Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-20-2006-c3ORANGE COUNTY BOARD • COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Meeting Date: November 20, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. C.3 SUBJECT: Upper Eno Critical Area Zoning Text Amendments DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Watershed Options 2. Issues relating to mapping of the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Area 3. Proposed Zoning text amendments 4. Minutes of the August 2, and September 6, 2006 Planning Board meetings 5. Map — Upper Eno Critical Area 2006 INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, 245 2592 Glenn Bowles, 245 2577 Michael Harvey, 245 2607 PURPOSE: To consider making amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text regarding the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Areas. BACKGROUND: At their regular meetings of August 2 and September 6, 2006 the Planning Board discussed issues relating to mapping concerns in the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Area. This was requested by the Board of Adjustment whom recently reviewed a case regarding the ambiguity of the watershed text and maps. In addition this issue was to be forwarded to the BOCC. Existing Zoning Ordinance text does not correspond to the map of what the BOCC actually viewed in 1994, when the original watershed regulations were adopted. The Planning Board recommended that the BOCC consider the text revisions, which more accurately reflect the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Area maps adopted in 1994 and also to eventually use the best available technology to change the maps when.upd a*ting the mapped watershed boundaries. Due to other ongoing comprehensive planning land use research, watershed boundary mapping is not proposed to be considered at this time. Options 1, 2, and 3 were discussed with the Planning Board. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct economic impact. Staff time has been accounted for in the departmental budget. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed text amendments (Option 2) be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. Planning T)W%GENE.--2000 Public 70 QPTI'Vipper Eno Too: 2 ca O () C- 0-0 C _ N o 0) 0 :3 0 0 ca ti es a� ?_ z z a) o Iz C) Q- Z u cCL CD C ' U z z �- a) ca O 0) v =3 \ ca \ ca CL j 4p z J + N ® z� �z }z to (U L CY U z >) x a) H a) o 0 0 ca t� M Co C: co >, 7> .c y,U U) C � z -� C —) a) a) vi C a� U) I a) a) U) ca ca Y a) ca E A ca E L U L ` x C UOS 'o 'o O I Co m i o° i N U M '� L _ CL U O p 0 V C/) •�0- N 7+ � N CL CL C 0 rL 00 L- 00C O�� a Watershed Critical Area Mapping Options 3 11/14/2006 Issues Relating to Mapping of the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Areas The original 1994 zoning and watershed maps did not illustrate the associated zoning text, which is typically the operative aspect of regulations. The maps do not reflect the text for the following reasons: 1. Topographic mapping had less elevation refinement leading to more spatial variation when trying to determine distances from existing or future watershed impoundment sites and the associated normal pool elevation (NPE). For example, the Lake Orange NPE is 615', but the Orange County topographic information, at that time, only displayed the 610' and 620' topographic contours. We now have five-foot topographic data available and can better interpolate the map buffer. 2. Some proposed impoundments, such as the West Fork of the Eno River did not have a determined NPE, so a map approximation was made. We now know the proposed Phase 2 NPE is 634'. 3. Some impoundments half -mile buffers were shown on the map but the NPE that established the area buffered was not described or unnamed in the zoning text. For example, the proposed Eno River Impoundment above McGowan Creek was map buffered but not named in the text. We can more accurately establish an area buffer along the Eno River above Corporation Lake to protect the proposed Eno River above McGowan Creek Reservoir at the 580' NPE. 4. Originally, the Lake Orange NPE was 614', but an additional one -foot of freeboard was added. The official NPE is now 615'. 5. Lake Ben Johnson is not presently listed in the zoning text. We can map the impoundment with its 515 " NPE accurately. 6. The original base maps are hand drawn on County cadastral maps. The map's accuracy is not always reliable. The 1984 West Orange Study and 1987 Water Supply Study base maps were hand -drawn on these cadastral maps. While as accurate as possible at the time, the small -scale maps, which resulted, are not accurate for large -scale property maps that developers use for platting. We have digitized these maps and can refine the watershed boundary lines with state -of- the -art watershed mapping provided by the State of North Carolina. G:''(Compreherlsit" i'huuifng l')i `,Ci1.aT'2(Y)6 i'ut lir Ifearings'.\,;, '!0 Q111 H iPjxrfiflo 1'f:xi Anuiis'.hf ,kppintg Ofn:i,�a Cnmparisons.d,;t: Watershed Critical Area Mapping Options 11/14/2006 Options #1 Leave text and map 1. Zoning Ordinance text reflects previous policies and alone. I studies. 2. All reservoirs, existing and proposed, are approximately described. 3. Case-by-case interpretive review. 4. No notifications required. 5. May require an interpretive position paper to clarify the text. 6. Property owners and developers are familiar with present regulations. Text Aspects Map Aspects #2 Modifications to 1. Mailing out notifications to 1. No need to do Zoning Ordinance text every affected property owner anything. to, as closely as is not a county requirement. 2. Accept a level of possible, describe the 2. Legal notice in newspapers is inaccurate mapping. 1994 watershed maps, sufficient for text change. 3. Landowners and as adopted. 3. Zoning text may be a better developers are reflection of the map BOCC familiar with present saw in 1994 with the regulations. assumption that the map was the intent and not the text. 4. List normal pool elevations for all existing and proposed reservoirs. 5. Digitize old maps. #3a Refine Zoning 1. More watershed protection Ordinance text to provided. Greater level provide clarity. and (number of acres and properties) of watershed protection. 2. Properties deleted from and added to watershed regulations. 3. Notifications must be mailed for Zoning Map amendments. #3b Amend Zoning Map and Watershed Regulations can take Map by using the best M advantage of best available available technology technology to define watersheds. 5. Gaps where zoning and watershed lines should be the same can be addressed. G:%( ol7lpl-ojwl1qi%v Pill) I ic I Q V I+ I rexi �iwlis* mn pping Option Comparmii".doc Watershed Critical Area Mapping Options 5 11/14/2006 Assumptions for 1. The 1984 West Orange Study citing groundwater Options 1,2. "interflow" is not being considered 2. 1987 Water Supply Study for proposed impoundments of the Eno River above McGowan Creek and Seven Mile Creek is the basis for the critical area and watershed delineations. 3. The BOCC wanted to buffer the river channel above the Eno River above McGowan Creek Reservoir and the area between Seven Mile Creek Dam and Lake Ben Johnston, which was not listed in the Zoning Ordinance text. 4. The `stream order' system of stream classification is not considered is not considered to capture higher order streams flowing into existing or proposed impoundments or public water supply intakes. UT o;nprebewiM Planuhip, Pi "G.I.'s \i';`.2iH;G Public t tearhg,, N,,V 20 QPI P.i ;tiler F no Text Anufuc' :tylapping Option C, ±mpari,ons.dra: Proposed Zoning Text Amendments Zoning Definitions — Existing: 0 Critical Area - The land area within one -half mile of the normal pool of an existing or proposed water supply impoundment, or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. Water Supply Watershed (or Protected Watershed) Land that drains to existing reservoirs which are public water supplies or potential reservoir sites or stream intakes which have been designated for protection. All such lands have been classified by the Environmental Management Commission as WS -II, WS -III or. WS -1V watersheds and require protection in accordance with the State Mandate. Proposed New Definitions: Critical Area: The Land area within en half mile of the ..,., a p^^' an identified Water Supply Watershed or a Protected Watershed that is within a specified distance, as referenced within this Ordinance frorn the normal pool elevation of an existing or proposed water supply inipoundffl.eRt, or the ridgeline area reservoir, or reservoir intake area. Watersupply Watershed or Protected Watershed: Lands that draining to existing, or potential, reservoirs, which are public water supplies or potential propos ed reservoir sites or stream intakes, which Orange County has nave '-men designated for protection. All such lands have been classified by the. Environmental Management Commission of the State of North Carolina as WS -II, WS -III or WS -IV watersheds and require protection in accordance with the State Mandate. Contributing Watershed The catchment area for all precipitation flowing overland to a defined point i.e., a reservoir dam. Proposed Zoning Text Amendments Section 4.2.27 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts — Intent — Existing: DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION UNIV -CA University Lake Critical Area One -half mile from the normal pool of University Overlay District Lake, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. UNIV -PW University Lake Protected The portion of the drainage basin of University Watershed Overlay District Lake not covered by UNIV -CA. CANE -CA Cane Creek Critical Area One -half mile from the normal pool of Cane Creek Overlay District Reservoir, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. CANE -PW Cane Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Cane Creek Watershed Overlay District Reservoir not covered by CANE -CA. U- ENO -CA Upper Eno Critical Area One -half mile from the normal pool of Lake Overlay District Orange, Corporation Lake, and potential reservoir sites on the West Fork of the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek, or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected The portion of the existing or potential drainage Watershed Overlay basins of Lake Orange, Corporation Lake, West Fork of the Upper Eno and Seven -Mile Creek not covered by U- ENO -CA. L- ENO -PW Lower Eno Protected The Orange County portion of the Eno River Watershed Overlay District Watershed within ten miles of the City of Durham Emergency Water Intake east of US 501 (Roxboro Road). LITTLE -PW Little River Protected The portion of drainage basin of the Little River Watershed Overlay District Reservoir which is located in Orange County. BACK -PW Back Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Back Creek Watershed Overlay District which is located in Orange County. HYCO -PW South Hyco Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of South Hyco Watershed Overlay District Creek which is located in Orange County. FLAT -PW Flat River Protected The portion of the drainage basin of the Flat River Watershed Overlay District which is located in Orange County. HAW -PW Haw River Protected The portion of the drainage basin for the Haw River Watershed Overlay District which is located in Orange County. JORDAN -PW Jordan Lake Protected The Orange County portion of the Jordan Lake Watershed Overlay District Watershed which extends five miles from the normal pool elevation of the impoundment. Proposed Zoning Text Amendments Section 4.2.27 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts — Intent — Proposed: DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION T TT�T_ N CA T T Take C+it; a 1- u�u One half frem the ei:mal of Univ Vy -- - sity e n< ,.1., . Dist ic4 mile pool Lake, - +1, e water-shed, to fidgeline of whiehevef is less. Protected Areas: UNIV -PW University Lake Protected Watershed Overlay District' The portion of the drainage basin of University Lake not covered by UNIV -CA. r� nn l Cane C 1 r 'ti 1 AT Over-lay Dist aet n 1, 1 f from the 1„„ i of mi4e C 1 n • to the idgeline „f +t - + 1 .1 '4,' b less. CANE -PW Cane Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District The portion of the drainage basin of Cane Creek Reservoir not covered by CANE -CA. U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay . The portion of the drainage basin of the Upper d 84 Eno and Seven Mile Creek Reservoir not cover by U- ENO -CA. the dr-ainag( The 13 offien of existiag or- -potential b-asin-s- Lake Orange, CeEper-ation Lake, We of Fedc- Upper- Eno Seven Mile C-f of the an4 eevered by TT laNO CA-. L- ENO -PW Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District The Orange County portion of the Eno River Watershed within ten miles of the City of Durham Emergency Water Intake east of US 501 (Roxboro Road). Critical Areas: CANE -CA Cane Creek Critical Area One half %z mile radial from the normal )ol. Overlay District elevation of existing, ado ted or poten ial impoundment areas or the contributing watersl..ed divide which ever is greater. UNIV -CA University Lake Critical Area One half %z mile radial from the normal of Overlay District elevation of existing adopted, or potential iiWoundinent areas or the contributing watershed divide which ever is greater. Proposed Zoning Text Amendments 0 DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION U- ENO -CA Upper Eno Critical Area One -half mile form the normal pool of Lake Overlay District Orange (Elevation 615' NPE), Lake Ben Johnson (Elevation 515' NPE), Corporation Lake (Elevation 538' NPE), and potential sites on the West Fork of on the U Eno (Elevation 640' NPE) and proposed reservoir sites on Seven Mile Creek (Elevation 581' NPE) and Eno River above McGowan Creek (Elevation 585' NPE), or to the ridgeline of the contributing watershed, whichever is less. LITTLE -PW Little River Protected The portion of drainage basin of the Little River Watershed Overlay District Reservoir w- is located in Orange County. BACK -PW Back Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Back Creek Watershed Overlay District is located in Orange County. HYCO -PW South Hyco Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of South Hyco Watershed Overlay District Creek ,.phis located in Orange County. FLAT -PW Flat River Protected The portion of the drainage basin of the Flat River Watershed Overlay District vgrieh is located in Orange County. HAW -PW Haw River Protected The the dr-ainage basin for the 14aw per-tion of Watershed Overlay District "' . „' :eh is leea._a in `:`range Count-,,. The Orange County portion of the Haw River Watershed within ten miles of the Town of Pittsboro's Water Intake site. JORDAN -PW Jordan Lake Protected Watershed Overlay District The Orange County portion of the Jordan Lake Watershed whieh extending five miles from the normal pool elevation of the impoundment. 10 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 2, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford; Eno Township At- Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At- Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At- Large; Bernadette Pelissier; Bingham Township; Renee Price- Saunders, Hillsborough Township At -Large (Vice Chair); Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At- Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At -Large STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant R ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Recent Board of Adjustment Ruling on Watersheds Craig Benedict: The Board of Adjustment recently had a ruling about the size and shape of the watersheds in the County, and a developer challenged the Staff determination of the location of the boundary. The Board of Adjustment affirmed Staff's position on the way the Zoning Ordinance reads, and also that they would like to see a re -look at the watershed shapes and the text by the Planning Board and Commissioners to either change the maps or to make the text stronger. I just wanted to let you know that this is happening. The text is not as specific as it could be, and different people can interpret it differently, as happens with various sections of the Code. Next month, I'll bring more of a formal presentation to you about the issue of %Z mile from the normal flood pool of existing or proposed reservoirs, and using the new technology available to conform the language and maps. Better information is constantly available. Jay Bryan: Was this a result of a court decision? Craig Benedict: This was a challenge through our Board of Adjustment of the Zoning Officer's determination. Jay Bryan: Did the Board of Adjustment rule on the challenge? Craig Benedict: Yes, they affirmed that Staff had made the right determination. The developer can still take it to court. Jay Bryan: Was there any thought given to sharing this issue with Geof Gledhill? Craig Benedict: He was at the meeting and suggested that the language be revised to reflect the intent. My determination was based on the text, which is typically better than 11 a map. We've learned some things even since that meeting, which I'll also update you on. Michelle Kempinski: Was this a critical watershed? Craig Benedict: Yes, it's the boundary of the critical watershed, and is part of Seven - Mile Creek. Based on the Efland - Mebane Task Force report, there's question that, in the future, if it is taken off the proposed watershed impoundment list, than that critical watershed area will change dramatically. The new language will need to keep that in mind, that with proposed watershed impoundments and if the area is no longer in the watershed, you need something very sanctioned by the Board to change the maps. The critical area lines can move several hundred feet just by using better technology. DRAFT 12 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Dobyns, Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle 8 Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At- Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; 9 Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Representative; Sandra Quinn, Eno Representative; Renee Price - 10 Saunders, Hillsborough Representative (Vice- Chair); Jeff Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At- 11 Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At -Large 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At- Large; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove 14 Township At -Large 15 16 OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning 17 Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowles, Planner 11; 18 Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant II; Brian Carson, GIS 19 Technician; Allan Rosen, citizen; Rick Perry, builder /developer 20 21 AGENDA ITEM #11 -WATERSHED BOUNDARY DISCUSSION 22 23 Craig Benedict: This issue may have to spin off into a special subcommittee. This item is based 24 on a recommendation that the Board of Adjustment made about a month ago where there was a 25 challenge of the boundary line of the Critical Area of the Upper Eno Watershed versus the 26 Protected Area. Staff ruled one way and the applicant disagreed. The BOA agreed with the 27 Staff determination, and recommended that the Planning Board and the BOCC understand the 28 issue. 29 (PowerPoint presentation) 30 31 Presently, our Zoning Ordinance section 4.2.27 describes the Upper Eno Critical Area as `%2 mile 32 from the normal pool of Lake Orange, Corporation Lake and potential reservoir sites in the West 33 Fork of the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is 34 less.' We also have a map that was created in 1994, which attempted to take this text and put it 35 on a map. Since 1994, the map.and the text describe two different things. For example, Lake 36 Ben Johnston is not listed, but yet we have it buffered. The Upper Eno impoundment above 37 McGowan Creek is on the map, but not described. Which should we go by? It was 38 recommended by Staff and the County Attorney that even though there is interpretation ability 39 possible by the Zoning Officer to try to reconcile differences, that it's better to clarify the text to 40 conform to the map. Otherwise, if we change the map to a large degree, there's a large 41 notification problem. 42 43 The issue really goes back to 1984. In 1984 when they did the West Orange Reservoir Study, 44 they mentioned interflow, which is different. It will be easier to modify the text, because we 45 don't need to notify residents. Then, if there's interest, the map may need to be changed to 12 FIT., . V W- 13 46 properly reflect the 1994 data and use the technology we have in 2006 to define what %2 mile is. 47 The technology has changed a lot in the last few years. 48 49 In 1994 we did not have the geographical information, so we used the tax maps, which were not 50 to scale. Some watershed lines were put on the maps, based on staff's estimation of the location, 51 and many of the lines were changed over time using pencil or white out. In 1999 when I came, I 52 said `we can do better than this. We have the technology available.' Since 1999 we've attempted 53 to get better GIS maps and properly apply the text. For example, the West Fork Reservoir is 54 actually larger than was originally assumed on the 1994 map. Also, there was a 1987 Water 55 Supply Study that was adopted which reflected the Seven -Mile Creek and Eno River around the 56 impoundment area that I didn't even know about. We believe that the 1994 map reflected this 57 area, rather than the current impoundment. Several approximations were used, that influence the 58 potential flooding area. 59 60 Jeff Schmitt: The developers were using the text language for their subdivision applications, 61 which stated 1/2 mile or the ridgeline. This issue came to the Board of Adjustment because of the 62 maps that the developers had understood had been approved by the BOCC. 63 64 Craig Benedict: What we think was shown to the BOCC in 1994 was a hand drawn scale of the 65 entire County, not just this area. Then, that map's scale was transposed onto these maps, and this 66 has acted as the official Zoning Atlas since 1994. We were trying to update these maps, and 67 found irregularities. As Jeff mentioned, the interpretation of 1/2 mile from the normal pool or the 68 ridgeline of the watershed was the issue. My interpretation was that the ridgeline means the 69 ridgeline of watersheds (a grey line) on approved zoning watershed maps. There also is a sub - 70 basin ridgeline that isn't in the zoning text, which is different. The applicant's interpretation was 71 that the Critical Area should not go %2 mile from the grey line; it should be pulled back to the 72 sub -basin ridgeline. I saw no operative language in our zoning code that talked about pulling 73 back to the sub -basin ridgeline. 74 75 Crauf ird Goodwin: Which were the reservoirs that you knew existed? 76 77 Craig Benedict: The Eno River above McGowan Creek. That was approved, and was indicated 78 in the book that when Site B was selected, that this site should also be buffered. In 2003 when 79 we tried to reflect that definition, we looked at the Eno River going up to the two reservoirs, and 80 buffered %2 mile from the river. So, in that case, the 1994 map was larger than the 2003 map. 81 82 Brian Dobyns: Is the Critical Area definition Orange County's? It's different than the State 83 Critical Area definition. 84 85 Craig Benedict: That's correct. In the 1994 reproduced map, the State definitions of Critical 86 Areas only include %2 mile from the intake of Lake Ben Johnston and V2 mile from the intake of, 87 Corporation Lake. 88 89 Brian Dobyns: It also includes %2 mile from the normal pool of elevation of the reservoirs, but 90 excludes land that does not drain into those impoundments. 91 13 DRAFT 14 92 Craig Benedict: Yes, it is just based on those intake points. Both the West Pork and Lake 93 Orange are not considered as intake points from State definition, it's only where they pull water 94 out of the impoundment. So, only Lake Ben Johnston and Corporation Lake are included in the 95 State definition. Our definition is much more inclusive than the State definition. 96 97 Jay Bryan: Since it's getting late, could you please summarize what the Planning Board is being 98 asked to do. We're convinced that there is a problem. 99 100 Craig Benedict: So, looking at the two maps overlaid, the question for the Board is, would you 101 prefer to change the definition of the text to reflect the 1994 mapped version, or suggest a map 102 change to reflect the assumptions, using the sub -basin ridgelines as the operative definition. 103 104 Jeff Schmitt: Regardless of which way we go, the definitions between the text and the map need 105 to be consistent, and what is made available to the public and potential developers needs to be 106 the same thing. 107 108 Brian Dobyns: I agree. I have some GIS Critical Area data that's different from either of your 109 maps. They need to be consistent. 110 111 Craig Benedict: The different interpretations are a big problem for Staff. There's hundreds of 112 acres difference between the definitions. It expands and contracts in many areas. 113 114 Michelle Kempinski: So, for clarification, the red line shows 1994 assumptions. The yellow 115 area represents what is in the text. 116 117 Craig Benedict: Yes, that's the digitized version of the 1994 map. The yellow line reflects both 118 text and better topographic data explaining the normal pool definitions. 119 120 Jeff Schmitt: I'm not sure that text could make the distinction of the sub -basin ridgeline. 121 122 Renee Price- Saunders: But the text also does not mention Lake Ben Johnston. 123 124 Craig Benedict: Yes. 125 126 Jeff Schmitt: Is that within the purview of the County? 127 128 Craig Benedict: Yes, we are buffering it. 129. 130 Michelle Kempinski: So, those water impoundments need to be added to the text so that it 131 actually reflects the actual number of impoundments we have. 132 133 Jay Bryan: Well, one way to do is would be to update the GIS map using the up -to -date 134 technology and then change the language to reflect those changes. There are lots of 135 consequences to doing that. If you do that type of analysis, then that could lead to some map 136 changes. It's a level of clarity that's based on data. 137 14 DRAFT 15 138 Jeff Schmitt: If I were doing this, I would suggest % mile or the ridgeline if farther than %a mile 139 from where it drains into it. I would make it more onerous than the way it's been interpreted 140 here. What has to happen if either the map or language is changed? 141 142 Craig Benedict: If you change the zoning text and leave the map the same, you would have to 143 have a Public Hearing to change the text. You would not have to notify the residents besides a 144 newspaper advertisement. If you do a map change, then you have to notify individuals, which 145 would be extensive since there are 34 miles of boundary just around this one watershed. This 146 problem exists in other watersheds too. 147 148 Michelle Kempinski: Shouldn't the map be a reflection of the text? 149 150 Craig Benedict: That was my determination. I went by the text. For the next meeting, I can 151 make a report on the implications and choices for changing the text, or if the map should be 152 changed. Changing watershed lines was a challenge in 1994, and we're uncertain if they (the 153 BOCC) are willing to address that again. 154 155 Judith Wegner: How do the other counties do their interpretation? Do they use historical maps 156 that may be inaccurate or the new maps that are available? 157 158 Robert Davis: Many used the centerline roads near ridgelines and the State definitions, rather 159 than ridgelines so they do not have this issue.. 160 161 Craufurd Goodwin: Regarding the owners in the Seven -Mile Creek area; if it's rejected, why are 162 we being buffered? 163 164 Craig Benedict: This came up in the Efland -Mebane Small Area Plan Task Force. 165 166 Craufurd Goodwin: The land valuations will change with any map changes. 167 168 Brian .Dobyns: Where the boundaries are must be accurate. Will we be asked to clarify the 169 definition? 170 171 Craig Benedict: It could be wrapped into a work product by this Board. 172 173 174 175 176 15 0 0 4 Eno River above McGowan Ceek(Sit. B) 586 NPE (actual) Corporation Lake , 535'NPE (538' actual NPE) Seven Mile Creek (proposed)' 580' NPE (581' actual proposed NPE) WE I � -- Y-- 16 Upper Eno/ Critical Area ------ 2006 fN Le /en� jf 1/2 mile buffer West Fork @ 640' NPE (643' actual) 1/2 mile buffer of Lake Orange 2 @ 615' NPE (actual) i/2 mile buffer of Eno River between West Fork dam and 'Eno River above McGowan Creek' 1/2 mile buffer of proposed ij Lake Orange 'Eno River above McGowan Creek' 6151 NPE @ 585' NPE (actual) (actual) 1/2 mile buffer of Corporation Lake minus ridgeline area at the dam (State DEM) 1/2 mile buffer of Lake Ben Johnston and stream below Corporation Lake intake point to Lake Ben Johnston (State DEM) 1/2 mile buffer of stream 0 between Lake Ben Johnston and Seven Mile Creek (prop) F-107 1/2 mile buffer or proposed Seven Mile Creek @ 580' 1/2 mile buffer of Rocky Run Fill stream for t * he last 6011 feet before entering Lake Ben Johnston 1994 Adopted Upper Eno Critical Area �f Water supply watershed Hillsborough ETJ; City Limits Streams r.) (54'r Streams between Impoundments — Rocky Run - 6011' Existing Impoundments S1 Proposed imundments --7N� 7-8 177=17-1Z1V1-11Vpo1,4, WMVF Lake Ben Johnston 515' NPE SW. r.