the project. Local governments will be responsible for determinations on whether significant resources have been expended. For example, road completion, installation of utilities, and completion of pro- ject design plans would constitute significant resource expen- diture. However, if one of the phases of a phased project has not had a significant expenditure of resources, then it would have to comply with the rules. For large areas that are zoned .but mainly undeveloped, there is a much greater ability to con- form to the water supply requirements. In this case, the "max- imum extent practicable" clause is intended to respect the uses that have been zoned (industrial, for example) even if it would not otherwise be allowed, but the density of development of that use shall conform to the rules. If this would require local governments to allow stormwater detention ponds and they would prefer the low density option, they would be expected to' rezone to.the lower density. • Do the density restrictions utilized in the adopted rules consti- tute the "taking" of land? The North Carolina test for a taking is whether the property was rendered "of no reasonable value" or the owner'is deprived of "all practicable use." It is felt that the proposed rules do allow land to be left with'a reasonable value and therefore taking is not an issue. • If a local government is in the headwaters of a watershed and does not use the water as a drinking water source, what is required of this local government to protect a downstream user's water? The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (G.S. 143 - 214.5) states that All local governments with jurisdiction in a water supply watershed must adopt land use management programs consistent with the established minimum criteria for that watershed. This does not exempt a local government because they do not use water from that watershed. Simply stated, if a town,.county or municipality has land use 12 59 jurisdiction within a designated surface water supply watershed then they must protect it in a manner consistent with the state minimum requirements. Waters classified for future water supply use will carry the same requirements. • What is meant by an "engineered stormwater control structure "? Are there standard methods for designing these structures? What types of structures are acceptable? An engineered stormwater control structure is a man -made facility designed to intercept and treat stormwater runoff to remove pollutants that may be carried in the runoff water. Methods for the design of these structures can be found in the Stormwater Runoff Disposal Rules, 15A NCAC 2H .1003. Studies have demonstrated that wet detention ponds are the most effective device for pollutant removal. These structures provide a number of removal mechanisms (biological removal, removal through sedimentation, etc.) while also containing removed particles to avoid resuspension in future storm events. In some cases it will be difficult to always maintain a pool of water in the structure, never the less the device should be designed according to wet detention pond criteria. A technical guidance document is being developed by the state to provide more specific information on designing stormwater control structures. • Are local governments required to allow engineered stormwater controls in water supply watersheds where the state minimum criteria would allow them? No, for all water supply classifications where engineered stormwater controls are allowed, local governments may choose the "low density" option and control pollution sources by limiting minimum lot sizes. The "low density" approach is the preferred method of stormwater control if a watershed is to be developed. This option would allow local governments to allow a "safe" level of development without the responsibility for engineered stormwater controls. They also have the option of-allowing engineered stormwater controls in some portions of their jurisdiction, but requiring low density in the other portions of their jurisdiction. • What are the requirements for a local government which chooses to allow high density development and thus must ultimately be responsible for engineered stormwater controls? The local government must inspect each control structure at least annually. (A copy of an inspection sheet for local government use can be found along with the draft model ordinances.) The inspection does not have to include water quality or quantity sampling and analysis. The inspection, instead, is intended to ensure that the structure is functioning properly. If the structure is large, however, a boat may be needed to verify that the appropriate structural depth is being maintained. A local government that already has 13 60 chosen to use these structures or decides to allow high density development must assume the ultimate responsibility for these structures to assure that they are properly operated and maintained. There are several ways that this can be accomplished, including forming stormwater utilities, charging impact fees, requiring bonds, etc. It is acceptable to have a business or homeowners association take the initial responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the structure. However, it is the responsibility of the local government to ensure such an entity would adequately perform the necessary requirements. If not, the local government will assume all responsibility and its accrued expenses. if local governments choose to use regional stormwater control structures, they should be aware that such structures may require additional environmental review and authorization (401 or 404 permits) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, local governments should examine the likelihood of water quality degradation that might occur to the water supply waters upstream of the regional structure. on -site alternatives or small regional facilities should be given preference ever large systems. • What is meant by "protected area" as referred to in the rules for WS -IV water supplies? In a number of cases the WS -IV classification will be applied to segments of a whole river basin that are used for water supply purposes. The statute (G.S. 143- 214.5) states that water supply watersheds shall be required to comply with the minimum statewide management requirements for water supply. protection. It was felt that it would be unrealistic to require all of the local governments (municipalities, counties, etc.);that have land use authority within a large river basin to adopt and enforce water supply protection ordinances when the drainage area may encompass several thousand square miles. DEM staff had initially proposed to address these water supplies on a case-- by--case basis to determine how much of the entire drainage area would be required to install ordinances. Staff intended to include a substantial portion of these river basins in the protected areas. During the August 1990 public hearing process it became clear that choosing a fixed size for all WS -IV protected areas for these very large drainage systems would be more equitable. While this size should be considered to be the minimum protected area needed, it is approximately the same size as the WS -II and WS -III watersheds. The protected area for WS -Iv water supplies can, however, in some cases encompass the entire drainage area. The protected area size that was adopted for these large drainage systems states that the boundaries of such shall extend 5 miles upstream and draining to water supply reservoirs (measured from the normal pool elevation) or to the ridge line of the wat- ershed (whichever comes first); or 10 miles upstream and drain- ing to intakes located directly in the stream or river (run -of- the- river), or to the ridge line of the watershed, (whichever 14 61 comes first). These boundaries can be delineated by using major landmarks such as highways or property lines if these landmarks are immediately adjacent to the appropriate outer boundary of 5 or 10 miles. These are minimum boundaries and local government may extend the protected area as necessary. In 9_ng al, water supplies with large drainage areas will likely be reclassified as class WS -Iv. Water supply ordinances are required in the critical area (defined as in the other water supply classifications) and in the protected areas out- side the critical area. The approximate outer boundaries of the protected areas (where applicable), and critical areas will appear in the schedule of classifications for each river basin (15A NCAC 2B .0302 - .0317). • How is the 10% nonresidential development determined for WS -II and WS -III watersheds? Ten percent (10 %) of a local government's jurisdiction within a water supply watershed may be used for new nonresidential development outside of the critical area at densities of up to 70% built -upon area. Local governments that have chosen low density development and thus are not required to use structural stormwater controls do not have to incorporate these controls for this new nonresidential development. However the adopted rules require that nonstructural management practices to minimize water quality impacts be implemented. Local governments that have chosen the high density approach to development and thus must use structural stormwater controls (wet detention basins) may still develop up to 70% built -upon surface area for new nonresidential development outside of the critical area but must incorporate structural controls designed for the first one inch of rainfall. In both instances, additional nonresidential development would be allowed to occur as long as the-built-upon area limitation is complied with for the appropriate classification of the water supply. It should be noted that a local government is not required to allow any nonresidential development to occur. • What are "discharging landfills "? New federal regulations require all new landfills to have liners, monitoring equipment and other measures to detect and /or prevent leachate from entering the environment. New landfills must make provisions for collecting the leachate. The leachate -can be handled in one of four ways; 1) treated and sprayed back on the land, 2) trucked off -site to a wastewater treatment facility, 3) piped off -site to a wastewater treatment facility, or 4) treated on -site and discharged to a receiving stream. For the purpose of the water supply protection rules, the fourth method listed is considered a "discharging landfill" and the other three nondischarging. 15 Are all types of landfills affected? Yes, the language that was adopted for the water supply protection rules does not distinguish between various types of landfills. Comments or clarifications should be made during the public hearing process for those interested in this issue. For example, should "demolition" landfills with only stumps, rocks, etc. have different requirements? • Can a local government allow a non - conforming property to expand as long as the non - conformance is not increased? For example, can a business that is non - conforming due to -the amount of impervious surface area expand its structure to cover an existing parking lot as long as it does not increase the total amount of impervious cover? Yes. • Are regional stormwater control devices allowed for nonresidential development? Yes, however as in all cases the pros and cons of regional facilities should be examined very carefully both from an economic and water quality perspective. On -site controls are often preferential and in the case of industrial development may serve as a spill containment device. waters upstream of regional controls and in- stream controls must still meet the established narrative and numeric water quality standards. • If a jurisdiction chooses to regulate a water supply watershed for the purposes of water supply protection outside of the 5 or 10 mile minimum protected area or the one mile critical area, does it have to notify DEM? Any local government wishing to extend the minimum protected or critical area should send DEM a copy of the area mapped on a USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map. This will allow DEM to formally expand the minimum boundaries as noted in the schedule of classifications. Local governments with this intent should notify DEM through the public hearing process this summer. Future expansions or revisions to these expan- sions will likely require DEM to conduct public hearings at a later date. _ • If there are waters in a local government's jurisdiction that are currently classified for water supply use but are not used nor is there any future intent by anyone to use as such, will the local government(s) be responsible for adopting and enforcing water supply protection ordinances? Local governments should first verify that no one is currently using the waters for drinking water supply purposes or has any intent to do so. If not, they should then notify DEM in writing through the public hearing process of the 16 C0? apparent inappropriate classification, noting water body name, location and other jurisdictions or facilities (i.e. industries) that were contacted. It is DEM's intent to reclassify these waters to a classification other than water supply. We have been notified of a few such instances already and have noted these accordingly in the proposed classification schedule. If these waters are reclassified to a classification other than water supply, the potentially affected local governments would not be required to adopt water supply protec- tion ordinances. However, all reclassifications must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. • Some waters are classified for water supply purposes in North Carolina but the intakes, if any, are located in an adjoining state and used by entities within that state. Are local governments in North Carolina responsible for adopting water supply protection ordinances for these water supplies? No. DEM intends to reclassify these waters to a classification other than water supply and as noted in the above response, the same circumstances are applicable. • Can portions of a water supply watershed be reclassified to a higher classification than the overall classification of the water supply watershed? Yes,. the adopted rules allow for tributaries and headwaters of water supply watersheds to be eligible for a higher classification after local governments have adopted the appropriate ordinances and sent in a resolution of intent. DEM will then conduct a public hearing for the proposed reclassification at the earliest possible date. These requests will probably not be considered during this summer's reclassification proceedings. What is meant by a hazardous materials inventory and spill /failure plan? An inventory of hazardous materials as defined in 15A NCAC 2B .0202 (25) is required so that local governments are aware of the location, types and general amount of these materials being used or stored in the watershed. The intent is to inventory the "large" quantities such as agricultural or industrial suppliers, retail operation storage, commercial or industrial bulk storage or use facilities, etc. The inventory would assist local departments within the watershed, such as fire departments or water treatment plant operators, in dealing with emergency situations. A spill /failure plan would be developed in conjunction with local authorities to spell out procedures for containing spill mate - rials,-preventing contamination of waters and protecting human health. Can a local government modify their water supply protection 17 N' programs and ordinances? Local governments can modify their originally approved local programs after they have been approved by the EMC. These changes, however, must at least meet the statewide minimum standards for the classification, and must be approved by the EMC. • How are activities such as fishing, hunting and boating effected? The adopted rules do not effect these activities. The rules do require that local governments address water based activities under a comprehensive nonpoint source management plan in order to avoid potential risks from gas and oil from boats and runoff from adjacent buildings, marinas and parking areas. Some existing rules for recreation occurring on water supply reservoirs are addressed by the Division of Environmental Health. • What effect does a supplemental classification have? Supplemental classifications may already be assigned to some water supply waters in your jurisdiction. These supplemental classifications also carry narrative and /or numeric water quality standards. These standards are to be used in conjunction with the water supply protection requirements, however the more stringent of the two is applicable when there are overlapping requirements. It is suggested that local ordinances be adopted so as to recognize these overlaps where applicable. A summary of the supplemental classifications is enclosed in this document. • Can a proposed classification be changed before final adoption by the EMC this December? The DEM staff and EMC have made their best efforts in determining the appropriate classification for each of the approximately 200 surface water supply watersheds in the state. The staff has used its best professional judgement in assessing land use characteristics when this data was available. In proposing a classification for each water sup- ply, the highest classification a water supply qualifies for has been proposed as per the intent of the EMC. The adopted rules allow for a degree of flexibility for assigning the final classification. Thus in some instances the staff allowed a minor nonconforming activity such as a single domestic dis- charge which might otherwise preclude a higher classification. The statute requires the EMC to adopt the most appropriate classification for each water supply. The public hearing pro -. cess will be the opportunity for local governments, organiza- tions and individuals to offer comments and substantiating evi- dence either concurring or not with the proposed water supply classification. it is highly regommlandgd that. caaaks fa tual written mm n n m an an v..- 1 n The public hearing proceedings are your opportunity to correct 18 previously supplied information and provide updated existing land use characteristics that may effect a classification. After the closing date of the public hearings, September 30, 1991, the DEM staff and the hearing officers will formulate a recommendation for the reclassification of the water supplies and final rule adoption. The EMC is expected to act on the rec- ommendation at their December 1991 meeting. • Why are there no detailed requirements to address WS -I water- sheds? WS -I watersheds are defined as undeveloped. These water sup- plies are often owned by a municipality and often under "lock and key" or they are within the National Forest boundaries. It is felt that the undeveloped designation adequately defines the intended use of the watershed and makes specific nonpoint source control criteria unnecessary. 0 How is the normal pool elevation to be determined for a water supply reservoir? The normal pool elevation for impoundments is the water level at which the impoundment is usually maintained. In "backwater" areas, this level can be difficult to determine. Staff has made,its best interpretation -based on existing maps and data. USGS 7.5 minute (1:24,000 scale) topographic maps and Water Resources Data Reports for North Carolina were major sources in determining the normal pool elevations of reservoirs. In many cases the reservoir boundaries and normal pool elevations are printed on the 7.5 minute quad sheets. Where the reservoir boundaries were not shown on these maps, information was obtained on the normal pool elevations and mapping was accom- plished by delineating the reservoir boundaries based on eleva- tions shown on the 7.5 minute quad sheets.' 'In some instances information on the normal pool elevations was obtained from owners /operators. The description of the stream segments in the proposed classification schedules reflect staff's interpre- tation.as described above. Maps should be available at the public hearings to.help interpret these areas. .It should be noted that under 15A NCAC 2B .0104(0) of the adopted water sup- ply protection rules local government is responsible for cor- rectly delineating the approximate normal pool elevation for backwaters of water supply reservoirs for the purposes of determining the critical and protected areas as appropriate. If local governments feel that a different point than that delineated by staff is more representative of the normal pool level of their reservoir, they should present this information to the EMC during the public hearing process. If local govern- ments would like to perform studies /surveys to more accurately define this point, these need to be finalized and submitted no later than October 31, 1991 in order to be considered. 19 651 oi ril ML Attachment 3: EMC Public ,Hearings 67 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF HOUSE BILL 156 PUBLIC INFORMATION PACKAGE PUBLIC HEARINGS August 14, 1991 7:00 P.M. August 15, 1991 7:00 P.M. Auditorium Ground Floor Hearinq Room Montgomery Comm. College Archdale Building Old Biscoe Road 512 N. Salisbury Street Troy, NC Raleigh, NC August 19, 1991 7:00 P.M. Health Career Auditorium Guilford Tech. Comm. College Jamestown, NC August 21, 1991 7:00 P.M. Humanities Lecture Hall UNC- Asheville Asheville, NC August 20,' 1991 7:00 P.M. Auditorium Catawba valley Comm. Coll. Hickory, NC August 22, 1991 7:O0 P.M. Tri-- County Comm. C031ege Murphy, NC August 26, 1991 7:00 P.M. August(?-7.d 1991 7:OCR P.M. Courtroom Bryan Auditorium, Mcrtan Hall New Chowan County Courthouse UNC - Wilmington South Broad Street 601 South College Rcad Edenton, NC Wilmington,; NC COMMENT PROCEDURE All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. Comments, statements, data, and other information may be submitted in writing prior to, during, or within 30 days after the hearing or may be presented orally at the hearing. Statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer. Submission of written copies -of -oral -presentations -is - encouraged _____________ __________ INFORMATION Further explanation and details of the proposed rules may be obtained by writing or' calling: Steve Zoufaly Division of Environmental Management Post Office Box 29535 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 -0535 (919) 733 -5083 rq"?l •• AGENDA #14f MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Reclassifications for Watersheds, N.C. Enviromental Management Commission DATE: July 8, 1991 69 The attached resolution would authorize the Mayor to submit comments to the Environmental Management Commission at an upcoming August 15 public hearing. Two comments are proposed: 1) That the Environmental Management Commission consider designating University Lake watershed as a "critical water supply watershed" - - a special category recognizing its unique characteristics. 2) That the Environmental Management Commission consider designating the Cane Creek watershed as a "critical water supply watershed" upon completion of planned technical studies by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority. Background On December 13, 1990 the Environmental Management Commission adopted new water supply rules to implement G.S. 143 -214. This 1989 legislation requires the Commission to develop a new system of classifications for public water supply watersheds and regulations for protecting the watersheds. Under the legislation, the Commission must classify watersheds by January 1, 1992. The Commission has published proposed classifications and has called public hearings around the state. The public hearing for this area is scheduled for August 15, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Archdale Building in Raleigh (please see Attachment 1) .• Legislation is currently pending in the General Assembly which would alter several of the key deadlines in the watershed legislation, G. S. 143 -214. Discussion The new regulations establish four classifications for watersheds, with each category having progressively stricter land use and stormwater management restrictions (please see Attachment 2 which summarizes the key points for each classification). W K Three watersheds which affect Chapel Hill directly and their proposed classifications are: University Lake -- WS -II Cane Creek -- WS-11 Jordan Lake -- WS -IV On July 9, 1990 the Council adopted a resolution commenting on the proposed regulations requesting that the Environmental Management Commission recognize the need in some individual watersheds for variation from the broad classifications and standards set forth in the proposed rules (please see attachment 3). The rules adopted on December 13, 1990 include a provision that "the Commission may designate water supply watersheds or portions thereof as critical water supply watersheds and impose management requirements that are more stringent than the minimum statewide water supply watershed management requirements.' (15 NCAC 2B.0104(k)). The Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) study indicated the University Lake watershed needs careful protection because of its small size and shallow depth. On the basis of this study, and subsequent local changes to land use and zoning controls, we suggest it is appropriate to consider a special classification for the University Lake watershed. OWASA has tentatively scheduled a technical study of the Cane Creek Watershed in its FY 1992 -93 long -range Capital Improvements Program. For this reason, we recommend that the Environmental Management Commission consider Cane Creek for the "critical water supply,, classification if considered appropriate after the completion of this study. Recommendation The issues for University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds have received much public scrutiny over the past few years. Requesting the special classification would be consistent with the Council's previous discussions. we propose to prepare a report on the implications of the proposed WS--IV classification for Jordan Lake for Council's consideration in the fall. We recommend that the Council consider submitting comments on the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds, asking the Commission to use this special provision to designate these areas as "critical water supply watersheds." 3 The attached resolution would be presented at the public hearing of August 15. Attachments: 1. Notice of Public Hearings (p.5). 2. Summary of Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules. (p.7) 3. Adopted Resolution of Chapel Hill Town Council, 7 /9/90. (p.8) 4. Memorandum to Council of 7/9/90. (p.10) 71 72 2 A RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PROTECTING WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (91- 7- 8/R -14) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill requested on July 9,- 1990 by Resolution 90- 7 -9/R -5 that the Environmental Management Commission consider special standards for specific watersheds; and WHEREAS, the water supply rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission on December 13, 1990 include a provision at 15 NCAC 2B .0104 (k) which allows the Commission to designate critical water supply watersheds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Environmental Management commission to: 1) Designate University Lake watershed as a critical water supply watershed, with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussions among the local governments involved; and 2) After completion of appropriate technical studies by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (now tentatively scheduled for FY 1992- 93), that the Commission consider designating Cane Creek watershed as a critical water supply watershed if supported by the conclusions of the study. This the 8th day of July, 1991. ATTACHMENT 1 NCnTCE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS N.C. ENV ORKU TIL KLUGE UX C0KlI =01 PROPOSED RECLASSIFICITIONS AND REVISED WATER QOILITY CLASSIFICATION AI® STAAOARDS AVLES FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY wATERmrltD PROTECTION Notice is hereby given of a series of public hearings to be held by tbe`kctb Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources on behalf on the Environmental Management Commission (EPIC) concerning the propped classification of all of the State's surface raw drinking water supply watery in order to make the water supply classifications coosisteat with crater supply watershed protection rules (water quality standards and management regaireseats) adopted by the EAC ob Gecesb�es 13, 1°90 in accordance with G.S. 143 - 214.5. In addition to the notice being gives on the proposed charges to the classification of the State's surface water supplies, notice is also hereby given of proposed revisions to the surface water supply protection rules previously adopted by the ERC on December 1.3, 1990 in accordance with G.S. 143-214.5. PURPOSE: The purpose of the eight public bearings being noticed berein is to receive public comment on the proposed classifications of each surface water supply, including any sere detailed information, such as verification of previously undoc^meted land use or point source discharge activities, that my have as influence on the final classification assigmeat and to receive public comment on new proposed revisions to the surface water supply protection rules adopted by the commission on December 13, 1990. These proposed revisions to the State's surface water supply classi irat' and water supply protection rules will, if aaepted, result in modifications to the North Carolina rules governing procedares for assignment of water quality standards, the classi.fications and water quality standards applicahle to surface waters of North Carolina and assignment of stream cla_=ificatioas (151 NCIC 2B .0100, .0200 and . 0300). THESE CL LSS37ICITICE W ASSOCIATED WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION RULES REPRESENT A SIGNTFICLIT CHANGE FROM P&MOUS PRACTICES SI M LOCIL GOVEBIIMM KOST ADOPT ORDI1i LACES TO EITHER LD= DEVELOPMW DE1WT7 OR REQME Sit'1RPW M CDlt = WrMN WATER SUPPLY WITfRSEIEDS OR PROTECTED AREAS WrnM THEIR JIIRISDICiZON. TT IS VERY DWOIfT THAT ALL MM M= AND PafE31"1DUY AFFECTED PEMKS OR PARTIES KAP.E THEIR VIF.UiS AND OPINIONS KHM N, preferably in writing, TO THE EPIC WHETHER THEY BE 11 FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO ANY OR AIL PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY CLIS.SIFICI1TICOS AND RULES REVISIONS RCT'lICED HEREI9• In addition' interested and potentially affected per or parties shanld provide doGrmmtatioa of perceived ecrmic, enviromeatal and social costs o: benefits including any information, such as verification of previously undommanted land use or point source disduar+ge activities, that may have as influence on the final classification assignment- It is vaq important that all interested and potentially affected perm= or parties maloz their views Imam to the ENC wbetber in favor of or opposed to any and all provisions of the proposed water supply classifications and roles revisions being noticed bareio, since THE EPA~ PRY ADOPT MORE OR LESS MINGENT WATER SUPPLY PR=C -11OK CSA=QT= AIiiD 9nRUM, OR 1W1CZT RP.(,VZUM= THAT KIY DIFFER FROM THOSE BEING NOTICED HEREIN BY !TARE OR LESS S1SIINM, IF THE EPIC DETER= THE ME FRAIL ADOPTED RULES ARE A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF THE NOTICE' THE PUBLIC HEA TISS M1 ME HU&m Cllvo T5 RICE=, III ICCINWRE WITH THE ENC's kUTMR TY PURSUANT TO N . C . G . S . 15OB -12 TO KLIM C GWES Ili FINAL RULES WrD= RF9Cf1•ICE Aim REHEARING AS LONG IS THE FIRAL RULES ARE A LOGICAL OUTGRadn OF THE pMLIC HEARING = PUBLIC CClL'IENT PSDCEEDI=. DATES LOCATIONS: Auwst 14, 1991 7:00 P.K. Auditorium Kontgcmery Comm. College Old Biscoe Road Troy, N.C. August 15, 1991 7 :00 P. K. Ground Floor Hearing Roca Archdale Building 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, N.C. August 19, 1991 7:00 P.K. Health Career Auditorium Guilford Technical Ccmmmity College Jamestown, M.C. August 21, 1991 7:00 P.M. August 22, 1991 7:00 P.K. August 26, 1991 7 :00 P.K. Humanities Lecture Hall Tri- County Ccmwmity Courtroom UNC- Asheville College New Chow= County Courthouse Asheville, N.C. Hurpby, M.C. South Broad Street Edenton, w. c. nVrV - August 20, 1991 7 :00 P.M. Auditoria Catawba Valley Community College Hickory, N.C. August 27, 1991 7:00 P.M. Bryan Auditorium, Korton Hall UNC - Wilmington 601 South College Road Wilmingtonm, M.c. 911 -1 --. ■ ,'(*"K NT PW)rF:T)1JRE5: All persons interested in or potentially affected by this natter are invited to attend the public twarings being noticed herein. Convents, data, stat.emats and other information may be saatmitted in writing prior to, during or within thirty (30) days after the date of the last public hearing. Written public cements will be accepted, therefore, Lhrcugo September 30, 1991 inclusive. Convents miry also be presented =rally at the hearings. so that all persons desiring to speak may have an opportunity to do so, the length of verbal statasieots may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officers. The statutor7 autbcrity for these actioDS is as follows: I.C. General Statutes 143 - 214.1, 143 - 214.5, 143- 215.3(a)(1) and (3). The proposed effective date of the final acted water supply classifications and standards rules is March 1, 1992. ALL IFrf>`RPM AND P07ERrI,1LLY AFFECTED PERSO0 OR PARTIES ARE STROMY EWXMRAM TO READ 'THE DrMt PUBLIC NOTICE AS PUBLISHED ZK THE JUNE 14, 1991 NORM CAROLID REGLTM AND TO 091M ADDITIMIL DrFORADITICK ON THESE PROPOSALS AS INDICATED BELOW. EXPLANATION OF NOTICE: There are two types of changes being proposed as new revisions to the rules. The first type of revisions are clarifications of language. An exile of this type of change is the prof i revisions of the narrative descriptions for point source discharges for WS -II, WS -III and IBS -IV classifications is rule 151 NGC 2B .0211, subparagraphs (d)(2), (e)(2) and (f)(2), respectively. The second type of new proposed revisions are more subatantive changes which involve several major issues. Determining what. aastitutes "existing development" for the purposes of impleeentioq these roles; that is, determining at what point in their development planned or proposed projects may be %raadfathererd" under these rules, is one such major issue. A definition of existing develop=ment which is intended to address this issue is proposed at rule 15A NCAC 2B .0104 (s) . SPECTF lC CagKENTS ON THE XKPLEPMMTICK OF THE DEFINITION OF ECLTr G DEVELOPP[E T IS PROPOSED Dl RULE 151 NCAC 2B .0104(s) ARE BEING SOLICITED, WHETHER IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL. Anot.hrs major isaae for which comments are being solicited is the definition of the critical area for a water supply reaervo.ir (151 NCAC 2B .0202(14)). The definition of the critical area for a water supply resertoir was adopted by the ENC on Deaeirber 13, 1990. Altbmvb this is an adopted provision of the water supply protection rules and is not a Dew proposal, the definition of the critical area for a water supply reservoir cootiaues to be controversial. Therefore, THE ENC IS SPECIPICILLY SOLICITIX CClrl1>IJYlS Od THE DEFINITICIR OF CRITICAL AM FOR WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS, W MM THE CWMMS IRE 33 FAVOR OF OR OPPOSM TO THE DEFINITION. F URTMMU, COMENTS IRE BEIM SOLICITED BY THE EMC CE THE EIVifiO1 MMIL, EC - EEC Alm SOCIAi. COSTS LID BENEFITS OF M AND ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE RULES, WHETHER THE C'IRlSf3Fl5 IRE lX FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO ?ME RULES AND WHEMM 'PFf CCRO MS ARE ON THE NEW PROPOSED RF:V7SIOKS, THE PROVIMONS OF THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE ENC OR DECEMBER 13, 1990 OR OR THE MS71M WATER SUPPLY PROTEC710E RULES. C13103rfS AR$ ALSO BEING SOLICITED ON THE PROPOSED CLLSSMCATIONS OF EACH SURFACE WATER SUPPLY, ESPECIALLY DMUDIM IllFO MTICZ 'THAT MAY HAVE IN INFLUEIM ON TIM FML CLLSS trrCLTICBI ASSIGRMI T. Water supply reclassifications are proposed for surface voters of the Broad River Basin, Cape Fear River Basin, Catawba River Basin, French Broad River Basin, Hiwassee River Basin, Little Tenn me River Basin, Lasaher River Basi.D, Neuae River Basin, New River Basin; Pasgootank River Basin, Roanoke River Basin, Sava mb River Basin, Tar- Pmaiico River Basin, Watauga River Hasid and the Yadkin River Basin. CMUM ARE B®G EXPREMLY SOLICITED BY THE EPIC ON 07 IND III OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS NOTICE, WHETHER THE CCPIU'RTS ARE IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO ANY OR ILL PROVISIONS OF THIS 1+1MCE. The ENC is soliciting these Comments so that THE EMC 12Y ADOPT MORE OR LESS S'T MEW W M SUPPLY PROTECTION AND NMOEWT REOUIREFEMIS TH1T MAY DIPPER FROM THOSE BEING PROPOSED, IF THE ENC DET£ROMS 7W = FILL LU P= RULES ME A L06ICLL OUTM ORH OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE, HEARIBM AND PUBLIC C" R'TS RECEIVED. 1]1 of the rev ens to these rules, if they are adopted by the ENC as proposed, are expected to boom effective an Narch 1, 1992. AU'11i0RIT'Y: N.C. General Statutes 143- 214.1, 143 - 214.5, 143- 215.3(a)(1) and (3). rNFORMATI01i. Further information on the final propnea]s my be obtained by writing or calliDg: Stephen Zoufaly. Division of Enviromental Manage t P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 -0535 (919) 733 -5083 Uate Dr. tGeorge If. E erett, Director N 3 Z D F V O 0. O W S N'7 4 CL IL 0 tl7 a D N W r� 3 d W rs Is th if 1111 Js # _ r Is I I " I f I t.2 slit fix s ZE F E Z W • • t � 4TTACWENT 2 75 -p 7 ATTACHMENT 3 A RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON PROPOSED STATE -WIDE REGULATIONS FOR PROTECTING MATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (90- 7-9/R -6) WHEREAS, many watersheds are the source of public drinking water for citizens outside as well as within the local jurisdiction responsible for regulating watershed development; and WHEREAS, the policy objectives of a local jurisdiction with planning and development responsibilities for a watershed may differ from the interests of citizens concerned primarily with protecting water quality. WHEREAS, in addition, watershed areas may be within multiple jurisdictions; NOW 'THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL that the Council: * Strongly supports the State government role set forth in House Bill 156. * Recognizes the need in some individual watersheds for variation from the broad classifications and standards set forth in the proposed rules. Some watersheds, such as University Lake, are especially vulnerable to pollution because of shallow depth of the reservoir, small size of the watershed, stormwater travel times or other factors. * supports adding to the proposed rules provisions that: (1) Where a specific water supply watershed or portion of a watershed needs special water quality protections due to the nature of the watershed area, the reservoir or other factors demonstrated in- a publicly funded engineering study, the Commission may on a case -by -case basis require and approve specific standards based on such an engineering study by a qualified agency or firm. (2) Any local government(s) whose constituents have a material interest in the use and development of the watershed or the quality of water therefrom shall have standing to apply to the commission for consideration of special standards for a specific watershed or portion thereof. Preparation and consideration of such standards shall include public meetings or hearing(s) with prior notice to interested parties including property owners as listed in property tax records, and to the general public in the area served by the water supply. * Strongly supports restrictions on extending public sewer service in water supply watersheds, except to correct public health emergencies. w BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes submittal of this resolution to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission at the Commission's public hearing on August 15, 1990. This the 9th day of July, 1990. ATTACHMENT 4 79 AGENDA # 9 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Joyce Brown Julie Andresen Alan Rimer SUBJECT: Comments for August 15 public hearing on proposed Statewide watershed protection regulations DATE: July 9, 1990 Attached for your consideration is a resolution commenting on proposed rules for protecting water supply watersheds. The NC Environmental Management Commission will hold a public hearing at 2 pm on August 15th in Raleigh on the rules as proposed by the NC watershed Protection Advisory Committee and NC Division of Environmental Management staff. We ask the Council's approval of the attached comments for submittal on behalf of the Town at the public hearing. PVj;IMii;�`,J * Under 1989 legislation enacted by the General Assembly, the NC Environmental Management Commission will develop a new system of classifications for public water supply watersheds and regulations for protecting the watersheds. Mayor Avery Upchurch of Raleigh and the Triangle J Council of Governments played a strong role in supporting the need for this legislation in recent years. Mayor Upchurch chairs a watershed Protection Advisory Council created to develop recommendations to the Environmental Management commission. * we believe the key issues in protecting watersheds include limits on impervious surface and development, and restricting the extension of public sewer service in watersheds. * State -wide regulations are needed to establish minimum levels of protection for various categories of watersheds. However, rules developed for State -wide use may not fit the specific needs for some_ watersheds. Some watersheds need more protection than others. The Camp Dreser & McKee (CDM) study clearly indicated the University Lake watershed needs careful protection because of its small size and shallow depth. Camp Dresser & McKee recommended.a 5 -acre mini=ym lot size for University Lake. However, CDM recommended a 2 -acre m.nli= lot size in a recent study of the much larger Lake Michie and Little River watersheds for Durham. . ' * We support adding to the proposed rules a provision that the Environmental Management Commission may on a case -by -case basis establish higher standards for a particular watershed on the• basis of a publicly funded study and a request by one or1mcre local jurisdictions. * We strongly support the provision in the proposed State -wide rules which would prohibit new sewer lines in critical areas of watersheds such as University Lake and Cane Creek. BACKGROUND state legislation In 1989, the General Assembly enacted legislation (House Bill 156) requiring the Environmental Management Commission to adopt a new system of classifications and protection standards for water supply watersheds by January 1, 1991. After adopting standards for watershed classifications, the Commission will hold hearings on proposed classifications of surface water supply watersheds. The Commission must designate classifications for individual watersheds by January 1, 1992. Local governments with jurisdiction in these drinking water supply watersheds must submit proposed water supply management and protection plans by July 1, 1992. House Bill 156 requires that local governments' watershed protection plans must include at least density controls, and /or performance -based density control alternatives based on sound engineering principles. The bill also authorizes the Commission to designate part or all of some watersheds as critical water supply watersheds and to apply more stringent standards to'them. This legislation provides for appointment of an advisory council to assist the Environmental Management Commission in preparing watershed protection rules and classifications. The advisory council has met several times since its creation in December 1989 and.has worked with NC Division of Environmental Management staff to propose a system of classifications and regulations. Mayor Upchurch of Raleigh chairs the advisory council. Proposed classifications and watershed erotection regulations The Triangle the proposed copy of the J Council of Governments' two -page summary of rules developed for the public hearing, and a proposed rules, are attached. Key points 616 1 * The four proposed classifications are: WS I: uninhabited, undeveloped WS Ii: predominantly undeveloped WS III: low to moderately developed WS IV: moderate to highly developed Comment: Although specific classifications not the proposed for individual watersheds, WS II app ears to most likely classification for the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds under the proposed regulations. The new WS I classification would apply to pristine areas such as publicly owned watershed areas in the mountains. NC Division of Environmental Management staff has indicated the Jordan Lake watershed, which the southern portion of orange County and part of-Chatham and Durham Counties, would likely be WS IV, the lowest category. Comment: One of the comments in the Triangle J discussions was that the present "WS -1" classification name for University acate category to behcalled Sa 1 should be continue and the new 9 named "pristine." We agree. * Density in WS II watersheds would belimited r ace both house per 2 acres, with a 6% limit on impervious u the critical area one half mile from the reservoir, and in the remaining watershed area. * Local governments would be required to be responsible for maintaining any sra first 1 inch of aainfll Use of detention ponds would not supersede the density and imperviousness limits. • Sludge disposal would be prohibited In WS II Watersheds. • In WS 11 critical areas, no new commercial or industrial development would be allowed. * In the remainder of WS II watersheds, lo% of the area could have com=ercial or industrial development. * No public or industrial wastewater discharge plants would be allowed in WS II watersheds. * No new sewer would be allowed in critical areas of WS II watersheds. Please see the attached summary and proposed rules for additional information. Fou Triangle J Council of Governments' Comments The Triangle J Water Resources Committee has drafted comments (attached) following discussions with representatives of the State's watershed advisory councii and with others including..local government, agricultural and property owner interests. However, the Triangle J Council of Governments Board of Delegates will not consider taking action until the Board meeting on July 25th. Key points in the draft Triangle J comments include: * The Statewide rules should set forth water quality goals for each classification, and present water quality should be the basis for assigning classifications. * public sewer systems should be allowed to pass through watershed critical areas to serve other areas and to correct Public health emergencies. * Landfills should be restricted in the same ways as sludge disposal and wastewater treatment plants. * The NC Department of Transportation should be required to assess the effect of and to justify locating any new roads in watershed critical areas. DISCUSSION The attached resolution includes the following points: * As is the case for University Lake and Cane Creek, many watersheds are the source of public drinking water for citizens outside as well as within the local jurisdiction responsible for regulating watershed development. * The policy objectives of _a local jurisdiction with planning and development responsibilities for a watershed may differ from the interests of citizens concerned primarily with protecting water quality. For example, development controls for watershed may affect a local government's expectations regarding its property tax base in the watershed. * In addition, watershed areas may be within multiple jurisductions, as is the case for University Lake and Cane Creek. * Because of conditions including those summarized above, we strongly support the State government role set forth in House Sill 156. * However, we also recognize the need in some individual watersheds for variation from the broad classifications and IM• standards set forth in the proposed rules. Some watersheds, such as University Lake, are especially vulnerable to Pollution because of shallow depth of the reservoir, small size of the watershed, stormwater travel times or other factors. * 'Therefore we support adding to the proposed rules provisizns that: (1) Where a specific water supply watershed or portion of a watershed needs special water quality protections due to the nature of the watershed area, the reservoir or other facc=s demonstrated in a publicly funded engineering study, the Commission may on a case- by- case basis require and approve specific standards based on such an engineering study by a qualified agency or firm. (2) Any local government(s) whose constituents have a material interest in the use and development of the watershed or the quality of water therefrom shall have standing to apply to the Commission for consideration of special standards for a specific watershed or portion thereof. Preparation and consideration of such standards shall include public meetings or hearing(s) with prior notice to interested parties including property owners as listed in property tax records, and to the general public in the area served by the water supply. * We strongly support restrictions on extending public sewer service in water supply watersheds, except to correct public health emergencies. Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution. A RESOLUTION COM=ING ON PROPOSED STATE -WIDE REGL7LATIONS FOR PROTECTING WATER SUPPLY WATERSBMS (90- 7- 9/R -6) AREAS, many watersheds are the source of public drinking water for citizens outside as well as within the local jurisdiction responsible for regulating watershed development; and wHEpXAs, the policy objectives of a local jurisdiction with planning and development responsibilities for a watershed may differ from the interests of citizens concerned primarily with protecting water quality. WHEREAS ,.in_add.ition,`wa�ershed areas may be within multiple jurisdictio= ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL that the Council: * Strongly supports the State government role set forth in House Bill 156. � r • * Recognizes the need in some individual watersheds for variation from the broad classifications and standards set forth in the proposed rules. Some watersheds, such as University Lake, are especially vulnerable to pollution because of shallow depth of the reservoir, small size of the watershed, stormwater travel times or other factors. * Supports adding to the proposed rules provisions that: (1) Where a specific water supply watershed or portion of a watershed needs special water quality protections due to the nature of the watershed area, the reservoir or other Factors demonstrated in a publicly funded engineering study, the Commission may on a case -by -case basis regL _e and approve specific standards based on such an engineer -ng study by a qualified agency or firm. (2) Any local government(s) whose constituents have a material interest in the use and development of the watershed or the quality of water therefrom shall have standing to apply to the Commission for consideration of special standards for a specific watershed or portion thereof. Preparation and consideration of such standards shall include public meetings or hearing(s) with prior notice to interested parties including property owners as listed in property tax records, and to the general public in the area served by the water supply. * Strongly supports restrictions on extending public sewer service in water supply watersheds, except to correct public health emergencies. BE IT FJRTEER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes submittal of this resolution to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission at the commission's public hearing on August 15, 1990. This the 9th day of July, 1990. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 26, 1991 Action Agenda Item # C "I– SUBJECT: SUP -1 -91 "GREEN HILL" BED AND BREAKFAST DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _x —Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Application vicinity Map Staff Memorandum Findings of Fact Site Plan Agency Letters INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment concerning a request for a Class A Special Use Permit for the non - residential use of the historic "Green Hill" residence. BACKGROUND: The applicants, William Thomas Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A Special Use Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use of an historic structure for the property commonly known as the Green Hill residence. The property is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70 and Lawrence Road (SR 1561). The property contains 6.46 acres. The proposed request would allow for the house to be used as a bed and breakfast. Three out of the four existing bedrooms would be used for the bed and breakfast. There are no proposed changes or additions to the existing house or changes to the property. The property is specifically described as Lots 66 and 67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno Township. The current zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R -1) and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural Residential. The use of the property, as proposed, requires the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained for the proposal to proceed. Approval of the request would allow for the use of "Green Hill" as a bed and breakfast facility for a maximum of 6 adults. • J w- R• RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff has not received any information which would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the specific standards and required regulations. Provided the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the affirmative on the general standards, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the request. The Planning Staff does, however, recommend the attachment of conditions to the approval which are specified as follows: 1. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities, and landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the approved plans. All such facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 2. The final site plan and narrative of the project are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the orange County Planning and Inspections Department. 3. The Bed and Breakfast shall be operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. c of (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DA'T'E: 7 / _2 / 91 APPLICATION NUMBER: I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for use of the ro ert as a Bed & The following information is provided in support of this request: A- PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: Orange County Tax Map 20 Block Lot(s) (6 & 67 Township rnn Zoning District(s): Orange County -- Lot /Parcel Size: 6.46 acres or N square feet Number of Existing Buildings: 4 Gross Floor Area: square feet Number of Proposed Buildings: same Gross Floor Area: same„ nn nhang square feet Water Supply: well Public (Specify) NIA Community NIA Individual Wastewater Disposal: septic s s.Public (Specify) NIA Community N/A Individual School District: - Orange Countv Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: r Critical Areas: none Stream /Drainageway. N/A _ Flood Prone Area NIA Watershed (Specify) N Historic Site Other (Explain) none B. SITE PLAIT' INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: * see site plan * North point, scale, and date. w /mow Extent of area to be developed. *� Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or� adjacent to the site. �* Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. none Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum. ` Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) � w C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: _jte = Z Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy with the property .in question clearly marked. and the i t The names and addresses of the property ow'ner(s) and /it applicant(s), hundred names and addresses are all persons owning propert}' within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. iram 5 Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. item Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. itam_L.,g Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. i� ,UNarrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: 12, 13 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. APPLICANT SIGNATURE(S) t DATE NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name f f e aPfilquest(s)' please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval rsrsr• ssrrsssars�rsrrsssssssrrrsrrs4rsssrrs+ srrrrwrMrrsssrrr *tssssrrasrssrss *►• Receipt FEES: Amount 5 GS, Date Paid: ^�/ APPLICATION F C)k SPECIAL USE F'ERM 11' Mae Greenhill 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough STYLE: Restored 18th C. colonial AGE: 240 years (oldest part dates from 1750) BEDROOMS: Four BATHS: Three full and one half HEATED SPACE: 4,718 ±sq. ft TOTAL ENCLOSED SPACE: 7.298ysq. ft. 170T SIZE: 6.4 -+Acres NEIGHBORHOOD: Greenhill of Hillsborough SCHOOLS: Cameron. Stanford and Orange SPECIAL FEATURES: From its seven working fireplaces to its heart pine floors. six panel 'Christian" doors, and 18th century window glass, Greenhill projects a sense of heritage and timeless stability that's almost tangible. Originally built in 1750, this historic home has undergone expansion twice - once in 1810 and again in 1975 -- with complete restoration in late 1989 and early 1990. Most recent improvements include a complete update of the kitchen and master bath, installation of central heat and air conditioning, new carpeting in the section built in 1975, new interior and exterior paint, extensive landscaping and much more. One fascinating feature to this grand home is its 'birthing room', a windowless interior space in which the births of 56 babies have been recorded during the past two and a half centuries! Outbuildings include a grainery* that performs triple duty as tN o -car garage /workshop and office , a rookery, a restored 19th centun- well house and a dog pen. 4 _ ff rKi .i�:•��; -9�" _- ~: �''�3.. _sue -�,: •= • _,. � •��„ , .+ � , :'fir <{ -=w =`. �'Y�' - •. -�',,� � k.. ::.Yae� .`T.`- .- �fi�.'y IIe ►- llr1' 14jl � +I�!•I'�II+1'�1�II►jI ►� {�Ij(�I► -f, - ���t/jr; 4�� vyE4 ����i,��►,�.. fit Alf OK 14L4 Z' �m A�l At Of 77- rto Krjj T� � � yam' ^-�•_ �.: `�- '�� : - . rte.- • .� '; - _ - - ..�'. 1- ar rYi yl.i�il - ter'- -� � •f�`!�' "�. f'. r; :,•r.�F � • t- _� _� - ..� � f I Y^^1 _• is r r _ "'��� - � . - �- _ - - ,1 ���� r� '•- _- _ - - T""�"�� =*�-- _"ate - c ti', ice•'_ �'r ••�i .lr -r - - 7 . �'i � - - - - - -�--.. - - _ - _ _ � � ?.rye - �ti : _ _- - .,_._.� _ _ -"� • - .. � �'`�� - _ _ �` _ - .= -+�•y� -' _ . `=.•rte T s may^_ T-,y�. ITEM 6. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT AFTER CONSULTING WITH A MEMBER OF THE ORANGE. COUNTY PL..ANN 1 NO BOARD, WE WERE ADVISED THAT A FORMAL "TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY" WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE OR NEEDED. THIS STATEMENT IS SUBMITTED 11\1 LIEU OF THE FORMAL. "TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- PER ADVICE OF PLANNING BOARD. THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A BED AND BREAKFAST WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE:. IMPACT -- IF ANY -- UPON THE EXISTING TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC COUNTS, TRAFFIC FLOW OR TRAFFIC PATTERNS OF THIS AREA BECAUSE: I. AS A "WORST CASE SCENARIO" THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC COULD AMOUNT TO AN ADDITIONAL THREE (C) AUTOMOBILES ENTERING AND DEPARTING FROM THIS PROPERTY. 2 THE PROPERTY IS SERVICED BY TWO (2) DRIVEWAYS; ONE A PAVED DRIVEWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET LONG. IT LEADS TO THE HOUSE VIA A CIRCULAR DRIVE - OR BRANCHES OFF INTO AN APPROACH TO THE GARAGE. THE SECOND, A LONG, GRAVEL DRIVEWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET IS PRESENTLY USED AS A SERVICE DRIVEWAY. SOTH OF THESE DRIVEWAYS COULD PROVIDE PARKING FOR NUMEROUS AUTOMOBILES. Z. THERE IS A LARGE TURN -A- ROUND, PAVED AREA AT THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE WHICH ALSO PROVIDES SEVERAL PARKING SPACES WELL AWAY FROM LAWRENCE ROAD. 4. THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ADDITIONAL THREE Q) AUTOMOBILES ENTERING OR EXITING LAWRENCE ROAD OFFERS SUCH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IT WOULD NOT IMPACT IN ANY WAY ON THIS ROADWAY. 5. TO SUMMARIZE: IN VIEW OF THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC EVEN A "WORST CASE SCENARIO" MIGHT CREATE, THE OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY AT THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT UPON NOR CREATE ANY PROBLEMS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA. I TEM i. 93 , olummLl ' ITEM 7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE: REFERENCE= 6. /. 1 CRITERIA TO BE USED IN DETERMINATION A) THERE IS NO PROPOSED CHANGE IN ANY CONDITION. D) THERE WILL BE NO ENLARGEMENT OF THE FACILITY. C) INCREASE IN INTENSITY OF USE WOULD BE POSSIBLE USE OF' EXISTING BEDROOMS AS FEED AND BREAKFAST ACCOMMODATION. AT THE: MOST, ONLY 3 BEDROOMS WOULD BE USED. THESE.:' BEDROOMS CURRENTLY EXIST. NO ALTERATION, ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER IS PROPOSED TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO ICE ACCOMMODATED AT ONE TIME IS 1 TO 3 COUPLES (OR AT' MOST b ADULTS). D) NO STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED. E) NO CHANGE IN AMOUNT AND /OR LOCATION OF OPEN SPACE, RECREATION FACILITIES OR LANDSCAPE SCREENING IS PROPOSED. F) NO INCREASE IN THE SIZE OR NUMBER Of- SIGNS IS PROPOSED. G) NO CHANGE IN PARKING AREA IS NEEDED -- NO INCREASE OR DECREASE IS PROPOSED. H) NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN PEDESTRIAN AND /OR VEHICULAR ACCESS OF CIRCULATION IS PROPOSED. I) NO CHANGE IN SETBACK IS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. J) NO CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF EXTENT OF STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS,RIGHTS--OF --WAY, ETC. WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICE: IS PROPOSED. C+1 ITEM S. REFERENCE: ARTICLE 0.8.24.1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A) SITE PL..AN BY N. C . REG I STERED LAND SURVEYOR IS ATTACHED. 1) L..00:AT I ON , WIDTH AND TYPE OF ALL INTERNAL._ VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IS INDICATED. 2) THERE IS NO ON —SITE SIGNAGE EXCEPT FOR ENTRANCE: "GREEN HILL" SIGN WHICH HAS BEEN AT THE PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS. ±) BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE ARE INCLUDED. DISTANCE TO NEAREST RESIDENCES ARE: al) BOUNDARY ON RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY IS U.S. HWY Ic:) SO THERE ARE NO RESIDENCES IN THIS DIRECTION. b) THERE" ARE NO RESIDENCES AT FRONT OF PROPERTY A;.3 PROPERTY FRONTS ON LAWRENCE ROAD AND GOLF COURSE IS ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF LAWRENCE ROAD. c) THE THREE ACRE TRACT OF LAND ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT LAND. d) THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BACKS UP TO LARGE LOTS THAT ARE PART OF THE POPLAR RIDGE AREA. THE NEAREST RESIDENCE is APPROXIMATELY ;',o(:) FEET FROM THE RESIDENCE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY. N) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE AND THE BUILDINGS THEREON; I- INCLUDING AMOUNT OF AREA ALLOCATED — 3 BEDROOMS. E.NUMBER OF FULL AND PART —TIME EMPLOYEES — NONE Z.NUMBER OF CLIENTS AND /OR OCCUPANTS EXPECTED TO USE THE FACILITY: 1 TO b 0 COUPLES AT MOST) 4.PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION: EVENINGS THROUGH THE BREAKFAST HOUR. C) BUILDING PLANS FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED. SEE ATTACHED DRAFT OF FLOOR PLANS. STATEMENT OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS ATTACHED D) LANDSCAPE PLAN -- SEE ATTACHED SITE— LANSCAPE PLAN SHOWING EXISTING LANDSCAPING. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. E) STATEMENT FROM APPROPRIATE PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES CONCERNING THE METHOD AND ADEQUACY OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT" FOR THE PROPOSED USES IS ITEM 10 HEREOF. ITEM __6. (CONTINUED) REFERENCE: ARTICLE S . S. 24. 1 YPE F) STATEMENTS FROM THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF FIRE, POLICE AND RESCUE PROTECTION TO THE SITE ARE ITEMS 11,12,AND Q HEREOF. G) THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -- SEE ITEM 9. HEREOF -- AS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE. THE PREVIOUS OWNER, MFG. COMAN, AI:)VISED THE CURRENT OWNERS THAT THf-_". PROPERTY IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL. HISTORIC: REGISTER. HOWEVER, THE PROCESS IS DSO LENGTHY AND COSTLY THAT THE CURRENT OWNERS HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN THE PROCESS. i-o THERE IS NO PROPOSED FURTHER DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS SITE. J ATTACHMENT TO ITEM S. REFERENCE: E3.8.24.1. (C) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY AND OF THE APPROPRIATENESS AND CHARACTER ENHANCEMENT WH 10-1 SUPPORTS APPROVAL OF USE OF THE PROPERTY AS BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY THE INITIAL REST'ORAT I ON AP'PROXIMAT'ELY CS YEARS AGO BY COMAN. AT THAT TIME,THE HOUSE - WAS LITERALLY SAVED FROM SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THEIR COMAN VACATED THE PROPERTY. APPROXIMATELY THREE (=) YEARS. OF THIS PROPERTY WAS UNDERTAKEN THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, MR. AND MRS. - PART OF WHICH DATES TO THE 1 7tO S DESTRUCTION. AFTER THIS VERY COMMUNITY, WITH ADVANCING AGE AND PERSONAL SITUATION, MR. AND MFRS. IT LANGUISHED ON THE MARKET FOR IN 19e9, WHEN WE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, IT WAS AGAIN ON THE VERGE OF SERIOUS DECAY AND NEGLECT. IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR MORE MORE THAN TWO YEARS. RESTORING THE PROPERTY HAS SEEN AN EXTENSIVE AND EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. WE ARE SEEKING THE SPECIAL_ PERMIT AT THIS TIME TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THIS PROPERTY AS A VITAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO HELP PROTECT IT FROM EVER AGAIN FALLING INTO AN ABANDONED AND NEGLECTED STATE. WE BELIEVE: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS A BED AND BREAKFAST, MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO REALIZE SOME REVENUE TO HELP SUPPORT THE UPKEEP AND MAINTAINANCE OF THE PROPERTY, IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE PRESERVATION OF THIS PROPERTY. FURTHER, THIS IS A MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND IN CHARACTER WITH THIS TYPE OF HISTORICAL ESTATE. THE SIZE AND LAYOUT OF THE STRUCTURE MAKE IT VERY AMENABLE TO USE AS A BED AND BREAKFAST. THE SIZE OF THE LOT (6.46 ACRES) MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO ACCOMMODATE PATRONS OF A BED AND BREAKFAST WITHOUT IMPACTING NEGATIVEL4 UPON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR AREA TRAFFIC. FURTHER, THIS PROPERTY AND THIS COMMUNITY ARE THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES AND COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE TO BED AND BREAKFAST PATRONS. AND, HISTORICALLY, THIS TYPE OF EKED AND BREAKFAST HELPS COMMUNITIES MAINTAIN THEIR CHARACTER AS WELL. pi 47 I w a I OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST INVOLVES MINIMAL 'T RAFF" I: G TO THE PROPERTY. REALISTICALLY, AT BEST, ONE WOULD PROJECT THAT' THE FACILITY WOULD ONLY BE USED FOR ACCOMMODATING CLIENTS 2 OR :. NIGHTS PER WEEK. AT MAXIMUM USG:, ONLY THREE (3) BEDROOMS WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR USE SO THAT A MAXIMUM OF THREE (::;) COUPLES OR 6 ADULTS WOULD CSC USING THE FACILITY AT ONE TIME CUSTOMARILY, OWNERS ACT AS THE OPERATORS OF A BED AND BREAKFAST SO THAT NO EMPLOYEES OR EXTRA STAFF ARE REQUIRED. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS AN IDEAL FACILITY FOR A BED AND BREAKFASTt IN CHARACTER AND SIZE AND SETTING. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHICH WOULD ALLOW THIS USE, 11 ITEM 1 ME'T"HOI) ALREADY BEEN HEREOF). . STATEMENT OF METHOD AND ADEQUACY OF' VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE AND OF' TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AROUND THE SITE OF ACCESS AND ADEQUACY OF VEHICULAR ACCESS HAS ADDRESSED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (ITEM 6 SPECIFICALLY, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS VIA TWO LONG:; DRIVEWAYS: ONE PAVED AND APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET LONG AND ONE GRAVEL AND APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET LONG. THESE DR I VEWA05 PROVIDE MORE THAN ADEQUATE - IN FACT, EXCELLENT -- ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AROUND THE SITE ARE ALSO MORE THAN ADEQUATE. THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A BED AND BREAKFAST WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT UPON-SAME. rps: 4 02M j rm va 43 x� NA h J � 7 uj w �. � � I I ► � 1 YX po c °ct i I I LA �. I r f - I I ! ! OQ � •N � � I z O va 43 x� NA h J � 7 uj w �. � � I I ► � 1 YX po c °ct i I I LA �. S a r I i a\ I C517l/1 Q•- 7 v 43-_ CFO o � 0 101 nil A X d W 4. u = I z O t ' Q 00 S a r I i a\ I C517l/1 Q•- 7 v 43-_ CFO o � 0 101 nil A X d W 4. it i0 O i oo M i 2A, .0 b - I w 00 bo a i ! I � 00 x 401$ i 4 ttl Y� h�N o �. - = •--- 10 3 '�• 14 % 1.47 :..CAL. Z2441 •,, 6 AC. •614 R 1.. E -92 AC. - / 1/4 * 26 \ L4�5pe 1 /� 640 AC. 5.09 0784 \� / 12 13 /// 2726. 14 AC.CAL. \\ :. 3 � � 29 C / \�\\ 4.8 AC CAL. 1 \ see \ •.\ \ \\ FU 1 MAP20 \\ \ \\ 10 V / \ W�4j• / 781924 \ \ \ \ \21.57QC.CAL\ (POPULAR 2.79 AC. RIDGE Q 28) 0664 58 \ \\ \\ \ \\ FU �1 2.54 AC. I 5515 \ \\ \ // 64 e 3.5 A C. � \ \ 75 76 z ` 1 10.5 AC. 7304 9 •0344-J 67 \ �/ \ 2.75 AC. 2.6 AC. 69 33si v AR 4264 3.06 C. 3.2 AC. \ 8 Ro aAf 71 70 3 66 7082 I n73 1 • a.. 34A . CAL / 50 �/ L 91 A �. 2.9 29 / \ 2.02 AC. a .7788 / \ s 3.2 AC. CAL 3452 65 SEE \ MAP ZI -50 \\ 19.45 AC. 1 P/0121.26 AC. \ \\ ......__ _ �� MATCH \ I MATCH _I o NDREV�S 5 DOVENBARGER c WiLLARD MITCHE 51- LL 33g 0 m SUSAN KDOV NSARGcr�4$50- 87 '� ILBERT PETTY. - - JAI GAUNIO.' 45 -12 " /// WILLNIS SEIELYI . . . SARA J CENT 43 -105 WILLARO MITCHELL 3-f-76 25 -160 W DENNIS WAYNE war FR PLAT REFERENCES KRISTIE D- LEMMON -I �OMARY RUTH WOODS :E FOREST P/B 3 -104 ARIEL HILL 134-147 CpUNT7 LI►+E AGE P/B 15 -134 W. V. ARMFIELD 1 35 -16 TOWNSHIP Wit: P/S 4-63 0. D. WHICKER 11 -47 coRPORwr>: U+rtT ' G47ES I 31'86 BARBARA A MOSER ETAL 1 3'6 -2 104 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4 I&I(� : ►11 lu TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER H DATE: JULY 24, 1991 SUBJECT: SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL ENERAL INFORMATION Applicants: William Thomas Proctor III and Evelyn D. Proctor 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Location: Southwest corner of US 70 and Lawrence Road (SR 1561) Requested Motion: Approval of Class A Special Use Permit for Non - Residential Mixed Use/Reuse of an Historic Structure Purpose: To allow Green Hill to be used as a bed and breakfast with a three bedroom capacity. Lot size: 6.46 acres or 281,397.6 square feet Existing Land Use: Single - family residential Surrounding Land Use: North - US 70 and land zoned AR on the north side of US 70 East - Lawrence Road and Occoneechee Golf Course South - Residential land zoned R -1 West - Residential land zoned R -1 J Wre MEMORANDUM SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL JULY 24, 1991 PAGE 2 Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Rural Residential Zoning: The property is zoned Rural Residential (R -1) The intent of the Rural Residential (R -1) district is provided in Article 4.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the Rural Residential (R -1) District it to provide locations for rural non -farm residential development, at very low intensities, in areas where the short and long -term solutions to domestic water supply and sewage disposal shall be individual wells and ground absorption system. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as Rural Residential. 2. Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10 -20 years. 10/ FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: SUP -1-91 GREEN HILL Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written finding certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Historic Structures - Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use (Article 8.8.24 refers to these standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Commissioners in its deliberations. ARTICLE 8.2.1 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non -ca H ance Ordinance Requirements 8.2.1 The applicant shall have the burden of establishing by competent material and substantial evidence compliance with all required regulations and standards including the following general conditions: 1. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Will Will Not 2. The use will maintain or Will enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Will Not To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Will ____Will Not _Will Will Not 108 ARTICLE 8.2.1 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (continued Ordinance Requirements 3. The use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Is Is Not To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at pubic hearing. 2 Is Is Not ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes °._indicates compliance; "No" indicates Non - compliance PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance R M irements 8.6 - Application submitted —x—Yes No on forms providing full and accurate description of proposed use, including Location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a)'- Twenty -six (26) copies —x—Yes of the site plan prepared by a registered land surveyor or engineer No 8.8 b) - Elevations of all —x—Yes No proposed structures to be used in the development 8.8 c) - A fee, as set by the —x —Yes No Board of County Commissioners A complete application on appropriate Yes No forms has been submitted. Twenty-six copies of the site plan, Yes No prepared by Credle Engineering have been submitted. Shown on the site plan. Applicant Yes No proposes to utilize existing house for bed and breakfast. $395.00 application fee has been Yes No paid. 10 ARTICLE 14.2.2 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS "Yes" indicates cc mliance: "No" indicates Non -c Liance PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements a) Twenty -six (26) copies of —x —Yes No the site plan submitted b) Site plan application form —x—Yes No c) A copy of the Orange County _x_Yes No Tax Map with the subject property identified d) Legal documentation x Yes No establishing entities responsible for control of common areas and facilities to be approved by the County Attorney 26 copies submitted as previously referenced in 8.8a. Appropriate application form has been submitted. Tax Map has been submitted. The applicants, William Thomas Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor are the owners of the property. There are no common areas proposed. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates Non -c liance PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reouirements a) Boundary of lot labeled with bearings and distances b) Name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner c) Name of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates d) Zoning of the property to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent Land uses e) Adjacent right -of -way widths with road names and numbers ,x —Yes No Provided on site plan. —x—Yes No Provided in application. _x_Yes No Provided on site plan. —X—Yes No Zoning and land uses are provided in the application. x_Yes No Right -of -way widths with road names are provided on the site plan. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 110 ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION continued PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements f) Total gross land area of the _x—Yes No parcel, maximum and proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and minimum and proposed pedestrian /landscape area (refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance) Land Use Intensity figures are provided in the application. g) Maximum and proposed _x_Yes No Not applicable. impervious surface and required stream buffers in PWI1 and WOCA (Article 6.23 and 6.24) h) Estimated traffic generated _x_Yes No The estimated traffic generated would by the proposed development in be minimal since a maximum of three trips per day (if it exceeds 800 bedrooms will be used for the Bed & trips per day, submit a traffic Breakfast. impact study in accordance with Article 13) i) Front, side, and rear —A—Yes No Front, side and rear setbacks are building setbacks as required by met. There are no additional Articles 5 and 6 of the Zoning structures proposed. Ordinance j) Location of all proposed _ x_Yes No Location of existing structures are buildings and structures labeled indicated on the site plan. There according to floor area, building are no additional structures height and function, and proposed proposed. finished floor elevation k) Vehicular use areas including _x_Yes No existing and proposed streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to comply with Article 10 of the Zoning ordinance, and entry /exit points of adjacent parcels I) Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, wells, fire hydrants, irrigation, and security lights.) _x —Yes No Vehicular use areas are indicated on the site plan. There are two access drives off Lawrence Road leading to parking areas. Existing utilities are not proposed to be changed. 4 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION (continued PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements i11 M) Solid waste disposal _X—Yes No Solid waste is collected by private Yes No facilities contractor. n) All free - standing and wall- _x—Yes No The existing entrance sign is Yes No mounted signs in accordance indicated on the site plan. with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance o) A landscape plan demonstrating _x—Yes No A landscape plan has been submitted. Yes No compliance with Article 12.3 of The existing landscaping complies the Zoning Ordinance with Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. p) Existing contour lines (dashed) _x—Yes No Contour lines are indicated on the Yes No and proposed contours (solid) at site plan. 5-foot intervals with 10 -foot contours bold. Where site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours may be required q) Retaining walls, tree wells, _x —Yes No There is no grading proposed. Yes No or rip rap as part of the grading plan r) Streams, ponds, drainage _x—Yes No The site plan indicates there are no Yes No ditches, swamps, floodway and streams, ponds or flood areas on the floodplain boundaries property. s) Phase lines and rxmbers if _x—Yes No Phasing is not proposed. Yes _ No the development is to be phased 6 Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article 6. PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDE CE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and Lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a Class A SUP-R1 designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1.1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per dwelling _x_Yes No Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Yes No unit - 40,000 sq. ft. Planned development approved on site basis. b) Minimum lot width - _x—Yes No The lot has 234 feet of frontage on Yes No 130 sq. ft. Lawrence Road. c) Required front setback - ,.„_x_,,,Yes No The house is approximately 400 feet Yes No 40 ft. from Lawrence Road. d) Required side and rear _x—Yes No The house is approximately 110 feet Yes No setbacks - 20 ft. to nearest property line. e) Maximum building height - _x—Yes No Applicant is proposing no new Yes No 25 ft. structures. Existing residential structure is 2 stories in height. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article 6. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS "Yes" indicates c liance- "No" indicates Non-compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to developments controlled by the Land Use intensity (LU1) system. a) Minimum gross land area - N/A b) Maximum gross land area - N/A c) Maximum floor ratio - .088 d) Required minimum open space ratio - .84 Required minimum open space - 253,554 sq. ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian/ Landscape ratio - .21 Required minimum pedestrian/ Landscape space - 63,388 sq. ft. 113 ,,,,_x —Yes No Applicant's site contains 6.92 acres Yes No or 301,851 sq. ft. gross land area. _X—Yes No Applicant's site contains 6.92 acres Yes No or 301,851 sq. ft, gross land area. _X—Yes No Maximum permitted by ordinance is Yes No 26,562 sq. ft. Applicant's plans indicate floor area of 3,211 sq. ft. _x—Yes No Applicant's plans indicate 277,429 Yes No sq. ft. of open space. _x.Yes No Applicant's plans indicate Yes No Pedestrian/Landscape areas totalling 256,352 sq. ft. Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions". 114 ARTICLE 8.2.4 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS ALL SPECIAL USES "Yes" indicates compliance- 40 indicates Non-c2MLiancej PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: 8 a) Method and adequacy of _xwYes No Letter from the Health Department Yes No provision for sewage disposal indicates the existing well and septic facilities, solid waste and tank are functioning properly. Solid water service. waste will be placed in individual trash cans at each home and will be collected by a private contractor. b) Method and adequacy of _x—Yes No Fire protection will be provided by Yes No police, fire and rescue the Orange Rural - Hillsborough Fire squad protection. Department, rescue service by the Orange Rescue Service, and police protection by the orange County Sheriff's Department (see attached correspondence). c) Method and adequacy of _x—Yes No Access to the site is provided by Yes No vehicle access to the site two private drives from Lawrence and traffic conditions_ Road (SR 1561). around the site. ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUAT ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES - NON-RESIDENTIAL REUSE MIXED USE "Yes" indicates compliancen "No" indicates Non-c liance Article 8.8.24.1 indicates that the following information is required to be submitted as part of the application: PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements a. Site plan containing the following: 1) location, width, and _X—Yes No There are two existing drives which Yes No type of all internal will provide adequate circulation. vehicular and pedestrian circulation 2) location and dimensions _x—Yes No A small sign is existing at one Yes No of on -site signage entrance. There are no new signs proposed. ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS (continued PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Ordinance Reauirements 3) boundaries of site and _X—Yes No distance to nearest residences b. description of proposed uses of site and structure including the following: 1) amount of area allocated _x—Yes No to each use 2) number of full /part -time _x—Yes No employees 3) number of clients /occupants _x —Yes No 4) proposed hours of operation _x_Yes No c. building plans including _x—Yes No description of impact on historic features d. landscape plan _x—Yes No e. service agencies comments _x—Yes No on adequacy of water/ wastewater system proposed f. service agencies comments _x—Yes No on fire, police and rescue protection S. listed on National Historic _x—Yes No Register or recognized by N.C. as place of historic interest h. proposed development _x—Yes No schedule for site 115 9 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SU PORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Boundaries are indicated on the Yes No site plan. The nearest residence is 300 feet away. There are three bedrooms proposed Yes No to be used. There are no full-time or part-time Yes No employees proposed. There is proposed to be a maximum of Yes No 6 occupants, or 3 couples. Evenings through the breakfast hour Yes No There are no changes proposed to Yes No existing structures. A landscape plan has been submitted Yes No that meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements. A letter from the Health Department Yes No was submitted with the application indicating adequate water and wastewater systems. Appropriate letters were submitted Yes No with the application. Letter of authorization submitted Yes No with application. Recognized by N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources as a structure of historical significance. The Bed 8 Breakfast could begin Yes No operations immediately upon approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. If approved, this Class A Special Use Permit would only be valid for 6 years. 116 10 ARTICLE 8.8.24.2 - STANDARDS OF EVALUATION ( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non-compliance) Article 8.8.24.2 indicates that the following standards of evaluation be used in deciding on an application for this use: The Class A Special Use Permit, if approved, shall be valid for six (6) years. PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements a. site plan meets requirements _x—Yes No Site plan meets all requirements as Yes No of 8.8 and 8.8.24 specified. b. proposed uses and facilities _x—Yes No The proposed bed & breakfast, Yes No are complementary and presently utilized as a residential compatible with surrounding structure, does not conflict with area; use preserves historic residential uses of the area; character of site and preserves the historic character building; development has of the site; and generates no no adverse impact beyond adverse impact. building, except for parking facilities c. historic character of building _,x_Yes No Historic character of building is Yes No is preserved preserved as evidenced in narrative and photographs. d. protective and water/ _x—Yes No Proposed services are adequate as Yes No wastewater services are evidenced by the Health Department adequate letter. e. recreational /service /parking __x_Yes No Existing service/parking-and Yes No areas and screening are screening facilities are adequate. adequate There are no recreational services proposed. f. site is served by direct _x.. Yes No Site has direct access via two private Yes No access to a state - maintained driveways to Lawrence Road (SR 1561). road g. internal vehicular / _„x —Yes No Internal vehicular and pedestrian Yes No pedestrian circulation circulation is adequate, adequate h. all applicable requirements _X—Yes No All requirements of the referenced Yes No of Article 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 articles have been satisfied. and 12 have been satisfied i. the property must be in an ,,_x —Yes No The property is located in an R -7 Yes No AR or R -1 residential zone zone. The Class A Special Use Permit, if approved, shall be valid for six (6) years. ARTICLE 8 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES ( "Yes" indicates coMLi.ancei "No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 117 8.2.2 Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the County shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. Where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in same specific manner that: a) The use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. b) The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). a) The use is not in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Will ^Witt Not To be determined by Board after _Will ,Will Not receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Will _Will Not To be determined by Board after _Will _Will Not receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Is Is Not To be determined by Board after Is Is Not receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. 118 P] ITEM - 9. •_�_ . North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James G. Martin, Governor Patric Dorsey, Secretary October 6, 1989 Mr. J. H. Coman Pt. 2, Box 1 1 2 Sparter, NC 28675 Re: Green Hill Hillsborough, orange County Dear Jim: 1 Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director As per your request, I am sending you this letter of support for a special use permit for Green Hill, located just outside of Hillsborough on US 70 and Lawrence Road, as required by the Orange County Planning Board, in order for the house to be used as a bed and breakfast inn. Although Green Hill is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it is both historically and architecturally significant. I am well aware that this 18th century house, originally locates: in the New Hope Creek vicinity, would have been demolished by Fiber Industries if you had not decided to move the structure to your property near Hillsborough. At the time that you made the decision to acquire Green Hill, I made a study of the structure with you and determined that it was 18th: century and that it had a great deal of architectural �� nif icance. Later you did research on the property. and_u _fo_ rid_thati the original builder was a man named Charles Johnston'and:;_that =he built the house on land grant property which he had�receivaa =iron the King of England, thus giving it also historical = *sigiiific e The restoration work which you carried out was quite_su�Cessfi and helped to highlight the many important architectural features of the house. You are to be commended for doings such- ;&Ai of standing job of saving and rehabilitating the house:=- °`" 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 _ ---. 120 fr' I 2 There are numerous examples of National Register properties throughout North Carolina which have been successfully converted from residences to inns of this type. It is my opinion that converting the use of Green Hill from a residence to a bed and breakfast would be a sympathetic use of the structure and would once again ensure its continued preservation. With best regards, I am Sincerely yours, A. L. Honeycutt, Jr., Supervisor Restoration Branch State Historic Preservation office cc: Michael Southern i C� ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION F 0. E ;x 8181, 3061; Revere Rd I ldlsborough, N,C— 7278 HILLSBOROUGH (919) 732 -8181 �. �J N o n►, I }, r '34eaQth Tepahtment CHAPEL HILL (919) 967 -9251 Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director b I� MEBANE (919) 227 -2032 October 13, 1989 121 PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Sox 8181, 300 W. Tryon St Hillsborough, N C 27278 This letter concerbs your property listed as Eno Township, Tax Map 20, Lot 67 on the corner of Hwy. 70E and Lawrence Road. I collected a bacteriological water sample at this residence on October 3, 1989. The results of the water sample were negative for coliform bacteria. The well head appears to be properly protected from surface contamination. w I also checked the sewage disposal system and saw no evidence of sewage disposal system failure or malfunction (surface discharge). The sewage disposal system should be suitable to serve a bed and breakfast type establishment. j I have notified Mary Scearbo of the Orange County Planning Department of these findings. If you have any questions please call me at 919- 732 -8181 extension 315 between 8 -9 a.m. Sincerely, -n David D. Hecht, R. S. Environmental Health Section DDH:bb SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr Mill Mall. Suite 225, 100 N. Greensboro SL, Carrboro, N.C. 27510. (919) 942 -4 168 DURHAM (919) 668 -7333 122 "Zs EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 8181 929 -8109 732 -8161 June 28, 1991 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ms. Lyn Proctor 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Emergency Medical coverage for Bed & Breakfast Application Dear Ms. Proctor, The Orange County Emergency provides emergency medical services Please direct questions or concerns .of Emergency Management Services in If we can be of further assistance, contact us. Sincerel Nick Waters Director Communications Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal Kanagement Services to 1205 Lawrence Road. to Nick Water, Director Hillsborough, NC. Please feel free to EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 8181 929 -8109 732 -8161 June 28, 1991 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ms. Lyn Proctor 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Fire Coverage for Bed & Breakfast Application Dear Ms. Proctor, 123 Communications Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal The Orange Rural Fire Department provides fire protection services to 1205 Lawrence Road. The location of the Orange Rural Fire Department is Churton Street, Hillsborough. Please direct questions or concerns to Chief Mark Gordon; address correspondence to P. 0. Box 30, Hillsborough, NC 27278. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Mike_Tapp Fire Marshal 124 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 26, 1991 Action Agenda Item # C 3 2 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE (SECTION S25 - MOTOR VEHICLE SALES RENTAL (NEW & USED) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Ordinance Amendment Table of Permitted Uses for Section S25 PUBLIC HEARING —X —Yes No INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Garrett Extension 2581 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough -- 732 -8181 Durham - 688 --7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the Table of Permitted Uses to allow car sales in industrial districts. BACKGROUND: A citizen request was made to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted and are not opposed to the request. A poll was taken of four adjacent counties to determine if this use was allowed within their industrial districts. Of the counties contacted 2 allowed auto sales in all industrial districts, 1 in the Light (I -1) and Medium (I -2) Industrial Districts only and 1 does not allow the use in their industrial districts. The proposed amendment which would allow car sales within all industrial districts (EI, I1, 12, 13) will be presented for public hearing on August 26, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 125 126 127 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: SECTION S25, PERMITTED USE TABLE (MOTOR VEHICLE SALES RENTAL - NEW & USED) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC x Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To change the Permitted Use Table to allow auto sales in industrial districts. IMPACTS /ISSUES: A citizen made a request to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. The change would result in permitting a use of lesser intensity than is now associated with the district. A poll was taken of surrounding counties to determine if they allowed this use within their industrial districts. Of the counties contacted 3 allowed auto sales in most or all industrial districts, while only 1 did not allow the use in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission was also contacted and are not opposed to the request. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: (See attached table) ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: June 6, 1991 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 125 m � U U M N N F a a C R W I� O q u ER4+1�1� A w W ANN W E- 4 m N N W E+ W w U ii n u W « 4 Lp �O 01 n c� m i e vN M v v iD +r e 0 E b r 0 4-16 1 q TFF .+ a a d o 4] r r I Lsl 4I « r A N 11 � i R r M H O ~ * I V Ln 11 W v t7 M V* (a t « R r « * « U U N N Z R R r « u Z U « ~ R R a r+t W 0.' m C N x C � M a � N � I N « m _ GC LC C + r C7 o-' � • m C7. a m _ a N m a, 0 .. .,4 4J m 0b m C6 m ..i 0 m 0 C �dm�� a a 0 U y w w y m.idx m 0 U 7+ O y •• � W L tyA � ww � m it d a m 0 ... .M 4 0 O F. L 'v m m .. m m V E Vmi H w O 0 m C m m 0 w 0 m m ..ai ?, y 0 m 0 wy 0> a G. e C m w L .. ...+ ., 0 Z 0 d' M 0 a C a� •• 0 10 0 a 3 aj u a, a -� 0 w m .-1 0 ..i m m o «a W-4 m m Y m 0 L O .0 m L A 61 W w m -0 ►+ 0 w 0 L 0 A 0 9 m W •d W m rr P" W 9 N '> > .•I m 1 0 4 m +I D, m O� w w w L V a m E V m Y m m 13 m w C m m m m m m e a w .0 0 +1 0b r+ 0 0 3 .0 0 0 +j L 0) -+ w E m w L 0 3 0. 0 O .•� .r rt m H 0 0d O 2 0 •+ w.1 L EL U U U x a a M x-- s•• �, z 0440 - E• d a qr LA %0 r% m N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4-16 1 0 R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 26, 1991 129 Action Agendgg Item.3 G bJ SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Efficiency Apartments) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X —Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Kelly Extension 2593 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment to clarify that a mobile home may be considered an efficiency apartment. BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment may be attached or detached provided that the requirements found in the definition of "Efficiency Apartment" are met. The definition states that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick- built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactures /Mobile homes.) The proposed amendment adds the proper technical reference needed to accomplish the original intent of the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 130 131 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT . ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Efficiency Apartments) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x Staff Planning Board ___. BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend the definition of an efficiency apartment in Article 22 to be consistent with the definition of a dwelling unit in Article 22. IMPACTS /ISSUES: On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment, a dwelling unit, may be attached or detached provided certain requirements are met. It is stipulated that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick- built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactures /Mobile homes.) Staff has interpreted the definition of an efficiency apartment to include mobile homes and modular units. EXISTING /PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Efficiency A artme t - An additional dwelling unit accessory to a single - family residence that meets the following criteria: 1. The efficiency unit contains no more than 800 square feet of gross floor area. 132 2. The lot meets the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. 3. The efficiency unit complies with the N.C. Residential Building Code including minimum light /ventilation and room sizes or state of North Carolina Regglations for MobilejManufactured Homes. 4. The efficiency unit is accessory to the principal dwelling unit and may be attached or detached. 5. The efficiency unit is provided with an approved water supply and sanitary facilities. 6. The efficiency unit remains in the same ownership as the primary residence. There shall be no more than one (1) efficiency apartment, whether detached or attached on any lot. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW BIIBCOMMITTEE: July 9, 1991 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: O R A N G E C O U N T Y 13 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: AMMst 26, 1991 Action Agenda Item # G C) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 6.27 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING -X —Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment Chapter 246 - 1991 Session Law INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow application of density bonus provisions for affordable housing to all residential development projects. BACKGROUND In May, 1990, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow a density increase of up to 50% for developments which reserve a percentage of the units for occupancy by low or moderate income households. At this time, the density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments. Recent legislation provides the authority for orange County to extend the provisions to all developments subject to the Zoning Ordinance. The bonus provisions could then be applied to Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Subdivisions. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 134 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT : ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.27 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle —X—Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 To allow approval of a density increase for all residential development projects subject to the Zoning Ordinance which will provide affordable housing through contractual agreements or land donation. IMPACTS /ISSUES: In May, 1990, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow a density increase of up to 50% for developments which reserve a percentage of the units for occupancy by low or moderate income households. At this time, the density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments. The Orange County portion of Chapter 246 of the 1991 Session Laws provides the authority for Orange County to extend the provisions to all developments subject to the Zoning Ordinance. The bonus provisions could then be applied to Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Subdivisions. The proposed amendment below is shown in cross- out /underline form. No substantive changes are proposed. The affordable housing provisions would: 1) be moved from Article 7 (Planned Developments) to Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements), and 2) references to their applicability to Planned Developments would be expanded to include Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Preliminary Plats. i n r 35 136 OXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Article 7 - Planned Development Districts Article 6 - Ap2lication of imensional Re iremeits Article 7.14 - Planned Development Housing (PD -H) Districts 7.14.4 Affordable Housing 6.27 Affordable Housing 6.27..1 Density Increase Permitted An increase in density may be permitted for Planned Developments developments which provide on -site or off -site housing opportunities for low- or moderate - income households. A contract shall be approved by the County Attorney and the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a condition of permit site plan, special Use Permit, or subdivision approval guaranteeing that the reserved units will be purchased by or rented to qualifying households, and shall be binding for a period of not less than 15 years from the date on which the unit is first occupied. The reserved lots or rental units shall be indicated on the site plan or Preliminary Plan. 6.27.2 __Applicability a) A density bonus may not be approved for a Planned Development project located within any Water Supply Watershed designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. b) A 25% density bonus for duplex or multi- family units may be approved if: i. A minimum of 40% of the units are to be rented to families earning less than 60% .of orange'County median income, adjusted for family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Hereinafter, "median income "). XZ1 ii. A minimum of 20% of the units are to be rented to families earning less than 50% of median income; or c) A 25% density bonus for single- family residential development may be approved if the greater of two (2) units or all of the bonus, units are to be sold to families earning less than 80% of median income; or d) A 25% density bonus for single - family 13'7 residential development may be approved if land with suitable soils or access to public water and sewer is donated to orange County for the purpose of the development of affordable housing. The donated land shall contain at a minimum the land area needed to develop the greater of two (2) units or the total number of the bonus units, in accordance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the donated land is located, or with minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in unzoned areas; or e) A 50% density bonus may be approved if at least 20% of the units are to be occupied by families earning less than 50% of median income and the remaining 80% of units are occupied by families earning less than 80% of median income. This bonus shall not apply to lands which have been donated to Orange County in exchange for a density bonus pursuant to d) above. 6.27.3 Contract for Sale of Sin ale-family Residences Approval of the Special Use Permit, site glan, or preliminary plat shall not occur until there is a contract between the property owner and Orange County, which shall also be binding on future owners of the reserved lots. The contract shall be administered by (HCD), and shall include the following provisions: a) All sales and resales shall be approved by HCD to assure ownership by qualifying buyers in accordance with the following eligibility criteria. i) Family income, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of purchase shall not exceed the limits set forth in Article 7.14.4.2 6.27.2. Qualifying buyers may also own up to $10,000 in net assets, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of purchase. ii) At least one member of a qualifying household must have lived or worked in Orange County for the past 12 months. b. The contract shall apply to each of the reserved lots, and shall continue to affect a particular lot for a minimum period of 15 years after the initial sale of that lot. C. There shall be no occupancy of the unit prior to its sale to a qualifying buyer. �V d. The contract shall include a timeline by which construction and sale of the reserved units will be accomplished. . e. The resale price of any reserved housing unit shall not, at any time during the life of the contract, exceed the maximum amount affordable to the purchasing household. f. The maximum sale or resale price shall be determined by HCD, calculated by using HUD modeling for housing affordability. HUD modeling takes into consideration assumptions such as interest rates, percentage of annual income allowed for housing, and amount of down payment. g. In the event that the financial status of the buyer significantly improves prior to the expiration of the contract period, the buyer may lease the unit, provided that the lessee and the lease are approved by HCD. HCD shall use the standards set forth in Article 7.14.4.4 6.27.4 to determine whether or not to approve the lease. In addition, the term of the lease shall be for a minimum period of two years. h. Violation of any of the terms of the contract required by this ordinance may constitute grounds for revocation of the Special Use Permit and rezoning of the land, as provided in Article 7.9 of this Ordinance Certificate of Occupancy. 6.27._4.. Contract for Rental of Duplex or Multi - family Units Approval of the Special Use Permit, site plan, or Preliminary ,Plat shall not occur until there is a contract between the property owner or developer and Orange County, which shall also be binding on future owners of the development. The contract shall be administered by HCD, and shall include the following provisions: a) All rentals shall be approved by (HCD) to assure occupancy by qualifying households in accordance with the following eligibility criteria. i) Family income, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of purchase shall not exceed the limits set forth in Article 7.14.4.2 6.27.2. Qualifying renters may also own up to $5,000 in net assets, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of initial rental. ii) At least one member of a qualifying household must have lived or worked in 3 9 Orange County for the past 12 months. iii) Families whose income increases above the eligibility requirements may continue to occupy the rental unit, unless otherwise required through terms of the rental agreement between the lessor and lessee. b. Every change in occupancy during the 15 -year term of the contract shall be approved by HCD to assure continued compliance with eligibility criteria. C. The maximum rent allowed shall be computed by multiplying the applicable percentage of median income by the value of median income at the time of the transaction, then multiplying the resulting value by the maximum percentage of income spent for housing, as recommended by the mortgage banking industry. The value for median income used in calculating maximum allowable rent shall be adjusted to reflect the maximum family size appropriate for the number of bedrooms, as determined by HCD. 6.27.5 Disclosure of Contract Terms to Potential Home - Buyers a) Staff from the Planning Department and the Department of Housing and Community Development shall meet with the prospective buyer prior to the purchase to assure that all terms of the contract are fully understood. Explanation of the terms of the contract shall include the following implication: i. Building permits for the improvements to the structure may be obtained if the owner wishes to remodel or construct an addition, or construct accessory structures. However, there is no assurance that the investment will be regained if the unit is sold prior to the expiration of the contract due to the requirement that it be purchased by a moderate income household. b) Home - ownership counseling shall be made available to first -time buyers to provide information on such topics as insurance and maintenance. The counseling shall be provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development. 6': PN 6 Conveyance of Property to-Orange Count Land donated to Orange County pursuant to Article 7.4.14.2.d 6.27.2.d to enable a developer to obtain a density bonus shall be donated in trust for the purpose of the development of affordable housing. An agreement between the developer and orange County and the instruments of conveyance shall insure this trust as determined by the County Attorney. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: RECEIVED j U N 2D 191 141 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 199', SESSION RATIFIED BILL CHAPTER 246 SENATE BILL 623 AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO LAWS APPLICABLE IN ORANGE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: TITLE I. ORANGE COUNTY. Part I. Orange County Land Use and Development. Section 1. The first paragraph of G.S. 153A- 331(x), as applicable to Orange County because of Sections 17 and 17.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1957 Session Laws, reads as rewritten: "A subdivision control ordinance may provide for the orderly growth and development of the county; for the coordination of streets and highways within proposed subdivisions with existing or planned streets and highways and with other public facilities; for the dedication or reservation of recreation areas serving residents of the subdivision and residents of the immediate area within which the subdivision is located and of rights -of -way or easements For street and utility purposes including the dedication of rights -of -way pursuant to G.S. 136 -66.10 or G.S. 136- 66.11; and for the distribution of population and traffic in a manner that will avoid congestion and overcrowding and will create conditions essential to public health, safety, and the general welfare. The ordinance may include requirements that the final plat show sufficient data to determine readily and reproduce accurately on the ground the location, bearing, and length of every street and alley line, lot Iline, easement boundary line, and other property boundaries, including the radius and other data for curved property lines, to an appropriate accuracy and in conformity with good surveying practice. A subdivision control ordinance may provide that a developer may be reRuired to provide funds to the county whereby the county may acquire and develo recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which mad be used to serve more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area. A subdivision control ordinance may define immediate area by reference to a comprehensive system of arks and recreation areas within the county." Sec. 2. G.S. 153A -340, as applicable to Orange County because of Sections 18 and 18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws, is amended by adding a new subsection (al) to read: al Density b nus. For the ur oses of increasing the availability of housing for ersons of low and moderate income and thereby promoting the oubli.c health. safery and welfare a county may rant a density bonus or rovide other incentives of . . � __._,____ -4P 1.-,, --ft it, Irhin rhp rnunty if the developer a ree L1 To construct at least 40 i2ercent 4Q% of the total duplex or multifamily units of a housing develo ment for rent to ersons and J 142 Families earning _less than sixtv _percent (6017,o) of Orange County median, income. adjusted For family size. as determined by the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter 'median income'): To construct at least twenty percent (20c,�) of the total duplex or multifamily units of a housing development for rent to families earning less than fifty r)ercent (30%0) of median income: u To construct_ the greater _of two or all of the bonus of the total„ single-family residential units of a housing_ development for sale to persons and families earning less than_et;hty_ percent (W-,c ) of the median incomei or (41 To donate land to Orange County to_ he used for the purpose of the develoomentof affordable housing, provided that the land donated must have suitable oils or access to public water and sewer and be ;efficient in size for the greater of two or all the bonus units. For the purposes of this subsection `density bonus' means a density increase of at least twenty -Five percent (25go over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the apnlicable zoning classification. The _density .bonus _shall riot be included when determining the number of housin -e units that constitutes the minimum re uired to be made available to low and moderate income housing," Sec. 3. G.S. 153A-3421 reads as rewritten: "§ 153A -342. Districts; zoning less than entire jurisdiction. A county may divide its territorial jurisdiction into districts of any number, shape, and area that it may consider best suited to carry out the purposes of this Part. Within these districts a county may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, or use of buildings, structures, or land. Such districts may include, but shall not be limited to, general use districts, in which a variety of uses are permissible in accordance with general standards; overlay districts, in which additional requirements are imposed on certain properties within one or more underlying general or special use districts; and special use districts or conditional use districts, in which uses are permitted only upon the issuance of a special use permit or a conditional use permit. Property may be placed in a special use district or conditional use district only in response to a petition by the owners of all the property to be included. Except as authorized by the foregoing, and by G.S. 153A- 340, all regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each district. her the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. A county may determine that the public interest does not require that the entire territorial- jurisdiction of the - county be zoned and may designate one or more portions of that jurisdiction as a zoning area or areas. A zoning area must originally contain at least 640 ages and at leasr 10 separate tracts of land in separate ownership and may thereafter be expanded by the addition of any amount of territory. A zoning area may be regulated in the same manner as if the entire county were zoned, and the remainder of the county need not be regulated." Sec. 4. G.S. 16OA -40 i rends as rewritten: "§ 160A -407. Definitions. (a) For the purpose of this Part an `open space' or 'o en area' is any space or area (1) characterized by great natural scenic beauty et (ii) whose existing openness, natural condition, or present state of use, if retained. would enhance the present or potential value of abutting or surrounding urban development, or would maintain or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic P-esattfees- resources. (iii) that would assure reserve and protect watershed areas as a basic asset and natural resource so 2 Senate Bill 623 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 26 1991 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Plan, Vested Right) ARTICLE 14.3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES 143 Action Agenda Item # C Development SUBDIVISIONS REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS SECTION II - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right, Minor Subdivision) SECTION III -D - APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X —yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Summary of SB 766 Mary Scearbo - Extension 2583 Proposed Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on provisions for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 766, ratified July 22, 1990. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 766 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 766 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently, the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation is in addition to this current law, and requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval, after a public hearing, of a "Site Specific Development Plan ". RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 144 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE (ZO) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (SR) REFERENCE: (ZO) ARTICLE 22 -- DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right) (ZO) ARTICLE 14.3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW (ZO) ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES (SR) SECTION II - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right, Minor Subdivision) (SR) SECTION III -D - APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public x Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To establish provisions for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 766, ratified July 22, 1990 IMPACTS /ISSUES: Senate Bill 766 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 766 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently, the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation (described below) is in addition to this current law. SB 766 requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval of a "Site Specific Development Plan" (SSDP). A SSDP must describe with "reasonable certainty" the type and intensity of use proposed for the specific parcel(s). It is up to the local governments to define the types of projects which may be considered a SSDP. In order to obtain the vested right, a public hearing must be 145 146 held. Local ordinance provisions may further allow for vesting of SSDPs for up to 5 years and may also provide for vesting of "Phased Development Plans" having a lesser degree of specificity. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLIC BEARING It is proposed that a Site Specific Development Plan be defined so as to include Site Plans, Special Use Permits, Planned Developments, and Preliminary Subdivision Plats. Special Use Permits Special Use Permits already require a public hearing, by either the Board of Adjustment or Board of Commissioners. There is currently no time limit applied to Special Use Permits. The proposed amendment would establish a 12 -month time limit for starting construction. If the applicant requested that the project be vested, the Special Use permit approval could extend this deadline to not less than two years nor more than five years. Standards for approval are included in which specifies additional application evaluation standards for Site Specific The applicant would provide additional he /she were requesting that the vested two years. Planned Developments a new Article 8.8.27 requirements and Development Plans. justification if period be more than Planned Developments require approval of a Special Use Permit, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat (if applicable). The provisions applying to Special Use Permits would also apply to Planned Developments. Site Plans Site Plans currently receive administrative approval. If the developer chose to vest a Site Plan, a public hearing would be required. The public hearing would be before the Board of Commissioners, following the same application and approval procedures as is required for Class A Special Use Permits. Preliminary Plats Currently, subdivision plats provide a one -year period within which to obtain Final Plat approval. If the applicant wished to vest the subdivision for not less than two nor more than five years, the subdivision would be processed as a Class A Special Use Permit and presented to the Board of Commissioners at a quarterly public hearing. Proposal Presented to Ordinance Review Committee and Planning Board The proposal as recommended for public hearing is a preferred alternative to that presented to the Ordinance Review 147 Committee, and to the Planning Board on July 15, 1991. The original proposal included a public hearing conducted by Planning Staff for Site Plans, and a hearing before the Planning Board prior to the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for Preliminary Plats. In order to recover advertising costs, a fee of $200.00 was recommended since a special public hearing notice would be required. Subsequent to the Planning Board meeting on July 15, 1991, the proposal was revised. The original proposal focused on minimizing the amount of time involved in obtaining approval, given that a public hearing must be added to the process. The costs, to be paid by the applicant, would be significant. The approval procedures would also be more complex. The revised approach incorporates the procedures into an existing public hearing process (Special Use Permit Approval), and there is no additional cost to the applicant. The time period required for approval is longer, but the vesting procedure is not required. It would be initiated only at the request of the applicant. In addition, the vesting procedure may result in project completion schedules which are considerably longer than those allowed by the current ordinance provisions. The procedure for obtaining a Class Special Use Permit allows the Board of Commissioners closer scrutiny of such requests and to attach conditions to the approval. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: ZONING ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS Site Specific Development Plan , A plan approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners following a Rublic hearing and which describes with reasonable certainty, the type and intensity of use for a s ecific arcel or RargeLls of property located within the County's zoning Jurisdiction. A Site S ecific Develo ment Plan shall be deemed aRRroved upon the effective date of the Board of Commissioners' action. Site Plans Special Use Permits Planned Developments. and Preliminary Subdivision Plats may be approved as Site Specific Development Plans in accordance with Section 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Site S ecific Development Plans are required only where an applicant wishes to vest his property rights fora Reriqd longer than that otherwise permitted by this Ordinance, Vested Right - The right to undertake and complete the develo ment of .a RroDerty under the terms and conditions of an approved Site Specific Development Plan, provided however, failure to abide by such terms and conditions shall result in a forfeiture of vested rights. The vested _right is RM attached to and runs with the aRplicable 2roRgrty and-may be exercised by successors to t on inal landowner. The period during which a vested right is in affect may be extended „by amendments or modifications to the Site Specific Development Plan. An application for an amendment or modification to an apRroved Site S ecific Development Plan shall be treated as a new aRRlication. Once established a vested right supersedes any zoning action which would affect with the type and intensity of use approved in the Site S ecific Develo ment Plan. EXCEPT: a u on written consent of the landowner; LL-upon findin s after a Rublic hearing, that if the develo ment were to Rroce ed natural or man -made hazards would pose a serious threat to the public health safety and welfare; c to the extent that the landowner is com ensated for costs and ex enses other than loss of property value: inaccurate or misleading information which led to the approval of the project; or al upon findings, after a public hearing, that�a change in a State or Federal law or recrulation precludes development of the project as aRRroved. provided that the regulations are applicable to all property_ sub'ect to this Ordinance, and the allowable type and intensity of use is not affected. The vested ri ht terminat s at the end of the a2groved vesting eriod for buildings and uses for yhich building permits have not been issued. Buildin ermits do not ex ire durin the aRgroved yesting period. ARTICLE 14.3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.3.2 Where an application is found to be inconsistent with the above criteria, Staff may recommend changes to the site plan. Following review of the site plan, except as provided by Article 14.3.3 of this Ordinance, the Planning and Inspections Department will take final action on the application within 21 days of acceptance. Such action will be one of the following: a. Approval, b. Approval subject to conditions, or 149 c. Denial. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, and /or to address agency comments solicited during plan review, will result in denial of the application. If a plan is approved subject to conditions, no zoning permit or subsequent building permit shall be issued until all conditions of approval have been met to the satisfaction of Orange County. At the o tion of the ARylicant, a Site Plan may be vested fora eriod f not less than two 2 nor more than five 5 ears. To becomp, vested .,_a Site Plan must be ayRroved by the BoaLd of Count Commissioners as a Special Use Pe it ursuant to Article 8 of this Ordinance. ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES Article 8.4.1x___ -.Time Limits on Special Uses Construction _of a Special Uses must start and proceed within twelve 12 months of the apRrovAl of the S ecial Use Permit. If-nao construction has started within the stated time frame, the S ecial Use Permit becomes null and of no effect. If a request is received before the hermit expires, the Board of County Commissioners for-good cause shown may extend the expiration . deadline six (6) months upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Board. No changes shall be made to the conditions o,f approval. only one such approval of the time e tension is ermitted and it shall be based on evidence presented by the applicant showing that permits have been pursued in a timely manner, and that dglays have resulted from a o be and the control gf the develo er. For developAgntsL which require approyal of a Special Use not less than two (21 nor more than ive 5 ears. For vesting_ purposes. Site Plans and Preliminaryy Plats may also be-aPRroved as a S ecial Use Permit at thM reggest of the applicant. Additional application information is required, as s ecified in Article 8.8.27. Article 8.8 - Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of 150 additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required conditions in Subsection 8.4.7. The following additional information is required for all Special Use Applications: a) For Class A Special Uses, twenty -six (26) copies of the Site Plan, and for Class B Special Uses, ten (10) copies of the Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina land surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or engineer, which shall contain the information listed in Article 14.2.2. Where the application involves a P_r iminary Subdivision Plat. twenty -six (26) copies of the Plat prepared in accordance with Section V of the Orange Countv_Subdivisio_n_ Regulations__ shall be provided. b) Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in the development. C) For Class A Special Uses twenty -six (26) copies and for Class B Special Uses ten (10) copies of the Environmental Assessment and /or Environmental Impact.Statement, if required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. d) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Article 8.8.27 - Site Soecific Development Plans 8.8.27.1-- _Additi244-1 information In _addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the aaRRlication:_ a) For Site Plans and Preliminary Plats, a list of all parcels located within 500 feet of the subject parcel and the name and address of each property owner. b) Statement from the developer indicating_th&_gnticipated development schedule for the build -out of the .project. C) Statement from thldeveloRer in justification of an 8.8.27.2 - Standards of Evaluation The following specific „standards shall,beused-in deciding on an a lic tion for this use: a) The.__proiect meets all axon icable design standards and other re irements of the orancfe-&_ounty Zoning Ordinance and Orange County Subdivision Regulations. b) The development can reasonably be completed within the vested period requested._ c where vesting in excess of two 2 ears is re guested, the ro'ect is located in an area where current issues under study do not involve Rotential amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comp ehensive Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance, or Orange County. $ ubdivision Regulations. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION II - DEFINITIONS Site specific Development Plan - A plan approved by the orange County Board of Commissioners following a Rublic hearing and which describes with reasonable certainty, the tyRS and intensity of use for a__specific parcei,or parcels of property located within the County's zoning jurisdiction. A Site S ecific Development Plan shall be deemed aRRrgved u on the effective date of the Board of Commissioners' action, Site Plans. Special Use Permits, Planned Developments and Preliminary Subdivision Plats may be approved as Site S ecific Deve o ment Plans in accordance-wit-h Section 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Site Specific Deve o ment Plans-Age required-only where an aRRligant wishes to vest his pro2erty rights fora Reriod 12nger than that otherwise permitted by this Ordinance. Vested t - The r' to undertake com lete t doveloRMent of a RKORerty under the terms and cond' ions of an aMroved gite S ecific Development Plan ovided however—failure to abide by such terms and c2nditions shall result in a forfeiture of vested rights. The vested right is attached to and runs with the applicable RroRerty and may be exercised by-successors to the original landowner. The period during which a vested right is in affect be extended by amendments or modifications to the Site S ecific Development Plan. An-apRlication for an amendment or modification to --an roved Site S ecific 12eveloRment Plan shall be treated as new a lication. Once established, a vested right supersedes-any. zoning action 151 152 which would affect with the tyi2e and intensity of use a roved in the Site S ecific Develo ment Plan EXCEPT: a upon written consent of the landowner; b upon findings, after a public hearing, that if the develo ment were to Rroceed, natural or man -made hazards would pose a serious threat to theRublic health, safety and welfare; c) to the extent that the landowner is compensated.... for costs, and expenses other than loss of RroDertv value; inaccurate or misleading information which led to the approval of the Project: or e u on findings, after a public hearing, that a change in a State or Federal law or regulation precludes development ofthaLproiect as avoroved. overlay_ zoning aIstrlcts which impose additional . regulations rovided that the-regulations are applicable to all Rroperty sub'ect to this Ordinance and the allowable tyRe and intensity of use is not affected. The vested right terminates at the end-of---the agRroved vestin eriod for buildin s and uses for which building ermits have not been issued. Building-permits do not expire during the approved vesting eriod. subdivision, Minor - A division of a tract of land that does not: _(1) Create more than five (5) lot, including the residual acreage, from any one (1) tract of land in any twenty -four (24) month period; (2) Dedicate or improve any new public street other than widening an existing public street; (3) Extend public water and /or sanitary sewerage systems other than laterals to serve individual lots; and (4) Necessitate the installation of drainage improvements which would require easements through one (1) or more lots to serve other lots. (5) At the option of the a,Qplicant,_inyolve vesting of .the __subdi_v_isi_on for a _period greater than one year. 153 III - APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES III -D - Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions III -D -2 - Preliminary Plat Approval ARRliggation and approval Rrocedures s ecified in this Section may be applied to all Preliminary Plats. In areas where zoning has been aprlied, the aRRlicant may, however, choose to vest the Preliminary Plat for a longer time Reriod than is otherwise provided by this Section. If he she wishes to exercise this o tion the aRRlication aRRroval Rrocedures *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 154 155 OR AN G E C O U N T Y PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Auctu_st 19 1991 Action A enda Item # b SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT SECTION IV- B -7 -b -6 - PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF DEDICATION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Proposed Amendment Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991, this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment -in -lieu funds, but not develop the recreation area with monies from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu of dedica- tion. During preliminary review of the proposed amendment, the question was raised by the Planning Board as to whether money generated from the sale of land dedicated for recreation purposes could also be used for development of recreation areas (refer to the last sentence of Section IV- B- 7 -b -6). The Subdivision Regulations state, "The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated 156 RECOMMENDATION: pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition of other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood within which'the development is located." The change in the General Statutes does not affect this provision since the legislation refers specifically to the use of payments made in lieu of dedication, not to the use of money gained from the sale of county -owned lands. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section IV- S- 7--b -6 of the Subdivision Regulations. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV- B -7 -b -6 - Payments in Lieu of Dedication ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: Expected Public Hearing Date: August 26, 1991 Purpose of Amendment: To make the Subdivision Regulations consistent with the General Statutes regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. Impacts /Issues: The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991, this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment -in -lieu funds, but not develop it with money from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for monies received from payments made in lieu of dedication. Existing and Proposed ordinance Provisions: IV- B- 7 -b--6 Pa ents in Lieu of Dedication Upon approval of the Board of Commissioners, payment in lieu of dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one (1) year of approval of the prelimi- nary subdivision plan, whichever occurs first. All monies received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and development of recreation, park and open space sites to serve the residents of the development and the residents of the immedi- ate neighborhood within which the development is located. The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition of 4- 15'7 158 other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood within which the development is located. V- O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Auggst 26 1991 SUBJECT: PROPOSED PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment Current Planning Fee Schedule it: Action Agenda Item # Sa.4 -_b PUBLIC HEARING _x Yes No INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Garrett Extension 2581 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill -- 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Planning Fee Schedule to include fees for the re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats and Site Plan Review. BACKGROUND: Re- approval_ of Preliminary Plats Re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats is a newly proposed procedure which was presented for public hearing on May 28, 1991. At the public hearing the Board of Commissioners requested that fees be established for the process which reflect the County's cost for processing the application. The recommended fee is $60.00. Site Plans The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1989 to in establish application requirements and review and approval procedures for Site Plans. No fees were established. It is recommended that a fee of $117.00 be considered for site plans which require certification by a surveyor, architect, landscape architect or engineer, and $60.00 for those which do not require certification. The proposed amendment will be presented for public hearing on August 26, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. iU& r PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE REFERENCE: ADMINISTRATIVE RE- APPROVAL (proposed) SITE PLAN APPROVAL ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To establish fees for the re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats and Site Plan Reviews. IMPACTS /ISSUES: Re-aDproval of Preliminary Plats Re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats is a newly proposed procedure which was presented for public hearing on May 28, 1991. The Planning Board recommended approval on June 27, 1991. Action by the Board of Commissioners is tentatively scheduled for August 5, 1991. At the public hearing the Board of Commissioners requested that fees be established for the process which reflect the County's cost for processing the application. The recommended fee is $60.00. This is the same fee charged for Minor Subdivision Concept Plans. The amount of time involved in the review process for both the Minor Subdivision Concept Plan and re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats would be similar. No additional fees would be needed for Final Plat approval. The Final Plat fees would have already been paid at the time of submittal of the original Preliminary Plat. Site Plans The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1989 to establish application requirements and review and approval procedures for Site Plans. No fees were established. Most Site Plans must be certified by a registered engineer, landscape architect, architect, or land surveyor. Certification is not required for additions, alterations, or accessory buildings which meet certain criteria (specified in Article 14.2.1) It is suggested that a fee of $117.00 be 1_61 1G2 considered for those site plans which do require certification. The amount of time involved in this review process would be comparable to Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Site Plan Review, for which a fee of $117.00 is charged. It is suggested that a fee of $60.00 be considered for those site plans which do not require certification. Less review time would be needed because the projects which would qualify would be more simple. The amount of time involved in this review process would be similar to that of the Minor Subdivision Concept Plan, for which is fee of $60.00 is charged. It is further proposed that fees not be charged for review of site plans for single - family detached dwellings, duplexes, and accessory structures within the University Lake watershed. EXISTING PROVISIONS: No fees for Preliminary Plat Re- approvals or Site Plans PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Re- Approval of Expired Preliminary Plat $60.00 Non - Residential Site Plan Review $117.00 (Certification required) Non - Residential Site Plan Review $60.00 (No Certification required) *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 7/9/91 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: a PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE Adopted 6./15/89 Effective 7/1/89 Ordinance Amendments $160.00 Rezoning Requests /Comprehensive Plan Amendments 160.00 + 5.00 /acre Zoning Permit 15.00 Minor Subdivision Concept Plan 60.00 Final Plat 117.00 Major Subdivisions Concept Plan 80.00 + 1.00 /lot Preliminary /Final Plat 350.00 (Single fee for both /no separate fees) + 5.00 /lot Partial Width Right -of -Way Request 81.00 Board of Adjustment - Variance /Appeal 180.00 Special Use Permits Class A 360.00 + 5.00 /acre Class B 180.00 Planned Developments 250.00 1 -4 Units or Lots +30.00 /unit or lot Home Occupation Plan Review 67.00 Major Tra .Dsportation Corridor (MTC) Site Plan Review 117.00 163 I •' I LOCATION MAP Caswell County d r iPerson County �. Ewa..ME=@ 0 r 1500 1 J d p b -M&OWP,- f\ w a vf� 0 U p y SOUTH HYCO CREEK WATERSHED Total Population in OC Jurisdiction (est.) 57 Sq. Miles in Orange County Watershed Jurisdiction 5.8 Number of Residences in OC Jurisdiction 23 Sq. Miles Farmland in Orange County Jurisdiction 3.1 DEFINITIONS OF WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS State Definition No WQCA for this watershed in Orange County Orange County Definition No WQCA for this watershed in Orange County SOUTH HYCO CREEK WATERSHED 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The South Hyco Creek Watershed is within the Roanoke River Basin and is located in the northernmost portion of Cedar Grove Township, adjacent to the Caswell County and Person County line. It is a rural area characterized by low- density residential development and farmland. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites A flow intake on South Hyco Creek in central Person County is used as a back up water source for the City of Roxboro. C) Affected Jurisdictions Most of the watershed is in Person County. About 1/4 is contained is in Caswell County. Only a very small amount is in Orange County. None of the critical area is in Orange County. LK SOUTH HYCO CREEK WATERSHED II COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WSII) AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS Note - None of the South Hyco Creek Critical Area is in Orange County. The Orange County portion of the watershed is located entirely within Cedar Grove Township. South Hyco Creek is not recognized as a water supply watershed and thus no watershed regulations (or zoning) currently apply. TYPE OF REGULATION Residential Density Impervious Surface Stormwater Control', Non - Residential Stream Buffers` Cluster Developments Other Uses Sludge Application Landfills Materials Sewer Lines Point Source Discharges WATERSHED' Proposed Sts% Rules ; : Current Standards 1 du/.92 ac (40,000 sf) No limit No limit No limit None No Standards Environmental Review Allowed Environmental Review Not Allowed (Water and Sewer Policy) Allowed (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) SOUTH AYCO CREEK WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANA77ON OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stonmwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. 71te local government: - must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections; - may charge reasonable inspection fees; and - must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to function properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. C) Stream Buffers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. d) Use and Stomge of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against 55 SOUTH HYCO CREEK WATERSHED contaminadon are required. III. ISSUES A. Orange County requested a classification of WS M. Person County requested WS IV. Caswell County did not submit a request. DEM is recommending Class H. B. There are no zoning controls in Cedar Grove Township. Extension of zoning standards to Cedar Grove would provide a mechanism by which to apply the mandated standards. C. The minimum lot size would increase from .92 acres to 2.0 acres throughout the watershed. Under the State proposed classification it would increase slightly under the Orange County classification. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. D. There is currently no impervious surface limit. This could create some problems in development of existing lots which are smaller than 2 acres under the low- density option, particularly those which would require long driveways to access building sites. E. A stream buffer would be required of 100'. Currently, there is no buffer required.This could have substantial impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area. F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. A portion of the County's Rural Industrial Activity Node at NC 86 and NC 49 does fall within this watershed. WS -II standards could have a significant impact on this node. 56 I,., -; LOCATION MAP CHAPEL HILL JURISDICTION CARRBORO ETJ r 1 �1 l� 1' ORANGE CC UIl fI JURISDtC: t^lJ N l s R. ro ■�• Cnpenem Gounry JORDAN LAKE WATERSHED I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Jordan Lake Watershed is a part of the Cape Fear River Basin and includes portions of Orange, Chatham and Durham Counties. Only the southeast corner of Orange County, commonly known as the "Southern Triangle ", is located in the watershed. This area is a part of the Rural Buffer for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, and is characterized by low- density residential development, with limited commercial development in the vicinity of Highway 15 -501 at the Chatham County line. The Jordan Lake watershed is not designated as a protected watershed by Orange County at this time, although stream buffers and stormwater controls are applied through the County Subdivision Regulations. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites Jordan Lake lies in Chatham County. It is a large regional lake that is not currently used as a water supply, but allocations for its future use have been made to a number of jurisdictions in the region. Cary and Apex will be the first to use the reservoir as a drinking water source, as those towns have recently started construction of a large treatment facility drawing water from mid -lake near US 64. This plant will be operational in 1993. Allocations have also been granted to OWASA, Orange County, and Hillsborough for future use. c) Affected Jurisdictions Most of the watershed is in Durham County and Chatham County. Durham City, and the towns of Pittsboro and Chapel Hill also have land area within the watershed. The portion within Orange County's jurisdiction is minimal compared to the total watershed PROPOSED AND REQUESTED WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS .. W IV Orange County WS H Chatham County WS III Durham County WS IV REQUESTED BY Durham City WS IV Chapel Hill WS IV Pittsboro WS III El I JORDAN LAKE WATERSHED II. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WS M AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Note -- Orange County does not recognize this area as a water supply watershed. None of the Critical Area for Jordan Lake is located within Orange County. TYPE OF REGULATION PROTECTED AREA' Proposed State Rubs Current Standards Residential Low Density Option Density 1 duliac : ;;: 1 du/2 ac Impervious Surface 12.%.::.:: no limit Stormwater Controls Control. I:' Storm Control 1/2" storm Detention. Ponds owed High Density Optionb Density Z.5 dulaic: 1 du/2 ac (17, M it Iotsy (87,120 sf) Impervious Surface 709: ;;: no limit Stormwater Controls Gontcol "I" Storm'. Control 1/2" storm Detention Ponds: Non - Residential lgr id No Activity Nodes in Watershed Stream Buffers` 100,7.. around' au ! >;; .. 50' around all perennial streams Cluster Developments Allowed Other Uses Sludge Application Alaiwe:> ;' ;;';< Environmental Review Landfills >: All owed as Special Use Hazardous Materials Environmental Review Sewer Lines AlYuwed Not Allowed Point Source Discharges Allowed (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) 49 JORDAN LAKE WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The boundary of the protected area extends S miles from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the protected and critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the appropriate 5 -mile or 1 -mile boundary. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the protected area and critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24, 000 USGS topographic maps. None of the critical area is located within Orange County's jurisdiction. b)' Stormwater Controls Engineered stormwater control is required for a jurisdiction to exercise the high - density option. The only engineered controls which may be used for high - density residential development is wet water detention ponds. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government. must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections, may charge reasonable inspection fees; and must require posting of security for maintenance If the systan fails to function properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. c) Stream Buffers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as mad crossings and greenways may s0 JORDAN LAKE WATERSHED be allawd where no practicable alternative exists. d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials uSed and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. III. ISSUES A. Orange County was the only jurisdiction to request a classification of WS II. Chatham County (including Pittsboro)- requested WS M. Durham (City and County) and Chapel Hill requested WS IV. The Town of Carrboro does have a small area of jurisdiction along Smith Level Road. B. Existing density standards are more restrictive than those proposed in the State Rules. Local jurisdictions do have the authority to adopt or maintain standards which exceed the minimum required by the State Rules. C. The watershed is not now classified as a protected watershed. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to define the watershed boundary. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. The density standards would not require revision, as they are already more restrictive than required for a WS IV watershed. Although this watershed is not classified as a protected watershed, stormwater controls and stream buffers are required through the County Subdivision Regulations. D. There is currently no impervious surface limit. This could create some problems in development of existing lots which are smaller than 2 acres, particularly those which would require long driveways to access building sites. E. The minimum width of stream buffers would increase from 50' to 1001. This could have - and impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to adoption of zoning regulation (1967) which do not meet current minimum lot size requirements. F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls used tO erase the htgh-density option will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has expressed concern over the effect Of the watershed standards on future campus construction. Much of the UNC south campus falls within the protected arc. 51 JORDAN LAKE WATERSHED H. The EMC, in 1988, allocated future Jordan Lake water supply to several Triangle jurisdictions - including OWASA, Hillsborough and Orange County. I. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority owns property in the Chatham County portion of the watershed, making the Authority concerned with Jordan Lake classification from two angles (property owner and water user). J. The broad concern over continued recreational use - even in a lake the size of Jordan - remains an unresolved question for water quality experts. 52 s, v 8 Jq wr.rr.�rrwi. ■rr■ Chatham County Total Population in OC Jurisdiction (est.) Number of Residenms in OC Jurisdiction State Definition Orange County Defutition HAW RIVER WATERSHED 477 Sq. Miles in Orange County Watershed Jurisdiction 793 Sq. Miles Farmland in Orange County Jurisdiction DEFIl�iXTIONS OF WATER QUAL1Ty CRITICAL No WQCA for tins watershed in orange County No WQCA for this watershed in orange County 11.0 6.1 r I: - I D, a . 0 51 ". -14i1 1 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Haw River Watershed is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. The small portion of the Haw River Watershed in Orange County is located in the southwestern corner of the County and the southeastern corner of Alamance County. The majority of the watershed is in Chatham County. This area is characterized by low- density residential development and farmland. The Haw River watershed is not designated as a protected watershed by Orange County at this time. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites This area is classified as a water supply watershed on the basis of the Town of Pittsboro's use of water from a river intake near US 15/501. This is currently Pittsboro's only water source. There is no reservoir site associated with the watershed. The protected area extends 10 miles from the intake point. c) Affected Jurisdictions Most of the watershed is in Chatham County. A portion of the protected area is within Alamance and Orange Counties. PROPOSED AND REQUESTED WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS My A"1"S w5`'iV Orange County I WS III REQUESTED BY I Alamance County I WS IV Chatham County I WS III U C HAW RIVER WATERSHED II COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WS M AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Note -- The Haw River is not recognized as a water supply watershed by Orange County. Therefore, no special regulations are currently in place) TYPE OF REGULATION PROTECTED AREA" Proposed: State Rules I Current Standards Residential Low Density Option High Density Optionb Non - Residential Stream Buffers` Cluster Developments Other Uses Density Impervious Surface Stormwater Controls Density Impervious Surface Stormwater Controls Sludge Application Landfills Hazardous Materials Sewer Lines Point Source Discharges 1 du/.92 ac (40,000 sf) No limit No limit 1 du/.92 ac (40,000 sf lots) No limit No limit No Activity Nodes in Watershed None Allowed Environmental Review Allowed as Special Use Environmental Review Not Allowed Allowed (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) Cq FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) D fining Boundaries The Haw River watershed is classified as a "run -of -the- river" water supply. The protected area extends 10 miles from the intake point at US 151501, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. The critical area extends one mile from the intake or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area or protected may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline of 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the protected area. The boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. None of the critical area is located within Orange County's jurisdiction. b) Stormwater Controls Engineered stormwater control is required for a jurisdiction to exercise the high - density option. The only engineered controls which may be used for high - density residential development is wet water detention ponds. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government: - must inspect the controls at least once a year; must maintain records of inspections, may charge reasonable inspection fees; and must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to junction properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. C) Stream Buffers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buftr remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials M- HAW RIVER WATERSHED An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the r,wershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. M. ISSUES A. Orange County requested a classification of WS M. Chatham County (including Pittsboro) also requested WS M. Alamance County requested a classification of WS N. B. The watershed is not now classified as a protected watershed. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to define the watershed boundary. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. The density standards would not require revision, as they are already more restrictive than required for a WS IV watershed. C. There is currently no impervious surface limit. This could create some problems in development of existing lots which are smaller than 1 acre under the low- density option, particularly those which would require long driveways to access building sites. D. Stream buffers of 100, would be required. This could have an impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to adoption of zoning regulation (1981) which do not meet current minimum lot size requirements. E. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls used to exercise the high - density option will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. F. Local governments are permitted to extend "protected areas" in certain cases. For consistency and administrative purposes, the protected area arc might be fitted to roads or natural features. iA T i J LOCATION MAP HAW CREEK WATERSHED k. 0 HAW CREEK WATERSHED I. GENERAL DESCRI MON a) Location and Character The Haw Creek Watershed is within the Cape Fear River Basin. The bulk of the Haw Creek Watershed is located on the south side of I -85, and is bisected by the Orange/Alamance County line. The northern portion of the watershed is along the I -85 corridor. The southern portion is characterized by low- density residential use. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites There is currently no water supply in this watershed. A futures reservoir site in Alamance County has been proposed by Orange- Alamance Water Systems. c) Affected Jurisdictions The watershed area is generally split evenly between Orange County and Alamance County. A portion of the watershed in both counties is also within the jurisdiction of the City of Mebane. 40 I: a 0 HAW CREEK WATERSHED COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WS M AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Note -- Orange County does not recognize Haw Creek as a water supply watershed. Therefore, no special regulations are currently in place) TYPE OF REGULATION Residential Densityb Impervious Surface Stormwater Control Non - Residential Stream Buffers` Cluster Developments Other Uses Sludge Application Landfills Hazardous Materials WATERSHED - posed State Rules Current Standards Allowed 1 du/.92 ac (40,000 sf lots) No limit No limit Allowed in Transition Areas None Allowed Environmental Review Allowed as Special Use Environmental Review Sewer Lines Allovvad!!; > ;," Allowed in Transition Areas Point Source Disc es Allowed Ailov:> :: (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and previsions are found on the following pages.) 41 HAW CREEK WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government: - must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections; - may charge reasonable inspection fees; and - must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to junction properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. c) Stream Briers Stream buffers of 1010' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. HAW CREEK WATERSHED A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. III. ISSUES A. Orange County, Alamance County and the City of Mebane requested a classification of WS IV. The DEM is recommending WS II. B. Interstate 85 runs through the northern portion of the watershed. Associated with the interstate is the largest area designated as Commercial and Industrial Transition in Orange County. A WS II classification negatively affect the potential for economic development by prohibiting industrial development entirely, and restricting commercial development. C. The watershed is not now classified as a protected watershed. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to define the watershed boundary. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. The density standards would not require revision, as they are already more restrictive than required for a WS N watershed. D. It is Orange County's understanding that the reservoir proposed by Orange - Alamance Water Systems may not be built. E. There is currently no impervious surface limit. This could create some problems in development of existing lots which are smaller than 1 acre under the low- density option, particularly those which would require long driveways to access building sites. F. Stream buffers of 140' would be required. This could have and impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to adoption of zoning regulation (1984) which do not meet current minimum lot size requirements. G. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls used to exercise the high -density option will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. H. A number of industrial uses (along I -85) are within this watershed. WS -II standards could have a significant impact on any further development or expansion. [k] s LOCATION MAP i t a c c E c v` BACK CREEK WATERSHED BACK CREEK WATERSIBED I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Back Creek Watershed is within the Cape Fear River Basin, and is located in the western portion of Cedar Grove and Cheeks Townships. The area is predominantly rural, characterized by low- density residential development and farmland. b) Reservoir Sites The Back Creek Reservoir, located between Haw River and Mebane in Alamance County, was completed in 1988. This reservoir provides water to the cities of Graham and Mebane. c) Affected Jurisdictions The watershed is bisected by the Orange/Alamance County line. Portions of the watershed are also located within the jurisdictions of Mebane and Haw River. KP BACK CREEK WATERSHED II. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WS iq AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Note -- None of the Critical Area of Back Creek is located within Orange County) WATERSHED' TYPE OF REGULATION Current Standards '° Posed. State Rules Cheeks Cedar Grove (zoned) (unzoned) Residential Densityb I du/2. ac. 1 du/.92 ac lots) '> (40,000 sf) Impervious Surface 69G; No limit Stormwater Controls Allowed as added. Control 1/2" Storm protectioti Non - Residential 10% of water 1=4. of Allowed in Allowed in 709 bcult; ' ` Transition All Areas Areas (no zoning) Stream Buffers' i00' around all p�rinak 50 around perennial streams Cluster Developments Allciwi Allowed No Cluster Standards Other Uses Sludge Application Altowe> ;' << Environmental w R v' e ie Landfills >> Allowed as Allowed Special �� (no zoning) Hazardous Materials ` xnveAtory SpilUFaiut+e Environmental Review Sewer Lines Allowed in Not Allowed o ed Transition ransiti n (Water/Sew er Areas Policy) Point Source Discharges Allowed:;;; >; ` Allowed (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) 37 BACK CREEK WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area, These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1: 24, 000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government:. - must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections; - may charge reasonable inspection fees, and - must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to fiawdon property, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. c) Stream Brfers Stream h ers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. d) Use and Storage of Hayudoua Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. 38 BACK CREEK WATERSHED A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. I I � R$WFVx� A. The WS II classification proposed by the state matches that requested by Orange County and Haw River. Alamance County and Mebane requested a lower classification (WS III). A significant portion of the Town of Mebane is within this watershed. B. There are no zoning controls in Cedar Grove Township. Extension of zoning standards to Cedar Grove would provide a mechanism by which to apply the mandated standards. While no zoning exists in this portion of the watershed, stormwater controls and stream buffers are required through the County Subdivision Regulations. C. The minimum lot size would increase from .92 acres to 2.0 acres throughout the watershed. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. D. Impervious surfaces would include gravel roads, drives, etc. Current regulations do not consider such area as impervious surfaces. This change could create a problem during in developing existing lots, particularly if they are non - conforming in size, and/or are shaped such that a long driveway is required. E. The minimum stream buffer would be increased from 50' to 100'. This could have a substantial impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created in Cheeks Township prior to 1984, which may not meet current minimum lot size requirements. F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. No area within the watershed is designated for non - residential use in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed regulations pertaining to non - reWential watershed coverage and impervious surface would have little impact. H. The Town of Mebane rezoned land in the watershed area in 1988 to meet the standards of the old WS -11 classification - which were one -acre lots. As the rules stand now, the Town may have to again downzone these areas to meet the proposed new WS -II minimums. 39 1 /I.,,,,s 1 I _ �� aw•.M LOCA,IQN hlAP ks 1 ,�,• � ; l yam_ � s r ^� 1 r 1 f wW Ile Criss qr 4 ! nG 1 I � :�i .. • e� Chatham County i UNIVERMY LAKE WATERSEIFD I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The University Lake (or Morgan Creek) Watershed is located in the Jordan Lake basin, which is a sub -basin of the Cape Fear River Basin. The University Lake Watershed is located primarily in southern Chapel Hill Township, extending into the eastern quarter of Bingham Township. All of the County portion of the watershed is in the Rural Buffer, which provides a minimum density of 1 du/2 ac. The area is predominantly very-low density residential, with some farmland. The Orange County portion of the watershed covers about 30 square miles. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites University Lake is located in the eastern portion of the watershed, and straddles the jurisdictional boundary between Carrboro and Orange County. The reservoir is operated by OWASA, and provides water for residents of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. A study prepared in 1988 by Camp, Dresser and McKee resulted in the eventual adoption of standards by Orange County and Carrboro designed to protect the water supply from further degradation. c) Affected Jurisdiction Most of the watershed is in Orange County. A significant portion extends into the Town of Carrboro's jurisdiction. The portion in Chatham County is relatively small, and contains the ridgeline but no major tributaries. Most of the critical area is in Orange County. PROPOSED AND REQUESTED WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS W5 I Proposed Requested by I Orange County I WS II Chatham County WS 11 Carrboro I WS 11 31 M COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WSH) AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) 32 WATERSHED' CRITICAL AREA' TYPE OF REGULATION Proposed State <. Current Proposed State Current Rules : ;; Standards Rules Standards Residential Density I du12:aG: 1 du/5 ac' 1 dull ac 1 du/5 ace Impervious -: 69 ` " <; 6 %° 6%.... 6 %` Surface . ..... .....::. . Stormwater Control L... ' ` Control 1/2" Control V Control 1/2" Control° Staab: Storm Storm Storm Detention Ponds Engineered . Allowed Controls not Allowed Non - Residential 1E19iz : of : <> 5096 No new No new wau rshed: undisturbed industrial. industrial or T p�rnous Q95 m commercial Stream Buffers° ::10W. around &.. 50' to 1501, 100' ` around all 50' min. / no • : ; ....: waters depending on � S waters max., ..:;:.:.::. ....... . .... ..... slope depending on g slope Cluster Allowed;;::::: >: >:; .......... ............................. ....... ............................... Allowed Allc►vved Allowed v De elo meats P ................ ............ . .. ........... Other Uses Sludge : Environmental Allowed-: Environmental A lication PP Revie w Revie w Landfills g;::: Allowed as lowed' Not Allowed : , ... ` Special Use 1� Hazardous .::......... ..: .:: .::.:_ .:::::::..:. Environmental FN Environmental Materials Review altars Review Sewer Lines Allowed :. Not Allowed wed ::. Not Allowed Point Source Nv r > > > : > : Allowed < : > Allowed Disc es es.;. (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) 32 UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ndgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. b) Existing Density Standards Up to S lots of 2 -5 acres may be created from lots which existed on 4 -2 -90, when the existing standards for University Lake Watershed went into effect, All additional lots must contain at least S acres. c) Existing Impervious Surface Standards New subdivisions within the University Lake Watershed must meet an overall impervious surface limit of 6%, which can be distributed as needed among the individual lots. Lots which existed prior to the adoption of current standards are subject to a sliding scale, whereby the allowable impervious surface may range from 15% to 4%, depending on the size of the lot. Smaller lots are allotted a higher percentage. d) Starmwater Controls Wet water detention ponds fvr reesidendal developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stommmater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stonnwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government: must inspect the controls at least once a year; must maintain records of inspections, may charge reasonable inspection fees; and 33 UNIVERSM LAKE WATERSHED must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to function Properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. e) Stream Buffers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. It is recommended by the Rules that construction of roads within the Critical Area be avoided to extent practicable, and that impervious surface be minimized in the construction of roads, bridges, and non - residential development. A Use and Storage of Hazor&w Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. III. ISSUES A. The WS II classification proposed by the State matches that requested by all three jurisdictions (Orange County, Chatham County and Carrboro). B. The critical area proposed in the Rules is larger than what is now defined as the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA). The Land Use Plan Map and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map would have to be revised to expand the area designated as WQCA. Also, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to redefine the WQCA. C. Ong density standards are more restrictive than those Local jurisdictions do have the authority o ad prOp°� � �e State Rules. ty opt or maintain standards which exceed the minimum required by the State Rules. D. The proposed Rules do not address a sliding -scale approach to impervious surface. In this watershed only, Orange County recognizes gravel surfaces as "impervious ". E. The minimum stream buffer would be increased from 50' to 100'. This could have a substantial impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to adoption of current zoning standards which may not meet currenc minimum lot size requirements. 34 UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. No area within the watershed is designated for non - residential use in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed regulations pertaining to non- residential watershed coverage and impervious surface would have little impact. H. The portion of the watershed in Chatham County has 50 -foot setbacks (not vegetative buffers) along all intermittent streams. The lot size in this area is 90,000 sf (2.1 acres). I. The Town of Chapel Hill does have a small portion of University Lake within its jurisdiction, along Smith Level Road. J. OWASA may recommend that the EMC classify this watershed as a "critical watershed" - in order to reflect the more stringent measures currently in place. 3S 7 r.� N LOCATION MAP v. c a 0 CANE CREEK WATERSHED Total Population in OC 909 Sq. NWes in Orange County Watershed Jurisdiction Jurisdiction (est.) Number of Residences in 368 Sq. h iles Farmland in Orange County Jurisdiction OC Jurisdiction DEFINITIONS OF WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS - State Definition Fde within 1 mile of normal pool elevation of reservoir within 1 mile of river intake Ot$nge Cou nty Definition ains directly into reservoir, or into its main wnstream -from their first intersecting stream 29.2 14.0 -W. r' :_ I '1 M w1 l- ' 1 1 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Cane Creek Watershed is a part of the Cape Fear Basin, and located in the southwest portion of Bingham Township, covering slightly over 29 square miles. It is a rural area characterized by low - density residential development and farmland. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites Cane Creek reservoir is located in the southern portion of the watershed and was completed in 1988. It is owned and operated by OWASA, and provides water for residents of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. It has a safe yield of 10 million gallons per day (MGD), making it the largest reservoir in Orange County. c) Affected Jurisdictions The watershed is for I the most part contained within Orange County. A small portion extends into Alamance County. All of the critical area under current regulations is in Orange County. The proposed State regulations would expand a small portion of the critical area into Alamance County. PROPOSED AND REQUESTED WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS + : Requested by Orange County WS II Alamance County WS III KAI CANE CREEK WATERSHED II COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WS10 AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS TYPE OF WATERSHED` CRITICAL AREA' REGULATION Proposed State::; Current Proposed State Current ;< Rules: >:< ;. Standards '`:;::Rules :;,r.' ' Standards Residential Density 1 du/2 ac ;: >: 1 du/.92 ac 1 du/2: ac: ;;; ;;. 1 du /1.84 ac (40,000 sf) (80,000 sf) Impervious 12% 6 %. 6% Surface °(gravel roads' (gravel roads .:.:(gravel roads` . ": (gravel roads included):, not included) included)' . not included) Stormwater >>; : ` Allowed;as ;`: ' Control 1/2" %t Allowed ; :: Control 1/2" Controlb added tecion Storm Storm Non - Residential 10% >of >;; >; ,; 80,000 sf lots No;new >> No new watest>ed >::: 50% < : industrial< : : industrial or U Impervious undisturbed ::; ; ':: :> ` ' ' commercial Stream Buffers` 1OQ'arounc a}1 50' to 150' I00'arourid 50 min. pereriial titers depending din on !!pererinawatecs` no max. slope din depending 0 n slope Pe Cluster Allow ;: ed..: Allowed :::Allowed >;; > >> Allowed Devel o m en t$ P Other Uses Sludge g Environmental >No`nev :.: ; .: ss�es Environmental on Application PP Review e Review e Landfills I!Ioa'; ::: >:::: >: > >::.: . d!cargng Allowed as `<NaeAllowed`:! > Not Allowed Special Use Hazardous .::::.:.;: >> :_. vuonm Environmental ental Invento Environmental Materials » S ::..,:.::.. Review Review Sew er Lines z > >« >. :.Altctwet= >< » >:: :::...................:::� ::: N of owed .:::::... { AIIo :' °' >? v�re €:;_,:. <..:. Not Allowed ' amt Source P aw Allowed Allowed Discharges (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and Provisions are found on the following pages.) FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES 27 CANE CREEK WATERSHED a) Defining Boundaries 7, ­0 k- The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or I -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24, 000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls, lire local government. - must inspect the controls at least once a year, - must maintain records of inspections, - may charge reasonable inspection fees, and - must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to function properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. c) Stream Buffers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. Within the critical area, it is recommended by the Rules that construction of roads through stream buffers be avoided to extent practicable, and that impervious surface be minimized in the construction of roads, bridges, and non - residential development. 28 h r , CANE CREEK WATERSHED: d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. M. ISSUES A. The WS H classification proposed by the state matches that requested by Orange County. Alamance County, which contains only a small portion of the watershed, requested a WS III classification. B. The critical area proposed in the Rules is larger than what is now defined as the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA). The Land Use Plan Map would have to be revised to expand the area designated as WQCA. Also, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and in the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to redefine the WQCA. C. The minimum lot size would increase from .92 acres to 2.0 acres in the watershed, and from 1.84 acres to 2.0 acres in the WQCA. A new or revised zoning district and /or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. D. Impervious surfaces would include gravel roads, drives, etc. Current regulations do not consider such areas as impervious surfaces. This change could create a problem during in developing existing lots, particularly if they are non - conforming in size, and /or are shaped such that a long driveway is required. E. The minimum stream buffer would be increased from 50' to 100% This could have a substantial impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to 1981, which may not meet current minimum lot size requirements. OWASA staff has indicated that the Authority may propose applying 100 -foot stream buffers on intermittent as well as perennial streams. This would require a change in current standards. F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. No area within the watershed is designated for non - residential use in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed regulations pertaining to non- residential watershed coverage and impervious surface would have little impact. H. The state rules call for a 10 -foot vegetative buffer along perennial waters for animal operations. Questions as to the implementation and enforcement of this rule are 29 CANE CREEK WATERSHED unresolved. C-. �, 1- I. The critical area for Cane Creek reservoir will be expanded by the state rules. A small portion of the critical area will extend into Alamance County. Alamance currently has no zoning in place in this area. ETE 0 It 1 tit 4ri LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED MME S \ /�: . _ Y91- `15 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Little River Watershed is within the Neuse River Basin, and covers most of Little River Township and about 1/2 of Cedar Grove Township. It also extends slightly into Hillsborough and Eno Townships. It is a rural area characterized by low - density residential development and farmland. b) Reservoir Sites Little River reservoir is located in northern Durham County and serves the residents of Durham City and County. It lies to the east of US 501 and is bisected by Orange Factory Road. The reservoir was completed in 19$7 and provides a safe yield of approximately 20 MOD. c) Affected Jurisdictions About 2/3 of the watershed is in Orange County. The remainder is in Durham County, with a very small area (.1 %) extending into Person County. None of the critical area is in Orange County. 22 LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED H COMPARLSON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WSU) AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Note -- None of the Critical Area of Little River is located within Orange County) WATERSHED* Current Standards TYPE OF REGULATION Proposed State Rules Eno Cedar Grove Hillsborough Little River (zoned) (unzoned) Residential Density 1 du/2 ac. 1 du/.92 ac (87, 120 sf) (40,000 sf) Impervious Surface 6% no limit Stormwater Control Allowed as added..... Control 1/2" Storm protection Non - Residential Allowed- Allowed in Allowed in 10% of watershed Activity All Areas 70% maximum built . ` Nodes. (no zoning) Stream Buffers° 100' around all;> 50' around perennial streams Cluster Developments Allowed: Allowed No Cluster Standards Other Uses Sludge Application Allowed:. Environmental Review Landfills Non` - - discbairging Allowed as Allowed Special Use (no zoning) Hazardous Materials inveaty s ;. Environmental Review SpWailured Sewer Lines Allowed Allowed in Not Allowed Transition (Water /Sewer Areas Policy) Point Source Discharges Allowed Allowed 23 M "- V329Lj _ 04 :1N1 FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1: 24, 000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional Stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government: must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections, may charge reasonable inspection fees; and must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to function properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. C) Stream Biers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. 24 LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. M. ISSUES A. The WS II classification proposed by the State matches that requested by both Orange and Durham Counties. B. There are no zoning controls in Cedar Grove Township or Little River Townships, where most of the watershed lies. Extension of zoning standards to these areas would provide a mechanism by which to apply the mandated standards. C. The minimum lot size would increase from .92 acres to 2.0 acres throughout the watershed. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. D. Impervious surfaces would include gravel roads, drives, etc. Current regulations do not consider such areas as impervious surfaces. This change could create a problem during in developing existing lots, particularly if they are non-conforming in size, and /or are shaped such that a long driveway is required. E. The minimum stream buffer would be increased from 50' to 1001. This could have a substantial impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those which not meet current minimum lot size requirements. F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. The completed Little River Watershed Study developed for Durham call for more stringent measures than those applied within a WS -II class watershed. The question of how to treat watersheds with more stringent measures in place than the state minimums may arise in this case. r. I I LOCATION MAP Person County FLAT RIVER WATERSHED p' `} * 1 1 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Flat River Watershed is a part of the Neuse River Basin and is located in the northernmost portion of Little River Township, adjacent to the Durham County and Person County lines. It is a rural area characterized by low- density residential development and farmland. b) Reservoir /Intake Sites The Flat River drains into Lake b ichie in northern Durham County. Lake Michie supplies the City of Durham with 20 MGD of water. c) Affected Jurisdictions Most of the watershed is in Person County. About 20% is contained is in Durham County. Only a small amount is contained in Orange County. None of the critical area is in Orange County. PROPOSED AND REQUESTED WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS Propo 1�y Requested by Orange County WS II Person County WS IV Durham County WS II City of Roxboro WS IV i8 j FLAT RIVER WATERSHED H. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WSH) AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS Note - None of the Flat River Critical Area is in the Critical Area. The Orange County portion of the watershed is located entirely within Little River Township, which is not now subject to zoning restrictions. TYPE OF WATERSHED' REGULATION Prop�d State Rules > Current Standards Residential Other Uses Density l dv%2: ac 1 du/.92 ac >< Environmental Review (87,.124 sf} (40,000 sf) Impervious 69 No limit Surface Hazardous >`:'.Ia`rp Stormwater Allowed`' as added Control 1/2" Storm Controlb Sewer Lines ll+avvrd;: >; No 109 of w� :. >:::.:: No limit ( Water and Sew er Policy) 70 . :i .: Stream Buffere lO hound all perennial . 50' along perennial waters` . :: streams LDevelopments uster > ' ` .. .. No Standards Other Uses Slud e Armed>:: > >: : :» : : >< Environmental Review Application Landfills »;g ' ? Allowed Hazardous >`:'.Ia`rp Environmental Review M aterials Sewer Lines ll+avvrd;: >; Not Allowed ( Water and Sew er Policy) Point Source Allowed Disc Discharges >> !> ;; > >;> (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) 19 FLAT RIVER WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24, 000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government. must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections; may charge reasonable inspection fees; and must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to f OwdOn properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. c) Strewn Briers Stream balers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the bufer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no prwdcabk alternative exists. d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against K11 1: 2 1 W. �' V09 ILI 110 "W.11310 -9. ,1 o contamination are required. M. ISSUES A. Orange County requested a classification of WS II. Person County and the City or Roxboro requested WS IV. Durham County requested a classification of WS II request. DEM is recommending Class H. B. There are no zoning controls in Little River Township. Extension of zoning standards to Little River would provide a mechanism by which to apply the mandated standards. C. The minimum lot size would increase from .92 acres to 2.0 acres throughout the watershed. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. D. Impervious surfaces would include gravel roads, drives, etc. This change could create a problem during in developing existing lots, particularly if they are non - conforming in size, and/or are shaped such that a long driveway is required. E. The minimum stream buffer would be increased from 50' to 100'. This could have a substantial impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area. F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and /or County Engineer. G. A significant difference of opinion appears to exist between the involved jurisdictions. This type of dispute may be a focal point of the planned public hearings, and intesjurisdictional meetings may be prudent to help resolve the policy issues. 21 LOWER ENO RIVER WATERSHED r. LOCATION MAP Q LOWER ENO WATERSHED ' I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Lower Eno Watershed includes most of Eno Township and the eastern portion of Hillsborough Township. Most of the watershed is in low- density residential use. Areas near Hillsborough and areas in the vicinity of I -85 and Highway 70 provide a mix of higher density residential and commercial use. The Lower Eno Watershed is not designated as a protected watershed by Orange County as this time, although stream buffers and stormwater controls are applied through the County Subdivision Regulations , b) Reservoir /Intake Sites There is no reservoir site associated with the watershed. The basin is classified as a watershed on the basis of the City of Durham's emergency water intake on the Eno River cast of US 501 (Roxboro Road). The protected area for this watershed extends 10 miles from the intake point. c) Affected Jurisdictions Orange County, Durham County, and Durham City contain area within the watershed. 13 A,7- I 4D; :111 H COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STATE RULES (WS M AND EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS (Note -- None of the Lower Eno Critical Area is located within Orange County) TYPE OF REGULATION PROTECTED AREA' Proposed State Rules: Current Standards Residential Low Density Option Density 2: dullac l du/.92 ac (2.1,780 sf)' (40,000 sf) Impervious Surface 24 No limit Stormwater Controls Control t: : Storm Detention Ponds Control 1/2" Storm Allowed:: High Density Optionb Density 2.0;dufac . 1 du/.92 ac (21,780 if. lots) (40,000 sf) Impervious Surface 24;;M%.... No limit Stormwater Controls Connz'1 ";;'Storm `' Control 1/2" Storm : > > tin Pon , s . , . .... Alloared ;; : Allowed in Activity Nodes ENon-Residential uffers` ;;100':;: 'edjc>ing° ':;` 50' adjoining all perennial streams evelopments Allowed Other Uses Sludge Application Allvv►red Environmental Review Landfills Allowed Allowed as Special Use Hazardous Materials rnvengory: <` Environmental Review Sp1lPaifur` Sewer Lines Alvvex: > ::;,,:;<;;;:<;> Allowed in Transition Areas Point Source Discharges `'> Allowed Allowed (Footnotes providing explanation of certain terms and provisions are found on the following pages.) 14 LOWER ENO WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The Lower Eno watershed is classified as a "run -of- the - river' water supply. The protected area extends 10 miles from the intake point east of US 501 in Durham, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. The critical area extends one mile from the intake or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever comes first. Local governments are responsible for delineating the protected area. The boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. None of the critical area is located within Orange County's jurisdiction. b) Stormwater Controls Engineered stormwater control is required for a jurisdiction to exercise the high - density option. The only engineered control which may be used for high - density residential development is wet water detention ponds. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government: must inspect the controls at least once a year; must maintain records of inspections, may charge reasonable inspection fees; and must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to f enction properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. C) StrMVX Biers Stream byd n of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buftr. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. d) Use and Storage of Haumdous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stoned in the watershed must be maintained. is LOWER ENO WATERSHED A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. M. ISSUES A. The WS IV classification proposed by the State matches that requested by all involved jurisdictions (Orange County, Durham County, Durham City). B. The most significant issue to be resolved regarding the Lower Eno is the questions of whether the area is in fact, within the watershed protected area. The area shown on the preceding map reflects a 10 -mile arc from a City of Durham emergency water intake on the Eno River. Recently, questions have arisen as to whether this intake is to be protected as a long term water source. If it is not, the protected area for the Eno River WS -IV watershed will extend five miles from the pool elevation of Falls Lake. Under this reading, the protected area would not extend into Orange County. Until this question is resolved, the NCDEM maps which show this intake as a water source are used to qualify the 10 -mile protected arc. C. The watershed is not now classified as a protected watershed. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to define the watershed boundary. A new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify the new standards. The density standards would not require revision, as they are already more restrictive than required for a WS IV watershed. Although this watershed is not classified as a protected watershed, stormwater controls and stream buffers are required through the County Subdivision Regulations. D. There is currently no impervious surface limit. This could create some problems in development of existing lots which are smaller than 1 acre under the low- density option, particularly those which would require long driveways to access building sites. E. Stream buffers of 100' would be required. This could have an impact on existing lots that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to adoption of zoning regulation (1981) which do not meet current minimum lot size requirements. F. Opeaation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls used to exercise the high - density option will require oversight by the County. This will require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control Division and/or County Engineer. G. The amount of impervious surface for non - residential development in the watershed would increase from 50% to 70 %. However, the total amount of area that could be used for non - residential purposes would be limited to 10% of the watershed. There is currently no limit. 16 LOWER ENO WATERSHED H. If the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Zone proposal is adopted, the western edge of the Protected area will be in Hillsborough's jurisdiction. Related to this effort, it should be noted that the proposed Durham - Hillsborough water pipeline would traverse this area. I. A recognized CommerciaUIndustrial Node is located within this watershed at the intersection of I -85 and US 70. The proposed protected area regulations would have little effect on land uses or coverage permitted within this node, however. 17 PROPOSED WEST FORK OF THE ENO RESERVOIR LOCATION MAP LAKE ORANGE (EXISTING; PROPOSED ENO, NORTH OF MCGOWAN CREEK PROPOSED SEVEN -MILL' CREEK RESERVOIR UPPER ENO RIVER WATERSHED Total Population in OC 1,815 Sq. N[iles in Orange County Watershed Jurisdiction 58.9 Jurisdiction (est.) Number of Residences in 735 Sq. Miles Farmland in Orange County Jurisdiction 32.7 OC Jurisdiction DEFINITIONS OF WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS State Definition drainage area within 1 mile of normal pool elevation of reservoir OR drainage area within 1 mile of river intake Orange County Definition area which drains directly into reservoir, or into its main tributaries downstream -front their first intersecting stream Ili QQDoAR��X01: _ti :l. s I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION a) Location and Character The Upper Eno Watershed is located within the Neuse River Basin, and is in the Cedar Grove, Little River, Cheeks, Hillsborough, Bingham, and Chapel Hill Townships. It characterized by low density development north and south of the I -85 /US 70 corridor. Within this corridor, development is suburban in nature with interspersed non - residential development b) Reservoir Sites There are three existing water bodies in the Upper Eno watershed, two of which are currently used as water sources. Corporation Lake is the water supply for the Orange - Alamance Water System, and is located just north of US 70. Lake Ben Johnson is located downstream on the Eno River near Dimmock's Mill Road, and is the Town of Hillsborough's sole water source. Lake Orange, located upstream in Cedar Grove Township, is currently used for flood control and flow augmentation and does not provide drinking water at this time. In addition to these existing lakes, three proposed reservoirs also require watershed Protection. These reservoirs are 1. West Fork of Eno (located in Cedar Grove Township). 2. Eno, North of McGowan Creek (in eastern Cheeks Township) 3. Seven -Mile Creek Reservoir, located south of I -85. c) Affected Jurisdictions The Upper Eno Watershed is contained entirely within Orange County's jurisdiction. - 6 ml K �d m l +J n C a a H x v 0. R r. CL k co ca 0 0 y a G G/] CL a y a 2 O a °z J O C/1 H a H x r �c C X H n 0 n H n•C n r a H ICI 0 z z 0 a H C� d �. w• G c o c c w w� � C➢ � 3 VJ O H ��+ Q• (�]'r >: ><N:;. may; >t► .,., ... ....... G G: G � N � N s t7 IG O � z Q• o 3� K �d m l +J n C a a H x v 0. R r. CL k co ca 0 0 y a G G/] CL a y a 2 O a °z J O C/1 H a H x r �c C X H n 0 n H n•C n r a H ICI 0 z z 0 a H C� d 00 • CA a -- o O. C (PP A h Cry C p zaa � _ �„ �~i• � �. _ O Fes' � C. � H IV 0 y d S a -- o a a 0 o zaa � _ �„ �~i• � �. _ O Fes' � C. � S. CL CA a H � �'�,�,,r'7 .: ^:r ly:.ii:i :.tj.:: �.:.': aA :;.. ►,r ��, �::;:C;::i;i <s:�i:.:.::. ° � ° $. g o P �. o c P. A E F- O CAD O � C p o � a a cq y 2L �. CL IV 0 y d S UPPER ENO WATERSHED FOOTNOTES - EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY STATE RULES a) Defining Boundaries The watershed boundary extends to the ridgeline. The critical area extends one mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, which ever comes first. The boundaries of the critical area may be extended by the local government. Major landmarks such as roads or property lines may be used to delineate the boundaries if they are immediately adjacent to the ridgeline or 1 -mile boundary as appropriate. Local governments are responsible for delineating the normal pool elevation for reservoirs. This information is used to determine the boundaries of the critical area. These boundaries must be submitted by the local government using 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. b) Stormwater Controls Wet water detention ponds for residential developments are permitted in the watershed to provide additional stormwater control. They are not permitted within the critical area. Stormwater controls for non - residential developments are also permitted outside of the critical area. Engineered controls are not limited to wet water detention ponds, but must be handled on a case -by -case basis. It is the responsibility of local government to assure the proper operation and maintenance of engineered stormwater controls. The local government: - must inspect the controls at least once a year; - must maintain records of inspections; - may charge reasonable inspection fees; and - must require posting of security for maintenance If the system fails to function properly, the local government must order the owning entity to correct the problem, and may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies. c) Stream Buffers Stream buffers of 100' feet are required on both sides of perennial streams. It is recommended (but not required) that the first 25' of the buffer remain as natural vegetation. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists. It is recommended by the Rules that construction of roads within the Critical Area be avoided to extent practicable, and that impervious surface be minimized in the construction of roads, r, UPPER ENO WATERSHED bridges, and non - residential development. d) Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored in the watershed must be maintained. A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against contamination are required. III. ISSUES A. The WS IV classification proposed by the state does not match that requested by Orange County (WS III). B. The critical area proposed in the Rules is larger than what is now defined as the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA). C. The minimum lot size would increase from .92 acres to 2 acres in the watershed, and from 1.84 acres to 2 acres in the WQCA. D. Impervious surfaces would not include gravel. Current regulations do not consider gravel an impervious surface except in the University Lake Watershed. E. The minimum stream buffer would be increased from 50' to 1001 . F. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls will require oversight by the County. G. The amount of impervious surface for non - residential development in the watershed would increase from 50% to 70%. However, the total amount of area that could be used for non - residential purposes would be limited to 10% of the watershed. There is currently no limit. H. The proposed rules (as of 7 -1 -91) would apply a 10 foot vegetative stream buffer for animal agricultural operations. However, the rules do not specify how this buffer would be enforced or implemented (state law exempts agricultural operations from zoning.) I. The number of water bodies (existing and proposed) in the Upper Eno basin make this watershed in actuality, five watersheds - unique. The proposed classification for the entire Eno River basin is WS -IV. This classification does not recognize the Upper Eno as having different characteristics from the remainder of the "run -of -the- river" case. DEM has indicated that individual local governments may request different classifications for portions of watersheds such as this as a part of the August 15 public hearing. Because of the importance of protecting future water supplies for northern Orange, local governments may wish to request a higher quality classification for the Upper Eno. 10 UPPER ENO WATERSHED The State Rules provide for a low- density and high- density development option in Class III and Class IV watersheds. The low- density option does not require structural stormwater controls. The high - density option allows a higher density and impervious surface limit if detention ponds are used for stormwater control. Wet detention ponds are the only stormwater control which can be used to exercise the high density option for residential development. Engineered controls for non - residential developments must be handled on a project -by- project basis 11 WATERSHED PROTECTION: PROCEDURES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY ADDENDUM A number of actions or interpretations relating to the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (WSWPA) have occurred since the completion of the Planning Department report on July 15. The purpose of this addendum is to provide an overview of each item, identifying potential problems or implications for the County. These items can be grouped into three areas: 1. LEGISLATION DELAYING ENACTION OF WSWPA The background section of the watershed report mentions two bills that were pending in the General Assembly at the time of the report. Both bills were enacted shortly thereafter, and a legislative conference committee merged the language in both bills into one version. The effect of this legislation is to delay the two actions mandated by the WSWPA. The first action to occur was the EMC's classification of all water supply watersheds in the state. Preliminary classifications were presented by DEM in late May, and the current round of public hearings across the state are in part to receive public comment on these rankings. This action was to have occurred by January 1, 1992. The adopted legislation now provides that the EMC shall have adopted final classifications on all water supply watersheds by July 1, 1992, a delay of six months. The subsequent action in this process is the submittal by local governments of adopted water supply watershed protection plans. These plans must, at a minimum, meet the provisions of the EMC rules and standards for the watershed classification adopted. Prior to the legislative delays, this action was to have occurred by July 1, 1992. The new legislation now provides that local governments shall submit watershed protection plans to the EMC on a staggered basis, with three local government categories. All municipalities over 5,000 persons ... By July 1, 1993. All municipalities under 5,000 persons..Bv October 1, 1993. This in effect means that Orange County has an extension of 18 ;.k --.„ . months to submit ado ted Tans to the EMC for the 11 watersheds ( or portions thereof) in its jurisdiction. Actual adoption of the plans by the County would need to occur by late -1993. 2. ADDITIONS /MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES The NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources published new proposed watershed "minimum rules" on June 14 for public hearing. These changes represent both additions and deletions to the existing minimums. These changes fall into four broad categories: A. Definition of Existing Development The original definition of "existing development" as adopted by the EMC is development projects in progress with significant resources already expended on the project, or ro'ects platted by January 1 1991. The proposed new definition of existing development would be com leted development, latted development and zoned develo ment. This definition would be used watersheds, 'and to grandfather proposed regulations. for two purposes: to classify or exempt development from the The significant addition here is that of "zoned development ". Although the proposed "minimum rules" are somewhat vague, it appears that undeveloped land zoned for a particular density or type of land use could be exempted from the rules and permitted to develop under current zoning. This provision could have a profound impact on watersheds such as Cane Creek, Back Creek, and Haw Creek. One suggested alternative is the substitution of "vested rights" qualifications to define existing development rather than the existence of zoning for undeveloped land. B. New Development Variances and Rules The current "minimum rules" language allows exemption of minor non- conforming uses prior to reclassification in order to achieve a higher watershed classification. After a watershed is classified, all new development is required to comply with the minimum rules. The new proposed language would allow exemptions for non - conforming uses prior to and after reclassification - to be approved by the EMC on a case -by -case basis. Questions have been raised in this area regarding the cumulative effect of such exemptions and the allowance of exemptions after classification has been completed. C. New Provisions for Agriculture and Transportation Essentially, the new rules proposed in this area replace current language encouraging the use of "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) in water supply watersheds with new language that is stronger. The Department of Transportation will be required to use BMP's in providing sufficient areas for spill containment, using riprap as opposed to concrete ditches, limiting grading operations and inspecting all devices at least annually. Of more interest to rural areas are the provisions for agriculture. The new proposed rules require agricultural activities to comply with existing Federal laws. In addition, all agricultural activities within critical areas of a water supply watershed would be required to have a 10 -foot vegetated buffer along all perennial waters. Further, all animal operations greater than 100 animals in critical areas must employ BMP's recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The agricultural measures have generated substantial comment. Beyond the questions of inflexibility and expense for farmers is another issue - what governmental entity has the power to enforce these regulations for agriculture? (Agricultural operations are exempted from county zoning powers by state law). D. Wastewater Discharge Flexibility The proposed rules have added a section that would allow expansions of existing dischargers in a water supply watershed where new dischargers are prohibited - provided there is no increase in pollutant loading. The primary issue here seems to be how pollutant - loading would be measured. 3. "NEW" INTERPRETATIONS OF WATERSHED RULES The watershed "minimum rules" adopted by the EMC in December 1990 and new provisions added on June 14 are both written with a significant level of flexibility that can inhibit specific interpretation of the rules. There are two areas where a "different" interpretation of the intent of the rules has been recognized or put forward. One such interpretation resulted from a unintended deletion on an initial summary of the rules, and the other has been recently suggested by a staff person from the Division of Environmental Management. Neither interpretation was known at the time of the staff report. The first position relates to the linkage of density of development and impervious surface controls in WS -II (Predominantly Undeveloped) watersheds. Original summary rules indicated that new development in WS -II watersheds would be required to have an overall density of development less than 1 unit per 2.0 acres of land, AND a limit of 6% on impervious surfaces. This linkage of density and impervious surfaces is a common one used by many local governments in the area (including Orange County). This "minimum rule" has recently been clarified, however, to require EITHER two-acre lots OR a 6% impervious surface cap as a minimum for protecting water quality. The effect of this clarification is that a two -acre minimum lot size is not necessarily required. Local governments can instead impose a 5% impervious surface cap on all new development. Such a cap would limit houses on a 40,000 square foot lot to 2400 square feet of impervious surface (including driveways and other appurtenances). In addition, is should be noted that all of the state's rules are "minimums ", which might be superseded by local governments which opt for a higher level of low density land use protective measures. The second interpretation involves non - residential development in Class WS -II and WS -III watersheds. Currently, the rules appear to limit new non - residential development to a maximum of 10% of the watershed - allowing such uses to have a built -upon area of 70 %. At a recent Triangle J COG meeting, a representative of DEM suggested that this might be interpreted so as not to place a cap on non - residential development - as long as the development met the impervious surface requirements of the minimum rules. It is unclear at this time whether this will be the position of the EMC as well. CONCLUSION The EMC's regional public hearing on August 15 in Raleigh generated a tremendous amount of participation - such that the EMC plans to schedule a second hearing for the area. Because of this, the EMC has extended its deadline for receiving written comment in the hearing process to October 31, 1991. The issues defined both in the original staff report and in this addendum have significant implications for Orange County in a number of areas. There are external unknowns that will also eventually factor into the equation. Other issues and questions will certainly be raised as the process continues. 0-� ENIC "' Nr:wly Proposed Watershed Protection ]Rules Problems & TJCOC's Rcconuliendalions i) RX150ng Developa-Vent - Dcfit%ition and t: 3randfalherla %g -JhA1FY Currently, the fide nfion existin dev 1 n C_ t is pi 4.7mpletud or under Constructioll ( With significant resources capended ) or projects platicd by 9/30/91. - 77,ifi definition will be used to c_ lA" watersheds; - Local governments are to brim exlstJng non -confoa tr,i� uses into evrr:pliallm u8 Practicable; and - All t%ew PSOyl.ty is to comply with the wsaterbhcd pro lectio1i ruh:5. The proposed definition of existing dcvcl0p1-r %C11t is C0117p1Ct4i1 ck.vcluPlt%crlt, platted development, an zoned devel m n pf the closing, dale pf U:c��u�►]ic li4((rirl ; ( �ternb ur ;10, 7997 - This defin1,6011 would be used to classify walcrsl�eds All 1 ratxifuthcr or uxemvt elo omcnt from �e �V��,r„�rvl%GCi prc�tccti0n re�ul�tionS. j'r•nblertfs 1. It is inappropriate to use existing zoning of vacant land either to classify watersheds.• or to exempt developrnernl from rules. 2, l�cfxrxirsg zoning as existing d loprrrwtt fir the E�u►Fr��ac:s of (lr(;iu r( <Icti mud s(:t u bur! le al precetierit for local ,s;ovornnie nts' future rc t�latnry actions. 3. The Seplattiber 301h datdline ix,y' timerul problems. Fint it would be dl f ficull, If not inlro Bible, for laud govoYnmenta io irnwittory completed develop"Fard, 171411ed projects, and zorrrei Lund by ScThunber 90th. Second, though local governments tratrst comply with t1W rules for all acth tu:i 1'esw i u ftm- September 30th, they will not know how their watershed is classified or what rul(,N arq Zy until July 1, 1992. finally, as written, the rules rrtay put local governincrite its a legal or political Lind: though the rules say a des elolrrrtcnt must comply with the watershed protection rules beginning Seplernber 301h, rusw legit L -4tion says local Soverninents have from July 1993 to Jarnua►y 1991 to adopt their- local ordinaricay opt the size 011he jurlsdiclion). Since local guuJrrrnents rnt4st altprove r proposed projMo that nneet curyertt 0r'din4?'Ce6; they could riot require dt ipdopm to curnplli with regulations »floe io adoption by that jurisdiction, Thy rul(b offer•a difficult w1wHon to this bind: If a local governtnenl apprgve'i u "non -G(ni forTnin 1.5e,•l t1 emus% offset the irtilrrtcts by irriplertieniing rrtorc stringent rcgtfirerneuls el+(ru)hcrc in the watershed. RE COMM l'lh DATIONi Revise the roles its follows: 0144(6) Existing development, as defiued for the purpose of these rules, means projects already Completed or in progress as demonstrated br signlfieant resources having beet% expended on the project, or projects with a recorded plat_gX_A ,1s,fssa�ylrlcl► _ 98ki- l�x1ght hini b� cn esl;eblished as of July7.r. Note._ Triangle J recommends el.tablishing a veslcd right deadline as early a5 legally possible to avc)id "a rush" of flan approvals which would not tnect the spirit of the law. 2) New Development - Corkipliance with Rules Mattel Varian(;t-tt The Current rules allow exemptions of rnai,lor non- canfortn1116 uses Prior to recIassification 11t order to achieve a higher classification; after classification, ncw• dcvelopl %tent 15 ""VirGd to L'vinply with the ruloQ beginning September 30, 1991, The proposed rules would allow exemptions for non- coltf0r-iriJn6 uses prior to anti lifter reclassification. JED FROM 9195499390 t 08.26.1991 11:03 P. 1 DRAFT These excniptions would be approved on a case- by-case basis by the rMC. As discussed above in the proposed rules, if a local government permits a non - conforming activity after reclassification, it would be required to offset the impacts by implementing more stringent require mcnis somewhere, else in the watershed. 1. Though ogh an exemption procedure is needed , petitioning the EMC for emery tninor exemption will pose an administrative burden for the EMC (rind backlogs) and be curnberso►ne for local governments. 2. The offset provisions do not require equal wafer quality protty( ion. I Load govermmnels cannot require developers to cotnply with regulations prior to adoption by that jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION Delegate authority to local governments to make minor exemptions based on criteria adopted by the EMC, Require the local government to notify other potential interested local governments and pro- vide an appeals procedure. The EMC would continue to have complete authority over major exemp- tions. Revise the rules as follows: .0104 (1) Exemptions n -Lay be allowed by the Commission on a case -by -case basis for occurrences of non- confortning uses prior to reclassification in order to obtain a higher classification or by the Commission at the request of local government on a case -by -case basis after reclassification. Lojal govertunents mav�11Q3y ��tf e�remptions to the specific the specific standal:ds contained herein basedWgn criteria xirittg -ion crlterla_sltall include all...liutjl9 k1 ?e limited to,, the fallowing: l) thiz es will cause a pLa-g0cal gn.the Qper� 2) the conditionjspegullar to the property: 3) the conditiQti could not hay n f r -in itftting these ~'ales; and 9 }. Oproposed Lion j,BUes to meet the spiritiur�ose,.al41Si latent of th rules. When Win. CaMVAj 2LLj the local v - notify and allQw a reasonoble cotniner>f ge ed for uge rs of the within the watershe area governed Perrions may amnal the J *cisions to the EMC. .0104 (t) Commencement of new activities ... as of_fjVjY- ,, 19921 or [the date the local- &QXUpment opts watershed protection regulations comply ng with these rulesl ..shall comply with the requiremecnt of these rules. (Note: Again, the Committees recommend the earliest possible legal date.) Since some areas of a watershed influence water quality more than others, we recommend that the EMC revise the offset provision to require that local governments adopt more stringent land uses in sdirnila r areas of to provide no net loss of water quality protection. 3) Agriculture, Silviculture, and Transportation The existing rules reflect g nneral policies, encouraging best management practices for agricultural, -iilvicultural, and transportation activities in drinking water supply watersheds. The proposed rules are more specific. For instance, "The Department of Transportation shall use BM's -3utlined in its document entitled, "Water Supply Watershed BMP's." This document indicates that the Department shall provide sufficient areas for Containment of hazardous spills within critical areas, aromote infiltration by using riprap instead of concrete ditches, limit grading operations, inspect, clean and maintain erosion control devices annually, etc, "Silviculture activities are requirod to intiplement the provisions of the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality." + The proposed rules require agricultural activities to comply with existing federal laws. In addition, in critical areas, agricultural activities would need to have a 10 -foot vegetated buffer along all perennial waters; and animal operations, greater than 100 animals, must employ UMP's recommended by the Soil and Witter Conservation Commission. jhblems 1. The State and local governments do not have adequate staff to enforce current sedimentation and erosion control laws; These rules add new requirements without adding new staff. 2. An Agricultural Extension Agent told Triangle ) that these rules would be difficult for small dairy fr nners zoho would need to build fences fo provide buffers for the streams and to build new watering sources for their live-stock. RECOMMENDATION Though these sections may need revisions to make them more workable, Triangle ) believes that the EMC has taken steps in the right direction by addressing pollution from agriculture, silviculture, and transportation activities - significant contributors to runoff pollution, (4) Discharges & Stormwater The proposed rule states that in areas where some category of anew wastewater discharge is prohibited (such as domestic discharges), expansions of existing discharges of that category will be allowed if there Is no increase in the pollutant loading„ 1 The wastewater discharge approach adds flexibility, at the same time providing for no net loss of water quality protecl(on. J. Federal regulations require state and local governments to begin treating stormwater as a discharge, requiring #a permit for stormwater running off a particular site. The proposed rules, however, do not provide the same cxtbility for stormwaier "discharges " as they do for other discharges. 2. The requirement for wet detention ponds controlling the first I " of runoff may preclude other runoff control measures that, for a given site, may provide equal or more roater quality protection. RECOMMENDATION Apply the performance- based approach to all discharges, including stormwater. Revise the rules as follows: n211(e)(3)(i)IV; 0211(e)(3)(ii)III; 0211(f)(3)(i)IV; & 0211(f)(3)(ii))11 control runoff from the first inch of rainfaIl l7tMY147 eQ33iXg ent w AHtVV�ratection v ,� FT 5) Roads the rules include "roads" in the definition of buill upon area �Aich roads are to be included in the calculation: all, some, or practically no roads? The literal translation of the 'ales would mean inlerslale, freewways, collectors, as weld as subdivision and local roads. rrorn a water quality, perspective, this would provide the rnost protection, addressing a major source of pollutant runoff. Froin a develop - -nent perspeclive, this would penalize property owners adjacent to major stale and federal roads. .n implementing these rules, the DFM staff had envisioned correcting this inequity by exrluding all slate roads 'rom the calculation. However, since most subdivision and other "local" roads are built to state standards and urned over to the stale for maintenance, the rules in of feet would exempt practically all roads. A third apTiroach is to exempt roads identified tls major, minor, or freeways on locally adopted thoroughfure plans, .which excludes subdivision or so- called local roads. This middle ground apprwch, while addressing the equity ssue and providing more protection than Mm "s method, effectively cxerrrlols the major sources of highway runoff . IFCOMMBNDATION ?'rlangle ] debated the merits of each of these approaches but was divided in its conclusions. Clearly, .he 'EMC needs to work ort this issue. . 4.,.�:i�1.1 -� iq -* , . ��,�y.. :!, I ,' LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS N.C. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION(EMC) PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS PURSUART TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 156 August 15,1991 at Raleigh, N.C. The League of Women Voters of N.C. strongly supports State Government role as set forth in HB 156 and worked for its passage in the 1989 Legislature. HB 156, Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, established a cooperative program between the state and local governments to protect and enhance the quality of state "ace Water Drinkin Water .S lies..6 �y 6ae commend t hard work of the Environment-at Ma Bement Commission that passed good regulations in December 1990 after the recommen- dations of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Advisory Council. We do not want to see them weakened. HB 156 was written without a stated goal but we suggest a goal of "Minimal degradation over the next 20 ears" which has been stated as a goal is several water quality reservoir studies in the state. The recommended four proposed Water Supply Classifications provide flexibility for local governments to provide the highest water protection possible depending on their local watershed character- istics. It is suggested that the state use the term "Most Protective Appropriate" classification. Water Supply Watersheds of local governments that have already reached the higher classifications should automatically continue in that protective class. It will be important to encourage local governments to write local ordi- nances that.will provide a protective land use plan for their present and future water supplies. Citizens need to take part in forming the watershed ordinance and to know that regulations in a protective local ordinance once adopted will continue to be in place. Lc=al governments that have responsibility_for a protection program for a portion of a watershed in their jurisdiction, but not their water supply, should work regionally with that water supply govern- ment through interlocal agreement which should include monitoring. The position of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina is for WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION THAT WILL PREVENT POLLUTION. 1. Ne support the one --mile Critical Area as well as the five -mile Protected .Area. . _. 2. We support the rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities. The most effective practice for highest water protection is low density development particularly in the Critical and Protected areas. Stormwater flowing across impervious surfaces such as roof tons, parsing lots and roads picks up pollut- ants that can result in serious impact on water quality. Buffer zones are also needed to prevent damage from episodic events such as spills and extra heavy storm run -off. 3. We support the 100 foot buffers on perennial streams. 801 Oberlin Road SUIte 325 Raleigh, N.C. 27605 919/839 -5532 c. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMENTS PAGE 2 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED.HEARINGS August 15,1991 4. We oppose the WS --III proposed change under Stormwater High Density Option to be 12 -50% built upon area. The state needs to go back to the Dec. 1990 rule of 12 -30 %. 5. We support Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Agriculture and Silviculture activities but ask for BMP's for all animal units with-separate controls for those farms with animal waste lagoons. It is important that BMP's be monitored and that excess amounts of cbj=Lcals such as pesticides not be used. 6. We support the rule that local government will assume ultimate responsibility for operation and maintenance of stormwater controls. 7. Construction of new roads and bridges in Critical Areas should be avoided. In protected area proposed roads should have environ- mental impact statements as to construction pollution and impact of resulting traffic flow. 8. We are concerned that one needs a more cautious approach to handling of hazardous materials with no new storage in Critical Area. Inventory and spill failure plans should continue to be updated at frequent times with emergency management. 9. We strongly endorse the provision prohibiting new landfills in WS -II and WS--III watersheds as well as WS -IV Critical Area.we also support no new sites for sludge application in Critical Areas, as well as no application of petroleum- contaminated soils in the protected areas of the watershed. 'Public Citizens need to be aware that their local governments will be enteripg watershed management as well as land use for the fixst. time. They need. to be a part of stxorig..loc.al..action in helping develop their Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinances. It is important that the State Division of Water Quality have adequate financing for personnel to assist local overnments in developin2 elans and ordinances for the highest watershed rotection 2ossible for their eople. In summarx the League of Women Voters of North Carolina regards the adoption of the proposed rules as an important step in North Carolina's Water Supply Watershed Protection Responsibility for the health of all its citizens. North Carolina must protect Water Quality now while there is still Quality Water to erotect. Margaret U. Holton, Director ;dater /Air in 14atural Resources LWVoters of North Carolina STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING CALLED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, August 26, 1991, at the County Courthouse in Hillsborough, regarding PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. IMPACT ON ISSUES 1990 -92, WATER RESOURCES, The League supports: "-ftringent contra# toprntect the gualiti- ol`current andpaten %al drkkrng- R-fter Yvpplie,�; Including,nrntectinn Of watershedslnr Supplies and c7�'recharge areaslnrgrnund- water. The League of Women Voters of Chapel Hill and Carrboro thanks you for the opportunity to speak at this public hearing. The League of Women Voters, nationally, has been a strong advocate of water quality protection for more than three decades. Our position has been that the best, most effective and most economical means of maintaining drinking water quality is by protection at the sources of supply, Locally, the League has made statements on several occasions regarding the protection of University Lake watershed, including the public hearing (December 16, 1987) of the Environmental Management Commission, regarding granting WS -1 status to University Lake as a source of drinking water and at the public meeting (February 2, 1959) called by the Division of Environmental Management, On August 15, 1991, Margaret Holton spoke for the League of Women Voters of North Carolina at a public hearing in Raleigh sponsored by the Environmental Management Commission, The position of the League of Woven Voters of North Carolina is for W IER_SUPPLY PRQT CTION THAT WILL PREVENT.EQLLUTION, The local League supports: L The proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We would favor the even more restrictive Cr Itical Watc s, hed designation for University Lake, due to its special vulnerability, as documented by the Camp Dresser and McKee Study and supported by stringent local actions taken by Carrboro and Orange County. It is important that the presently strong University Lake protection not be weakened by future local actions. University Lake watershed must remain predominantely undeveloped. K -ry;r" 2, We support the rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities, The most effective practice for highest water protection is low density of development particularly in Critical and ProtectQd areas. (Stormwater flowing across impervious surfaces such as rooftops, parking lots and roads picks up pollutants that can result in serious impact on water quality. Buffer zones are also needed to prevent damage from episodic events such as spills and extra heavy storm run -off.) I We support the new rules proposed for agriculture in WS -I watersheds.and WS -II Critical Areas and the proposal that these rules apply lbmugk a I WS -II watersheds, not just in the WS -II Critical Areas, The League urges citizens to be a part of strong local action in helping develop watershed protection ordinances for the health and quality of life for everyone. We must protect Water Qualit now while there is still Nancy S. Mueller Chair, Natural Resources LW V of CH /C w11 iM. 51.E &W7'e- leacOW- pAic 'r -,Z d, - ?/ Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968 -4421 Comments to the Orange County Board of Commissioners And Orange County Planning Board Joint Public. Hearing on Proposed State Watershed Classifications and Development Standards Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina August 26, 1991 Good evening. I am Lois Herring, Chairman of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, and am speaking tonight on their behalf. Your agenda package includes a copy of OWASA's comments submitted to the EMC on August 15 as well as a resolution adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council. We hope the County will support these recommendations in your own response to the Environmental Management Commission. Given the vocal opposition expressed during the August 15 EMC public hearing, OWASA urges you to demonstrate Orange County's strong support for the overall package of reclassifications and regulations. We strongly disagree with those speakers who felt that "minimum standards" should be no more protective than the requirements for WS -IV watersheds. Orange County is blessed with high quality water. We believe the state standards should promote their protection, rather than degradation. The future welfare and economy of Orange County will depend on preserving our water resources now. In particular, we ask you to support the proposed WS -II classification for the Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds, which provide the drinking water for more than 55,000 citizens in southern Orange County. We are disappointed that Alamance County has requested Cane Creek to be classified only as WS -III. Even with a WS -II designation, there will be a relaxation of some of the present WS -I protection standards. An Equal Opportunity Employer Orange Water and Sewer Authority Comments to Orange County Commissioners and Planning Board August 26,.1991 Page 2 Both House Bill 156 and Section .0104(k) of the state regulations allow the EMC to "designate water supply watersheds or portions thereof as critical water supply watersheds and impose management requirements that are more stringent than the minimum statewide water supply . . . requirements." In order to preserve the status of University Lake, both OWASA and Chapel Hill have asked the EMC to designate University Lake as a Critical Water Supply Watershed, as provided by state statute and regulations. We believe that the 1969 Camp Dresser and McKee report and the stringent zoning and subdivision requirements adopted last year by Orange County and Carrboro solidly document University Lake's need for protection that goes beyond the "statewide minimum." I am aware that Critical Water Supply Watershed designation is easily confused with the critical areas delineated around each water supply. Critical Water Supply Watershed designation, as provided by state law, would reinforce the Camp Dresser McKee and Orange County recommendation that the entire University Lake watershed be treated as a critical area. Such designation by the EMC would help protect the currently strong University Lake program from future actions that might weaken it. Similar protection may be needed for Cane. Creek, depending in part on the findings of a special analysis that OWASA plans to sponsor during the 1992 -93 fiscal year. Although it's unlikely that the EMC will designate either University Lake or Cane Creek as Critical Watersheds until after completing the reclassification process and after reviewing our current local standards and ordinances, OWASA urges the County to support this request now in order to emphasize to the EMC the importance that Orange County places on its water supp -lies. Regarding stream buffers around new development, you'll note that we asked the EMC to extend the 100 foot buffer, requirement to all perennial and intermittent streams in WS —II wate- rsheds shown on USGS topographic maps. Present state rules apply only to permanent streams. Although Orange County's and Carrboro's r r Orange Water and Sewer Authority Comments to Orange County Commissioners and Planning Board August 26, 1991 Page 3 standards generally provide the protection we seek for all streams, the Chatham and Alamance County ordinances do not. Strengthening the statewide minimum would bring the Chatham and Alamance buffer requirements closer to those of Orange County. Although many developers represented by the North Carolina Homebuilders Association claim that the state regulations fail to control agricultural pollution, and many groups favor stricter control of farmers, OWASA believes that the most effective protection from agricultural pollution will come not through regulation, but through voluntary collaboration between farmers and utility providers. During the past six years, OWASA has reimbursed thousands of dollars to Orange County's many conservation minded farmers installing best management practices for cropland and animal waste. We plan to continue this assistance to these front line stewards of our watersheds. Nevertheless, OWASA supports the EMC's proposed requirements governing certain agricultural practices in water supply watersheds. Furthermore, we believe that the rule requiring vegetated buffers of at least ten feet around all agricultural activities and requiring special BMPs for animal operations greater than 100 animal units should apply to perennial waters throughout WS —II watersheds, and not just within the one mile Critical Area. Watersheds such as University Lake and Cane Creek typically include agricultural activities that may be significant pollution sources, and need to be regulated accordingly. Cattle manure does not belong in our drinking water supplies. OWASA will work cooperatively with Orange County's farmers to eliminate this pollution. OWASA appreciates the opportunity to provide input as you prepare your comments to the Environmental Management Commission. Please feel free to contact our staff for any further information. '40�111: P -0;?6 - 9/ WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sourees and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zouf aly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C.--27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions. -in the future. We ask _the Orange Couat.y_.Board of_ Commissioners to _support these regu- lations and urge t )aat they be included in the Boardys= comments to EMU, i /� 13 WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zbufaly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions.in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. -11 .3a G 1 Al . A 0 L� E IIA I a d 641 i V ,T r C1, L :le"J ....J '• i t 4, t ,' c, r . , 42,1 r6 WORM -2q CTI —�y71 � p WAI 96 00- g 16 a WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct_hearings'pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the propos- ed.statewide reclassi- fication of water "supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zoufaly, DEM, F.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. - 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. 19 %L' 73-10 L 71-/a WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners wIllc:conduct- _hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zoufaly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C.:127626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm,' New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lakes special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local,actions..in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. T t + :h, � J WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct - hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zoufaly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local:actions- .in.the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. ��SSiC4- Cre�ne� CUNC -Cf IAI rvvtrMeafc,� (.��d�tf�+oic✓L r — ut, -- C44 f' 1 -dam CN . N C cH� w 4 C.t, .�,.c. a -7,5 (�{ r WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zoufaly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7 :30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. ---I- r lf-4 / 1. AA �VYle.c� _Alcma_�LPJ a Nc -c N- WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection. Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zouf aly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for :Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program Is not weakened by local actions in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. U CC. I, cJ�1C� vet-? c ~Cif WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st; Steve Zoufaly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C.-27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7;30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. cj— cx-,O C r M WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct:.hearizigs pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st.: Steve Zoufaly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions..in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. Im 3a Y fry_ C_',a". �-Y " c-, /--/ C9,7 9,-7 X-� C 10\ H- „e 0-to /000 Smi� (eves , r')rtD -/U `7(.9`7 WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zouf aly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C.-27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. . We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek waterpheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study.. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local: actions. In the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. 4V1kME 437wo!55 . �l �s l61 z4K /f% 1-?# /// err. C /� 77P -6 — yp3 �, Caw.�w "4j. 443 `� Gll • hd-n . e . kx Cfl y2 r ?2,16 V 09ro �h_7040 WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will conduct..hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zouf aly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. - 27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. . We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local actions -.in the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. 96� -7gr� ` g�Z /r l w L/ . u i W, or 11111 rK AIA KIP ?G 7- J/il'ry E /6 &6 21K All �lyG. R 3 .s .spre —rAA3 4 WATERSHED REGULATIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION STATEWIDE HEARINGS - AUGUST 1991 The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will -:conduct_.hearings pursuant to HB 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The EMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum regulations adopted in December, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted through October 31st: Steve Zouf aly, DEM, P.O.Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C.-'27626. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 26, 7 :30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. We support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We support recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area, as documented by the CDM study. Due to this lakets special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University Lake program is not weakened by local:actions- in `the future. We ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge that they be included in the Board's comments to EMC. k le _3 ram - 1%L_C - /f3 Al [. a %k V3 X&3 -1 I?Ay3 ,. Y 'i '' RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PROTECTING ATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (91- 7- $/R -14) WHEREAS, the council of the Town of Chapel Hill requested on July 9, )990 by Resolution 90- 7 -9/R -6 that the Environmental Management Commission consider special standards for specific watersheds; and AMEREAS, the water supply rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission on December 13, 1990 include a provision at 15 IVCAC 28 .0104 (k) which allows the Commission to designate critical U)ater supply watersheds; W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel. 11 that the Council requests the Environmental Management Commission to: WaF Designate University Lake watershed as a critical. water supply tershed, with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussions among the local governments involved; and P After completion of appropriate technical studies by the Orange ter and Sewer Authority (now tentatively scheduled for Fig 1992 - q3), that the Commission consider designating Cane creek watershed As a critical water supply watershed if supported by the conclusions of the study. -11his the 6th day of July, 1991, D ? /V/117 AUG 2 21 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CENTER -'71 PESTicide EDucation project 115 West Main Street Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Allen Spilt. Director Telephoe: 919/967 -1886 John Link, Manager Ore County P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Watershed Hewing Dear Mr. Link: August 19, 1991 Thank you for scheduling a hearing on the state's Proposed Watershed Classifications and Standards for August 26th. I will not be able to attend but wanted to submit some information for consideration by the commissioners and staff as comments are prepared by the county.. Enclosed please find a copy of comments submitted to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on behalf of the non - profit Agricultural Resources Center and the citizens group Protect Our Water. We believe it is important for Orange County, which has done so much to protect its water supplies, to comment to the EMC on their proposed revisions to watershed protection rules and on the proposed classifications for local watersheds. We are pleased that the county is planning to do so. We hope that the comments will offer strong support for the rules and for the classifications proposed for the county's watersheds. I understand that the deadline for comments has been extended by the state to October 31, WAN would appreciate it if you would share this letter and these comments with the Commissioners. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, At Allen Spilt Director cx: Moses Carey, Chair, Board of Commissioners 1.► o iq rloi hi ',)10(11 9b I 1 OA(i �a'`,,r. � � y, Writ }w�c .. •]:I:I::•i` "'i {,! . •'r�0•�' 'l`: �`. ,.will i I toll 1. -1'';! � {! {f-[�(l'�:r'1., :1';'Ir '.,'l�'�. . :I�.:�.lr, ., i,,,. {rt(Y "�ifr•�t) (: {; •..1 {tyI �YV� I rj„' }��iIII rA � , �.'' + . I' . ,: t.j 1 i. 't;� -. +''!I�f(I ' ?q, { ,I�, «Yi{t.r; li; {, •�.. - „I «:{ i, ;[ <,�;,f. , .R'',Ir' i -i! ,,.1�• ,,.. '!'ll•I' t�!� 'i {�I'�•� i!'' !I! ";�a {''I�+i' 1i! pit, f�il -� ., f °l� ",y� �. .,I� r Y•,11, .. -•4u �1•i,i7�c� fin !Li °rIt F' _.''fly }�� x' +,li.l .I! '!�� I+ !'•1••.It�R}Il`' n }, ,., i { { ..I ^H], !f7t•{ i�'..';Cv.�E':� J ) r ` ?' +' .. !'� ait?'r' ih'M'1 ,, af.it'.;If r- .;+.:1' }• .! I} ter,} «:Ir, 3, l f .j •'r��r;�- Yj''fl„ I..,; r, i, .•,II. 't!� 1 �i�c., ,,1" . ^1;.;i "'' �.!['NJ {.'7 '! ;l n}F.I .- !1.,17t rl. •.v Ism I'1,,. :! .ail r?4r1 G' .v t JPC„ ?11iu'1 +: ' , 6 •1.,1 ", I41 • {'61�c' i13ii;, .. it�l•'ir1.�; iri}';T %J' _ la- 1r•1.:'� . •1•h!Y.} ,'1!8- If'.+ :`��:a�` "� J AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CENTER PESTicide EDucation project 115 West Main Street Carrboro, North Carolina 21610 919/967 -1 886 COMMENTS TO THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS August 19, 1991 Please adept these comments by Allen Spalt, Director of the Agricultural Resources Center (ARC) and its PESTicida EDucation project (PESTed), a private, non- profit public interest organization with offices in Carrboro and Raleigh which is particularly interested in the effects of agriculture on water quality. These comments are made on behalf of ARC /PESTed and Protect Our Water ( POW), citizens of Carrboro and Orange County concerned about watershed protection. Thank you for the opportunity.to comment to the Environmental Management Commission ( EMC) on proposed amendments to rules for surface water supply watersheds [ 15A NCAC 26.0101, .0104, .0202, .021 1, &.03011 under House Bill 156 [GS 143- 214.5 -61. It is a year since we testified in support of strong watershed protection standards before this commission. We were pleased that the EMC adopted rules in December, 1990 to carry out the mandate of HB -156 which offered significant protection to the state's surface water supplies. The EMC is to be commended for those rules. They are not overly burdensome and deserve a chance to operate. We are dismayed, however, that we must come back so soon asking you to maintain the rules which are now threatened by short - sighted pressure from special interest groups. The current rules are not perfect, but they are better in almost every respect than the proposed modifications. If anything, the rules should be strengthened, not relaxed. Oeneral Comment: The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM's) Public Information Package asked for comments,'bn areas you would like to see remain the same or become more stringent as well as those that you feel should become more flexible." [p.31 Please consider these comments a request for all areas not specifically addressed below "to stay the same or become more stringent." We do not oppose "flexibility "in principle, but we do oppose it where it is used as a euphemism for weakening needed levels of protection. Specific Comments: The following comments are on specific changes as proposed: _0101 (c) Freshwater Classif!cations: We support the use of four classifications for freshwater water supply watersheds with a gradation of levels of protection ranging from WS -1, for natural and undeveloped watersheds, to WS -IV, for general ly moderately to highly developed ones. We reject totally the view that W3-11 & III are unnecessary and /or too burdensome. It is completely appropriate for the EMC to adopt a hierarchical system with various levels of protection depending on the nature of the watershed, including its present level of development. EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page Z Protection of water supplies through prevention of pollution at its source is much better, much cheaper, and much more certain than clean up or treatment after the fact. Just because WS -IV waters are acceptable to use and drink with appropriate treatment dnas not mean that all watersheds should be allowed to degrade to that level_ .0104(c) Standard for Classification: The Commission should use the criteria of "highest and best use" for classification as originally proposed rather than the proposed "most appropriate" standard. .0104(1) Exemptions: Proposed changes in the this section give the EMC the power to grant exemptions to any section of the rules on a ease -by -case basis for any reason. While exemptions may be necessary in certain cases, such sweeping power is unwise and runs counter to the goals for these rules. Criteria for considering exemptions should be retained, as in the current provision that variances are to assist in obtaining a higher classification. - - -- knowing that exemptions can be made upon a reasonable showing, rather then settling for the "lowest common denominator ". However, if this section is adopted as proposed, it is more likely that it will be seen as an open invitation for interests unhappy with even minimal restrictions on land use in the name of protecting water supplies. The EMC can expect a flood of politically motivated requests for exemptions. .0104(g) Agricultural Activities: As a basic principle of fairness, we believe that agricultural activities should be treated the same as other activities which have the potential for threatening surface water supplies. The proposed changes unnecessarily favor special agricultural interests and subject water supplies to unnecessary risk. It is unwise and inadequate to rely on existing conservation programs to assure protection of surface water. Conventional agriculture is a - -by some measures the -- leading contributor to non -point pollution despite substantial efforts to reduce runoff. Compliance with the 1965 and 1990 farm bills is important, but their provisions are not designed to protect water supply watersheds. It is, for example, folly to presume that such measures are sufficient for pristine WS- I and predominantly undeveloped WS- I I watersheds. Even when conservation plans are adequate, compliance and enforcement often are not. Some operators may be too small to be affected by farm bill provisions. And, as we noted last year, many conservation programs designed to reduce soi 1 runoff involve substantial increased use of pesticides, especially herbicides, which put ground and surface water at risk. This is hardly a trade -off that the EMC should seek. Y PP Agricultural Program (ACS We wholehearted) support the NC Cost Share Pr P) and encourage farmers to participate in it. It is, however, important to note its limitations. Despite great interest and support from the General Assembly, the program is voluntary, underfunded, and unable to serve all the farmers who seek to participate. In some areas it is essentially a demonstration program. "Encouraging" use in the program, which is all the proposed rules would require, is inadequate and does nothing to protect watersheds from those unable or unwilling to participate. Performance is what is needed. If the goal to protect water supplies is to be met, there must be stronger incentives than just "encouragement" for farmers in water supply watersheds to use effective BMP's. The rules should require demonstration that agricultural activities provide the equivalent protection of the 100 foot buffer which is required for other activities. if that can be achieved with a smaller buffer, and with cost - sharing; so much the better. We urge expansion of the cost -share program with an emphasis on the reduction of the use of ag chemicals which threaten water supplies. EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page 3 We support the establishment of a buffer for agricultural activities but believe that setting it at a mere 10 feet is grossly inadequate. The rules should require a nominal 100 foot buffer, the same as for other activities, with the provision that it can be reduced in practice by the use of BMP's which provide an equivalent level of protection. The proposal for only a ten foot buffer, besides perpetuating the appearance of special provisions for agriculture, increases pressures for other interests to seek reduced buffers thereby further diluting needed protection. The proposal to require BMP's only for "animal operations with more than 100 animal units" is also inadequate. BMP's should be required for all animal operations in water supply watersheds. Many small operations add up to as big a problem as one larger one, and controls for small operations need not be extensive or expensive. The ACSP may also provide some assistance. We believe the process for developing the proposed changes for agricultural operations was seriously flawed. DEM's Public Information Package states that, because of comments received at last year's hearing, "the EMC instruct[ed] the DEM staff to review [agricultural] activities and -fit- meetings with representatives from [agricultural] groups tadiscuss possible protection measures." [p. 9] Whatever review and meetings took place, the process was selective at best. ARC, among other agricultural groups, was not informed, contacted, consulted, or invited to any meetings on the subject despite the fact that we have expressed concerns about the impact of agricultural operations, testified at last year's hearings, and submitted written comments on the subject a year op. .01040) Cooperation Among Jurisdictions: This section provides encouragement for cooperative efforts among jurisdictions to protect water supplies. Since it is common for water supplies for one community to be located in the jurisdiction of another, such action is much needed to be commended. However, the proposed rules inappropriately stop neighborliness at the state's borders. Classification of waters where the downstream users are out of state are to be downgraded so as to not interfere with development within North Carolina. [Public Information Packet, p. 5.1 Being good neighbors should apply as much to folks out of state as It does to those in adjacent watersheds within NC. Or have we determined that we don't need "foreigners" cooperation to protect any of our water supplies? .0104(n) Road Construction: The proposed rules take a step forward in requiring the Department of Transportation ( DOT) to follow best management practices. However, BMP's as developed by DOT in its "Water Supply Watershed Best Management Practices" document are, inadequate. They do not, for example, require such obvious practices as limitations on applications of pesticides, including herbicides, in regulated watersheds. Use of these chemicals, many of which are known water contaminants, is inconsistent with water supply watersheds. Regulation of fertilizers to prevent excessive nutrification from runoff is also needed. Construction of new or expanded roads and bridges in critical watersheds has important water quality consequences. The EMC should require an environmental review for all such construction in regulated watersheds as many, including ARC and the Triangle J Council of Oovernments (COO), recommended last year. The purpose such assessments is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives and consequences are considered and to allow a more informed public debate for the benefit of decision makers. .0104(s) Existing Development: The definition of "existing development" is too broad. It should not include all "projects with a recorded plat or areas zoned" by the date of these hearings. EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page 4 .0104(u) Forestry Activities: Forestry activities should be subject to the same type of requirements and equivalent buffers as other activities with the potential to threaten water supplies. They should not be permitted in WS -I and severely restricted in critical areas of other watersheds. Following the NC.Forest Practice Ouidelines, as the draft proposal would require, is a step forward and should provide substantial protection to water supplies and partially remove the forestry exemption from the state's sedimentation laws. We applaud the efforts of the NC Division of Forest Resources and the NC Forestry Association in cooperating to develop and implement the Forest Practice Ouidelines. It is important, however, to recognize their limitations. The standards only apply to tree harvesting not to other forestry operations, including land clearing and pesticide applications, and need substantial increased financial support for technical assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. As with the case of agricultural operations, the new House Bill 124, which prohibited localities from regulating forestry activities more strictly than the state, clearly intended for the state to take sufficient action protect water supplies. The EMC should do so. ..0202( 14) Critical Areas: The rules should retain the one mile limit for defining critical areas. The EMC is to be commended for accepting one mile, instead of the original proposal for one -half mile, in the adopted rules. Any less would be inadequate. Engineering studies show that even 1 mile is not enough for some important watersheds. .0202(39) Protected Area: The existing S and 10 mile limits should be retained. Boundaries should follow ridge lines and natural watershed boundaries to the greatest extent possible. Substituting, "major landmarks such as highways or property lines" for natural boundaries should be the exception granted only after a clear demonstration of need. .021 1 { d){ 3)(B)(ii)(I I) BMP's in Critical Areas: The existing section with this designation, which prohibits engineered storm water controls in critical areas of WS -I I watersheds, should be retained. Intensive development, including cluster development, which requires structural BMP's is inappropriate in critical areas of WS -I i water supply watersheds. .0211 (d)(3)(13)(1XV) Maintenance of BMP's: Because operation and maintenance of engineered storm water controls is so important, and because the track record of private owners of such facilities is so poor, public inspection and maintenance of such BMP's are critical to protecting water supply watersheds from adverse effects of development. Public ownership would provide an even greater margin of safety. This section and similar ones for WS -111 & IV should be maintained and strengthened Alternative Community Sewage Systems: The performance record of community waste water treatment systems is so poor that they should not be allowed in water supply watersheds. The economics of such systems does not allow sufficient supervision and maintenance to achieve acceptable routine performance. The state, despite its best efforts, is unable to monitor and Inspect such systems often enough to ensure compliance -- inspections average only once in 5 years! The risk of failure poses too great a risk to public water supplies to be consistent with their use Community systems should be prohibited in WS -I I watersheds. Landfills: Landfills should not be allowed in WS -11 watersheds. They are not compatible with the needed level of protection of public health and safety. Sludge Applications: The use of sludge is inappropriate in high quality watersheds. Caution is required for the use of any sludge. Composition, quantity, and location of application sites are all critical to the appropriate use of sludge. Sludge applications should be prohibited in WS-1,11 & I I I watersheds. Controls on the composition, quantity and location should be required. e tia i EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS page 5 Water and Sewer Lines :. The history of intensive development is the history of extension of utilities. The only sure way to permanently control the extent of development in water supply watersheds is to limit the extension of water and sewer lines. Sewer lines should not be allowed in the critical area of WS -I I watersheds. Carrboro has developed what might serve as a model policy on the extension of utilities consistent with the protection of water supplies. It addresses questions of the sizing of lines, location in relation to existing service and sensitive areas, and only allows extensions to relieve an existing public health emergency. Classification of Watersheds: We support the classification of watersheds according to their highest and best use. In particular, we support classification of University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoirs in Orange County as proposed WS -11. ( Though we regret the unnecessary loss of their old WS--I classifications, an actual and psychological downgrading.) We note the special character of Morgan Creek, which requires protection as a unique Piedmont resource. We support classification of Lake Michie and other Durham watersheds as WS --11. We support classification of Falls Lake as WS -III. We support classification of the whole of Jordan Lake as WS -IV. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Agricultural Resources Center, PESTicide EDucation project, and Protect Our Water support the Environmental Management Commission's efforts to implement the worthy goals of House Bill 156 thorough the adoption of the strongest possible watershed protection rules. We applaud the efforts to date in adopting good regulations; they need time to work and to prove themselves. We regret the need to revisit the watershed regulations adopted so recently and strongly urge the Commission to resist pressures to significantly weaken levels of protection in the current rules., There is always room for adjustment, and there are Places where the rules need to be strengthened, but this is no time to begin to dismantle them. We urge the EMC to hold fast to high standards for each of the four levels of watershed protection proposed. The Commission's job has been made more difficult by the combination of hearings on the nature of each of classification together with particular classifications for each watershed. Opposition to a proposed classification may result in calls to weaken standards for an entire classification. We urge you to resist such pressure in the name of protecting the public health and safety by assuring clean water. Diluting protection for all watersheds in a classification in order to deal with complaints about a particular one would be a poor trade -off. Prevention of pollution through strong watershed protection is by for the best, and cheapest, long -term policy for North Carolina. . Thank you for your consideration of these comments. AS. rev. 8.19.91 I .k r -NIC'o Newly Proposed Watershed Protection Rules Problems & TJCQC's R commendations T) Fwlsting Devclopment - Dciinition and Grandfatbering dhAFT �r1/2, _,Z�; s,� 6 Currently, the dcfi or under construcllon ( with si6nifirant rcaollrces "Fended ) or projects platted by 9 /30/91. This definition will be used to clpgiify watershc -ds; - Local govcrnmcnts arc to brim existir+ noA -LM( rmi usi :s i►tl0 �`currYliantti as practicable; and - All ncw.P&tiyi.ky is to comply with the watershed proLectioll rules. The proposed definition of existing development is compleW.0 developinent, platted developinctitt and zoned develpoVment tts Of the closing _date of is : f!uV i r tO 1991). This definition would be used to classify waLershods tL _ rondfather or exempt ftycloLynent fresm +1,r 1 paters cd rr&ction regulations, Pr ON 1. It i5 tnapproprialc io tisc existing zortirrg of Vacant laral either• to ClassifyYrx:lC►5hcdt' or to exempt d�zrelojirnenl from rules. 2, l_)cfirr.ir:s zoning as existing develoim+ent for- the put posers of lhcsc rule , muy Na u burl l-,-gal precedent for local s;o.}crrznret :is' fi�turez rc�t.iatoryactinnq. 3. The Soplcneber30th i1wi linernnim arve:rul probleyns. Flnit It would be difffctell, if riot intpoz;siblc, fur lucxrl Smerntrronis io invenfory cornplefed deucloptirm1, platied i+roja:l , anus zorted lund Ly Selrtr nbcr 0th. Second, ihough local gover•rtruents must eorrrply untie the rules for +:ll uGtivilic5 IWS -ttn after SeTternber 30111, theij will not know how th dr watcrrihM is classilied or tvhal rules apply until July 1,1;392. rinally, as written, the rules may pid local gover•rrrrrents in a IegaI or polilical bind; tfiotgh Ow rules say it ae elopntrnl niust cotnpl y with the u+afershed protection rules beginning Se pleinbe'r 301h, rurw local governinents have froth Jr4li 1993 to January 1994 to adopl Choir, local ordirkow s (cLependhi on the size of tltt Slrtce Ic)r:ulSuuernnrratt5 must Approve r protVsed projects that mcci current ordirrancr s; tlwy could riot reiluire to cur"Plt/ urltl: regulations d ,fo adoption by that jurisdiction. The ru.lew o f for a difficrult Hulutiun to this bind: If a local goverwiient t41Yprrit,d i a "rzc,n-c :orz fonnin use," it rrit[y t offset the irnlraets by implertsertfing more stringent ragifI reincrtls elsewhcrr in. the wuto-shed. RF•.CQMMM11A.TIONTe Revise the roles as follows. 0104(s) Existing develops -m%L, as defined for the purpose of these rulest rnealts projects already completed or in progress as dcmonetrated by SignlfiCant re50urcc6 havin& beeat expr•c1Qcd on the project, or prejccts with a recorded plat praivar, fpl- stn T1 1 a Ttlly L19__92.. Note: Triangle J recommends ootabbshinsd a vesLed rl6lrl duadline as early as leEally possible to avoid -a rush" of plan approvals which would not meet the spirit of the law. 2) New Development - Compliance wiLh Rll1cA and Vur)'axiceo The C1srrent rules Allow exemptlorts of minor non- conforinln6 uses prior to reclassification in order to achieve a higher Classification; after classification, nc.w devclopinent is required to uJinply with the rufos beginnins September 30, 1991. The proposed rules would Allow exemptions for non- confori7'cin6 uw.s prior to tincl rrftCr reclassificaLlon. 1ED FROM 9195499390 t 08.26.1991 11 +03 P. 1 a DRAFT These exemptions would be approved on a case -by -case basis by the EMC. As discussed above in the proposed rules, .if a local government permits a non - conforming activity after reclassification, it would be required to offset the impacts by implementing more stringent rewire mcnis somewhere else in the watershed. 1.7'hottgh ati exetttlttioti procedure is needed, pctil ioning the .EMC for every mirror exemption will pose an administrative burden for the EMC (arid backlogs) and be cunibersoinc for, local governments. ?. The of fs:rt provisions do not require equal water quality protection. 3. Local gavermmnels can not require developers to cong7ly with regulations prior to adoption by that jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION Delegate authority to local governments to make minor exemptions based on criteria adopted by the EMC, Require the local government to notify other potential interested local governments and pro - Ode an appeals procedure. The EMC would continue to have complete authority over major exemp- tions. Revise the rules as follows: .0104 (1) Exemptions may be allowed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis for occurrences of non - conforming uses prior to reclassification in order to obtain a higher classification or by the Commission at the request of local government on a case -by -case basis after reclassification. f..ocal ;ovcrnn►ents may 4ly ��q x�mp i i } . anclaxd� rQntall)ed herein bastd u 1 Qn criteria approved by the EMC. The xxc tlon criteria END include all,..j)_utjj9 c limited j!D flit' followin"Ahe -W 1 cause p praCtIcal _Dn.tl}e rop r • 2 ) jhC c2ndition Is 32cguliar to the RlopuLy :3) the condition could not hie been foreaeen bythc, f.MS1n.,�lippting th cs I ules: And9), the propose tionin}tgs to meet the si�ir 1t��llrp,. &Vsi Intent of these rules. N'VbgZM gXCa =jjjProposed. the local governilimt rdiall- notify and allow a reasonable coinmeutgerjQd for u,ers of the wafer sup 121v and oflj!�r jqrhdlctl on s YAJ th In Ib e w atershe area v rn d by c arsons ma, anneal the Exemn�,�ecisinns to the EMC. .0104 (t) Commencement of new activities ... as ofjjgj;y„j„ 19921 or [the date the local c =rnment ,&pfs watershed protection regulations cojUl with these, rulesl ..shall comply with the requiremeent of these rules. (Note: Again, the Committees recommend the earliest possible legal date.) Since some areas of a watershed influence water quality more than others, we recommend that the EMC -evise the offset provision to require that local governments adopt more stringent land uses in similar areas of the N, rshc. to provide no net loss of water quality protection. ;3) Agriculture, Silviculture, and Transportation The existing rules reflect gPntral policies, encouraging best iruanagement practices for agricultural, 3ilvicultural, and transportation activities in drinking water supply watersheds. The proposed rules are more specific. For instance, "The Department of TriuLsportation shall use EMP's -3utlined in its document entilled, "Water Supply Watershed BMP's." This document indicates that the Department shall provide sufficient areas for containment of hazardous spills within critical areas, ?romolc infiltration by using riprap instead of concrete ditches, limit grading operations, inspect, clean Ufti t iFT And maintain erosion control devices annually, etc. "Silviculture activities are required to implement the provisions of the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality." The proposed rules require agricultural activities to comply with existing federal laws. In addition, in critical areas, agricultural activities would need to have a 10 -foot vegetated buffer along all perennial waters; and animal operations, greater than 100 animals, must employ BMP's recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1. The State and local governments do not have adequate staff to enforce current sedimentation and erosion control laws; these rules add new requirements without adding new staff, 2. An Agricultural Extension Agent told Triangle I that these rules would be difficult for small dairy famiers who would need to build ferues to provide buffers for the streams and to Guild new watering source-; for their livestock. RECOMMENDATION Though these sections may need revisions to make them more work=able, Triangle j believes that the 1.MC has taken steps in the right direction by addressing pollution from agriculture, silviculture, and transportation activities - significant contributors to runoff pollution, (4) Discharges & Stormwater The proposed rule states that in areas where some category of a new wastewater discharge is prohibited (such as domestic discharges), expansions of existing discharges of that category will be allowed if there Js no increase in the pollutant loading.. The wastewater discharge approach adds flexibility, at the same time providing for no net loss of water quality protection. 1. Federal regulations require state and local governments to begin tradting stormwater as a discharge, requiring 'a permit for storrnwater running off a particular Fite. The proposed rules, however, do not provide the same lcxibility forstormwater "discharges " as they do for other discharges. 2. The requirement for wet detention ponds controlling the first 1 " of runoff may preclude other runoff control measures that, far a given site, may provide equal or more zuater duality protection. RECOMMENDATION Apply the performance- based approach to all discharges, including stormwater. Revise the rules as follows., b211(e)(3)(i)IV; 0211(e)(3)(101I1; 0211(f)(3)(i)IV; &. 0211(f)(3)(WIll J Add; control runoff front the first Inch of rainfall QLpLrQyjdF, Cg nt Wat 12rottction ULYUAUW _ measures thrmh ureservatlon oL na a aj 9 =Sjwalga,, construe f w . g� 14 ­ .4".11 + y r 3) Roads 'lie rules include "roads" in the definition of built upon area. AMch roads are to be included in the calculation: all, some, or practically tro roads? The literal translation of the ales would mean inlerslate, freeways, collectors, a.S ufcll as subdivision and local roads. From a water quality' rspective, this would provide the mosi protection, addressing a major source of pollutant runoff. From a develop- nent Perspective, this would penalize property owners adjnarit to major state and federal roads. n implementing these rules, the IDW staff had envisioned correcting this inequity by excluding all state roads *orn the calculation. However, since most subdivhi iorr and other "local" roads arc built to state standards and urned over to the stale for maintenance, the rules in effect would exempt practically all roads. A third approach is to exmipt rmds identified ct5 major, minor, orlreecoays on locally adopted fhoroghfare (flans, -,hich excludes Subdivision: or so- called local roads. This middle ground approach, while addressing the equity ,sue and providing more proiection than DEAD "s method, effcctivtly e.venipis the major sources of highway runoff . :ECOMMENDATION 'dangle ) debated the merits of each of these approaches but Was divided in its conclusions. Clearly, he LMC needs to work on this issue. I- T -� - k -,26 -,?/ WATERSHED PROTECTION: PROCEDURES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY ADDENDUM A number of actions or interpretations relating to the Water Supply_ Watershed Protection Act (WSWPA) have occurred since the completion of the Planning Department report on July 15. The purpose of this addendum is to provide an overview of each item, identifying potential problems or implications for the County. These items can be grouped into three areas: 1. LEGISLATION DELAYING ENACTION OF WSWPA The background section of the watershed report mentions two bills that were pending in the General Assembly at the time of the report. Both bills were enacted shortly thereafter, and a legislative conference committee merged the language in both bills into one version. The effect of this legislation is to delay the two actions mandated by the WSWPA. The first action to occur was the EMC's classification of all water supply watersheds in the state. Preliminary classifications were presented by DEM in late May, and the current round of public hearings across the state are in part to receive public comment on these rankings. This action was to have occurred by January 1, 1992. The adopted legislation now provides that the EMC shall have adopted final classifications on all water supply watersheds by July 1, 1992, a delay of six months. The subsequent action in this process is the submittal by local governments of adopted water supply watershed protection plans. These plans must, at a minimum, meet the provisions of the EMC rules and standards for the watershed classification adopted. Prior to the legislative delays, this action was to have occurred by July 1, 1992. The new legislation now provides that local governments shall submit watershed protection plans to the EMC on a staggered basis, with three local government categories. All municipalities over 5,000 persons ... By July 1, 1993. All municipalities under 5,000 persons..By October 1, 1993. .............. This in effect means that Orange County has an extension of 18 � i. months to submit adopted plans to the EMC for the 11 watersheds (or portions thereof) in its jurisdiction. Actual adoption of the plans by the County would need to occur by late -1993. 2. ADDITIONS /MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES The NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources published new proposed watershed "minimum rules" on June 14 for public hearing. These changes represent both additions and deletions to the existing minimums. These changes fall into four broad categories: A. Definition of Existing Development The original definition of "existing development" as adopted by the EMC is development - projects in ro ress with si nificant resources a1read -expended o the project, or ro'ects platted by January 1 1991. The proposed new definition of existing development would be completed development, platted development and zoned development. This definition would be used for two purposes: to classify watersheds, and to grandfather or exempt development from the proposed regulations. The significant addition here is that of "zoned development ". Although the proposed "minimum rules" are somewhat vague, it appears that undeveloped land zoned for a particular density or type of land use could be exempted from the rules and permitted to develop under current zoning. This provision could have a profound impact on watersheds such as Cane Creek, Back Creek, and Haw Creek. One suggested alternative is the substitution of "vested rights" qualifications to define existing development rather than the existence of zoning for undeveloped land. B. New Development Variances and Rules The current "minimum rules" language allows exemption of minor non- conforming uses prior to reclassification in order to achieve a higher watershed classification. After a watershed is classified, all new development is required to comply with the minimum rules. The new proposed language would allow exemptions for non - conforming uses prior to and after reclassification - to be approved by the EMC on a case -by -case basis. Questions have been raised in this area regarding the cumulative effect of such exemptions and the allowance of exemptions after classification has been completed. C. New Provisions for Agriculture and Transportation Essentially, the new rules proposed in this area replace current language encouraging the use of "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) in water supply watersheds with new language that is stronger. The Department of Transportation will be required to use BMP's in providing sufficient areas for spill containment, using riprap as opposed to concrete ditches, limiting grading operations and inspecting all devices at least annually. Of more interest to rural areas are the provisions for agriculture. The new proposed rules require agricultural activities to comply with existing Federal laws. In addition, all agricultural activities within critical areas of a water supply watershed would be required to have a 10 -foot vegetated buffer along all perennial waters. Further, all animal operations greater than 100 animals in critical areas must employ BMP's recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The agricultural measures have generated substantial comment. Beyond the questions of inflexibility and expense for farmers is another issue - what governmental entity has the power to enforce these regulations for agriculture? (Agricultural operations are exempted from county zoning powers by state law). D. Wastewater Discharge Flexibility The proposed rules have added a section that would allow expansions of existing dischargers in a water supply watershed where new dischargers are prohibited - provided there is no increase in pollutant loading. The primary issue here seems to be how pollutant - loading would be measured. 3. "NEW" INTERPRETATIONS OF WATERSHED RULES The watershed "minimum rules" adopted by the EMC in December 1990 and new provisions added on June 14 are both written with a significant level of flexibility that can inhibit specific interpretation of the rules. There are two areas where a "different" interpretation of the intent of the rules has been recognized or put forward. One such interpretation resulted from a unintended deletion on an initial summary of the rules, and the other has been recently suggested by a staff person from the Division of Environmental Management. Neither interpretation was known at the time of the staff report. The first position relates to the linkage of density of development and impervious surface controls in WS -II (Predominantly Undeveloped) watersheds. Original summary rules indicated that new development in WS -II watersheds would be required to have an lrw -.W, -. overall density of development less than 1 unit per 2.0 acres of land, AND a limit of 6% on impervious surfaces. This linkage of density and impervious surfaces is a common one used by many local governments in the area (including Orange County). This "minimum rule" has recently been clarified, however, to require EITHER two -acre lots OR a 6% impervious surface cap as a minimum for protecting water quality. The effect of this clarification is that a two -acre minimum lot size is not necessarily required. Local governments can instead impose a 6% impervious surface cap on all new development. Such a cap would limit houses on a 40,000 square foot lot to 2400 square feet of impervious surface (including driveways and other appurtenances). In addition, is should be noted that all of the state's rules are "minimums ", which might be superseded by local governments which opt for a higher level of low density land use protective measures. The second interpretation involves non - residential development in Class WS -II and WS -III watersheds. Currently, the rules appear to limit new non - residential development to a maximum of 10% of the watershed - allowing such uses to.have a built -upon area of 70 %. At a recent Triangle J COG meeting, a representative of DEM suggested that this might be interpreted so as not to place a cap on non - residential development - as long as the development met the impervious surface requirements of the minimum rules. It is unclear at this time whether this will be the position of the EMC as well. CONCLUSION The EMC's regional public hearing on August 15 in Raleigh generated a tremendous amount of participation - such that the EMC plans to schedule a second hearing for the area. Because of this, the EMC has extended its deadline for receiving written comment in the hearing process to October 31, 1991. The issues defined both in the original staff report and in this addendum have significant implications for Orange County in a number of areas. There are external unknowns that will also eventually factor into the equation. Other issues and questions will certainly be raised as the process continues. WATERSHED REPORT PRESENTATION Reason: EMC public hearing process closes Oct 31. County has 11 watersheds to deal with - what will be position? To preovide background and assess implications staff prepared report in July focusing on issues that will require some sort of decision or policy choice by County Commissioners. Copies of sections of the report are avilable at back of room. Purpose of this meeting is to receive citizen comment to be used in formulating county position. Staff is not advocating any position at this time. Information provided is a comparison of current to existing, and identification of alternative actsions Orange County could take. I. STATE MANDATE A. Water Sugnly Watershed Protection Act of 1989 1. Rules adopted 12 -90, we submitted data and req classif, DEM prelim classif 5 -91. 2. Emc to classify by 1 -1 -92, LG's ord by 7 -1 -92. 3. However, bills in assembly will delay classif to 7- 1--92 and County submittal to 1 -1 -94. 4. August 15 public hearing on classif and rules is on B. Types of Classifications 1. WS -I 2. WS -II 3. WS -ITT 4. WS -IV. 5. define critical area C. Highlights of'Proposed Rules 1. WS -I only in mountains. 2. WS-II (2 -ac lots, ISR limits, lim NR) 3. WS -III (2 -AC lots in critical areas - sim to OC) 4. WS -IV (regional, run -of- river, not high prot) 5. (1) Crit area definition changed II. List all watersheds and classifications III. WATERSHED BY WATERSHED A. LOCATION B. RESERVOIRS C. JURISDICTIONS D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES IV.UPPER ENO WATERSHED A. .LOCATION 1. Only wshed all in OC jurisd, actually 5 small wsheds B. RESERVOIRS 1. 2 existing reservoirs, 1 flow augm, 3 proposed C. JURISDICTIONS L d 1. All in OC SKIP D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -III E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -IV (treated entire Eno as one, lg's to req) F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES as shown OC crit areas 80K lots, rest 40K - northern unzoned. Some non -res V. LOWER ENO A. LOCATION 1. OC and Durham CITY /CO - may not exist B. RESERVOIRS 1.. Question about Eno intake C. JURISDICTIONS 1. OC and Durham C/C D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -IV E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF I. WS -IV (if it exists) F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES N/A Zoned 40K lots, some comm/ind areas VI. FLAT RIVER WATERSHED A. LOCATION 1. Mostly Dur and Person, small OC B. RESERVOIRS 1. Lake Michie C. JURISDICTIONS 1. Person, Durham Co, Orange D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -II E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -II (Person disagreed) F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES N/A Unzoned, 40K septic tank requiremnt VII. LITTLE RIVER A. LOCATION 1. Mostly Orange, some Dur (.01% Person) S. RESERVOIRS 1. Little River C. JURISDICTIONS 1. Orange, Durham Co D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -II E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -II F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES N/A (Unless consider CDM study) Unzoned exc small pt in Eno Twp - predom undev VIII. CANE CREEK A. LOCATION 1. Mostly Orange, small Alamance a B. RESERVOIRS 1. Cane Creek C. JURISDICTIONS 1. Orange, Alamance D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS--II E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -II F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES 1. Expanded into Alamance County Alamance wants WS -III - OC crt area 80K, rest 40K IX. UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED A. LOCATION 1. Orange, Carrboro, tiny CH B. RESERVOIRS 1. Univ Lake C. JURISDICTIONS 1. Orange, Carr, CH D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -II E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS--II F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES 1-No, but note more protective than Ws -II Imp surf defined diff X. BACK.CREEK A. LOCATION � T p. 1. Orange, Alamance, Mebane and Haw River B. RESERVOIRS 1. Back Creek resery C. JURISDICTIONS 1. As above D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -II (All but Alamance prop WS -II - they prop III) E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -II F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES Mebane downzoning XI. HAW CREEK A. LOCATION 1. Orange, Alamance, Mebane B. RESERVOIRS 1. Prop Haw Creek resery (OAWS) C. JURISDICTIONS 1. As above D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -IV (all) E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -II F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES Note Mebane ind area and no Alamance zoning. XII. HAW RIVER (Pittsboro intake) A. LOCATION 1. Orange, Chatham, Pittsboro, Alamance B. RESERVOIRS 1. Pittsboro intake at US 15 -501 C. JURISDICTIONS 1. As above D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -III (Chatham III, Alamance IV) E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS -IV F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES 10 --mile arc Zoned 40K - White Cross XIII. JORDAN LAKE A. LOCATION 1. Dur, Chat, Orange, Pitts, Ch Hill, Cary, Apex, Wake B. RESERVOIRS 1. Cary /Apex intake N of US64, others in future C. JURISDICTIONS 1. As above D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -II (Chatham III, Durham & CH IV, Pitts III) E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF 1. WS--IV F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES 5 -mile arc Explain county req class XIV. SOUTH HYCO A. LOCATION 1. Person, Caswell, Orange B. RESERVOIRS 1. Lake near US 158 C. JURISDICTIONS 1. As above D. OC PROP CLASSIFICATIONS 1. WS -III (Person IV, Caswell no form) E. DEM PRELIM CLASSIF IM1RM64 F. CRITICAL AREA CHANGES N/A WALK THRU ISSUES FROM REPORT XV. "UNIVERSAL ISSUES" A. CHANGE IN CRITICAL AREA DEFINITION 1. OUR REGS VS STATE RULES 2. AMEND, OR SPEAK AGAINST ON AUG 15 (PROS STILL AMEND) B. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 1. OUR REGS VS STATE RULES: GRAVEL ROADS 2. AMEND PW -II, INDIV WSHED OVERLAYS, PROPOSE CHGES TO CATEGORIZE ISR'S (COMPLETE VS QUASI -PERV) C. STREAM BUFFERS 1. MUST INCREASE TO 100', ANIMAL OPERATIONS IN CRIT AREAS 2. AMEND ZORD, SCS ADM ANIMAL BUFF, ADOPT INDV OVLY WBUFF D. STORMWATER CONTROLS 1. STRUCTURAL VS NON - STRUCTURAL, LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY 2. ADOPT M &M, KEEP USING LOWDENS, ALLOW BMPS IN WS -IV E. LIMITS ON NON -RES DEV 1. LIM IN WS -II AND WS -III, NONE IN WSIV (ALLOCATE) 2. ALLOCATE TO NODES, RCSC, 1ST SERVE, CONCURRENCY F. CHANGES IN DENSITY 1. WSII 2 -ACRES THRU ALL SHED, WS-III GRIT, CG /LR? 2. DOWNZONE /AMEND WQCA, ADOPT WS ORD IN CG /LR, ZONE CG /LR G. EXISTING LOTS 1. CURR DEFIN, ZONED AS EXISTING - SEE ADDENDUM? 2. ASK EMC TO-AMEND EX DEV - VESTED RIGHTS, PROPOSE CHANGES TO DEFINITION OF EX DEV, WAIT AND SEE H. EQUITY 1. DIFF TO DEFINE, UPSTREAM VS DOWNSTREAM, COMPENSATION? 2. INTERJURISD MTGS, COMPENS FROM DOWNSTREAM, PASS ON COMPENS TO LDOWNRS, COMM A STUDY, ADOPT FOR PUBLIC GOOD I. INTERJURISD DISPUTE RESOL /COOPERATION 1. SOME DISAGREEMTS (PERSON /DURHAM) 2. CALL FOR MTG OF EL OFFCIALS, USE PH PROCESS TO RESOLVE J. IMPLMENT INTO ORD LANGUAGE 1. BIG Q: MATCH EX ORD OR TAKE NEW TACK? 2. (READ FROM REPORT) XVI. WATERSHED SPECIFIC ISSUES (PG 64) A. CRITICAL WATERSHEDS 1. HOW TO JUSTIFY MORE THAN MIN PROT IN UL,CANE,LR& FR? PROPOSED LINKAGE TO TECHN STUDIES 2. CH AND OWASA TO REQ FOR UL AND CANE, DURH TO DO SAME FOR LR /FR PER CDM STUDY? a. JOIN W /OWASA AND CH IN REQ CRIT FOR UL /CANE? b. PROPOSE STUDIES BE COMMISS FOR OTHER SHEDS? c. COUNTY WATER VS NON- COUNTY? d. OPPOSE CRIT AREA DEFIN e. PROPOSE USING EXPAND CRIT AREA APPROACH B. PRORITIZE WATER SUPPLIES (UPPER ENO) 1. WHAT RES TO BE BUILT, CONFLICT W OTHER GOALS. 2. MUST ASK STATE TO SPLIT BASIN IF WANT QUAL CLASSIF 3. QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED (READ) a. PRIRRTIZE b. PROPOSE SPLITTING BASIN TO EMC c. PROPOSE 7 -MILE CREEK STAY WS--IV (LOWER ENO) C. WHAT ABOUT LOWER ENO? 1.DURHAM STAFF PROP NO PROT AREA 2. IF NOT TO BE PROT, NO LOWER ENO SHED. a. IF INTAKE TO BE PROT, ADOPT WSIV MEASURES D. HILLSB COOP PLANNING 1. SMALL PT OF TRANS AREA ANDS LG PT OF RURAL IN LOWER ENO (IF IT EXISTS) a. REQUEST DIFF CLASS? E. COMM /IND NODES IN WSHEDS (UPPER &LOWER ENO, S HYCO) 1. THREE NODES (READ FROM REPORT) a. PROPOSE LOWER CLASSIF FOR S HYCO TO PROT NODE b. PROPOSE LEAVING 7 -MILE CR IN WS -IV TO PROT CHEEKS NODE c. NO ACTION NEEDED FOR ENO i F. UNZONED AREAS 1-CG AND LR UNZONED BUT COV W WSHEDS (COULD BE ALL II) 2. ZONE NOW OR WAIT ON RCSC? a. ZONE INTO PWII (EXISTING) b. ADOPT WS PROT ORD ONLY c. WAIT ON RCSC AND ADAB BEFORE ZONING (IF WS REGS DELAYED THIS COUKLD WORK) G. DIFF OF OPINIONS BETW OC AND STATE ON CLASSIF 1. FIVE WSHEDS DIFF : HAW CR, S HYCO, UPPER ENO 2. IN ADDTN, HAW RIV AND JORDAN.LK RECOMM WAS DIFF DUE TO CONSISTENCY W /STATE GUIDELINES KNOWING STATE DIFF 3. ANY JURISID IN UPPER ENO WANTING HIGHER CLASSIF MUST REQ ON AUG 15. CAN SPLIT WSHEDS. a. MTG OF UPP ENO EL OFFIC, REQUEST RECLASSFICATION b. REQ RECLASS (HAW CR III, SITYCO III, UE II OR III) c. LEAVE AS ARE d. SPLIT CLASSIF FOR HAW CREEK - MEBANE IND AREA H. IMPERV SURFAVE SLIDING SCALE IN ULW 1-STATE DOES NOT REFLECT SLIDING SCALE AS IMPL IN ULW a. REVISE ULW TO REFECT FLAT RATE b. REQ EMC CONSIDER ALLOWING SLID SCALE I. UNC CONCERNS ON JORDAN LAKE 1-UNC S CAMPUS IN JORD LAKE WSIV a. ADVOCACY FOR UNC ON AUG 15? b. TAKE NO ACTION (IN CH JURISID ANYWAY) J. FUTURE WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATIONS 1. 14 JURISID HAVE WATER RIGHTS IN JORD LAKE - INCL OC a. ASK EMC TO STUDY REC USE ON WATER QUAL b. NO ACTION XVII. ORANGE CO HISTORICALLY A LEADER, FACED W SOME CHANGES TO DENSITIES, CRIT AREAS, ZONING OF N WSHEDS AND EQUITY CONCERNS WHAT SHOULD BOCC RECOMM IN: A. DIFF CLASSIFICATIONS (OR SPLITS) A. CHANGES TO RULES B. DEVELOPMT STANDARDS? PLANNING BOARD RECOMM 10 ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO INCORPORATED Orange and Durham Counties, North Carolina 7010 Thunder Mountain, Efland, N. C. 27243 Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Commissioners 3000 W. Tryon Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: GC�L0 D ' SEP 1 31991 ER VALLEY The Eno River Association thanks the Orange County Commissioners for the measures taken in Orange County to secure the health and welfare of its citizens through the careful Protection of the County's water and natural resources. At this time of reclassification of the State's drinking water resources through House Bill 156, the Eno River Association writes to support the designation of the Eno River from the emergency raw water intake at the Nello Teer Quarry in Durham County to Lawrence Road (SR1561) in Orange County as WS -IV B. Currently only the one and a half mile length of river that lies between Roxboro Road (SR 501) and Guess Road (SR 1003) in the City of Durham's Eno River parklands is suggested for a WS -IV B designation. The Association believes that the added protection given to swimmable waters against point source pollution by the B designation should be extended to the entire length of the Eno River parklands, both to the Eno River State Park in Orange and Durham Counties and to the City of Durham's West Point on the Eno.. We believe that the primary classification WS -IV and the supplemental classification B will give the Eno River parklands the maximum protection afforded by the present reclassifications proposed through House Bill 156. It is our understanding that Terry Rolan, Director of Water Resources for the City of Durham, wishes to retain the Nello Teer Quarry as an emergency raw water intake for flood - skimming from the Eno so that a back -up water supply can be stored utilizing the combined waters of Little and Lake Michie in the Nello Teer Quarry after the turn of the century. We applaud this long -range thinking, with its regional implications for Durham and Orange. With this understanding we seek the support of the Orange County Commissioners for a "run -of- the - river" WS -IV B designation from the Nello Teer Quarry in Durham County to Lawrence Road in Orange. We thank you for your consideration. Y!s sincerely Donald N. Cox President cc. Orange County Commissioners Terry Rolan, Director, Durham City Water Resources Paul Norby, Head, Durham City Planning Dr. Phil McKnelly, Director, Divison of Parks and Recreation,EHNR Susan Tillotson, Suptd., Eno River State Park Organized in 1965, and incorporated in 1975 as a tax - exempt, non - profit Corporation to assist federal, state and local agencies to establish public parks along the Eno River Valley, to promote the preservation of the Eno through educational and scientific means, and to cooperate with other local, state and national conservation groups to preserve the environment. :..'�"R