Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-29-2002 - AgendaORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA BC)CC Work Session August 29, 2002 7:30 p.rn. Southern Human Services Center Chapel hill, NC (7:30 - 7:45) 1. Change County 250` Anniversary Celebration (7:45 - 5:45} 2. Short and Long Term Water Supply Issues (8:45 - 9:10) 3.. Update on the Status of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) (9:10 - 9:35) 4. Report on Cnowth Controls in Large Residential Projects (9:35 -10:00) 5. Orange CountylDurham I-$5 / I,iS 70 Economic Development District Area oRANG~ couNT~r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 29, 2002 - Action Agenda Item No. ~,,, SUBJECT: Oran a Count 250' Anniversa Celebration DEPARTMENT: Economic Development Commission PUBLIC HEARING: ~1(/N) No ATTACHMENTS): INFORMATION CONTACT:. Dianne Reid, ext 2325 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968,4509 Durham 688-7331 - Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: Ta update the Board on plans for the celebration of Orange County's 250' anniversary. BACKGROUND: September 9, 2002 marks the 250"' anniversary of the first colonial court of the County of Orange, held at Grayfields along the Eno River. A planning group -The Orange County 250 Committee ~- has been meeting regularly to plan a series of celebration activities for the year. Plans for the kickoff celebration have been finalized, as follows: On Sunday, September $, the public is invited to celebrate Orange County's 250th Anniversary with a walk through history. Attendees may park vehicles in the lot by the Orange County Sheriff s Department on East Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough. Shuttles will begin leaving at 92:30 pm to take people to Moorefields, near the site of the first colonial court in Orange County. At Moorefields, the Orange County 4-H will provide a presentation an farming in Orange County. At 1:00 prn, participants join in a 3.5-mile hike back to downtown Hillsborough, stopping along the way to experience Orange County history. John Blackfeather Jeffries, of the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, will discuss Native American history in Qrange County. Hikers will pass the old slave cemetery on West Margaret Lane and hear Jack Payne, an African American storyteller. The hike is sponsored by the Trading Path Preservation Association. After the walk, participants can return to the Old Orange County Courthouse on King Street at 4:00 pm to hear a keynote address by Harry L. Watson, PhD. Mr. Watson serves as Director of the UNC Center for the Study of the American South and .co-editor of its journal, Southern Cultures. He is also a professor in the UNC-Chapel Hitl Department of History. His specialties are the antebellum South, Jacksonian America, and the history of North Carolina. The Hillsborough Historical Society is sponsoring the address. Far those not interested in the 3.5 mile hike, Colonial Guides of Hillsborough will provide a free guided walking tour of downtown Hillsborough,on Sunday afternoon. The tour will begin at the Orange County Sheriffs Department on East Margaret Lane at 2:00 pm and will include a tour of the Dickson House, the Regulator Marker, the Courthouse, and many of Hillsborough's other historic sites. The tour, which lasts for approximately 1'/z hours, will conclude at the Old Courthouse in time for the lecture. On Monday, September 9, beginning at 11;40 am at the Old Courthouse in downtown Hillsborough, the acoustic band Mappamundi will play instrumental selections from their Colonial American music program. At noon, there will be a ringing of church bells across Orange County, followed by a blessing by Jahn Blackfeather Jeffries. Barry Jacobs, Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and chair of the 250th Anniversary Celebration Committee, will make brief remarks, followed by remarks by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chancellor Dr. James Maeser, State Senator Howard Lee, Hillsborough author Lee Smith and Chapel Hill historian Dr. Jahn Douglas Eyre. To close the program, Mappamundi will sing two. selections. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Thanks to corporate donations, there will be no financial impact to the County.. RECt~MMENDATIt7N(S}: The Manager recommends that the Board review the proposed activities and comment as necessary. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 29, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Short and Lon Term Water Su I Issues DEPARTMENT: County Engineerl PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No Cooperative Extension ATTACHMENT(S): 8123/02 County Engineer Memo 8/23102 Town of Hillsborough Draft Stage VI Restrictions Draught Ordinance Revision 8/14/02 Orange County Health pepartment Drought Response Report Grange County Cooperative Extension prought Relief Efforts 8/14/02 Town of Hillsborough Staff Paper INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Thames, 245-2303 Fletcher Barber, 245-2051 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-45Q1 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive and discuss reports an the draught situation, including current and pending water supply allocations and restrictions, and effects on the agricultural community. BACKGROUNp: Public water supplies throughout Orange County have continued to decline in recent weeks as the drought worsens. County staff have collaborated with municipal and other governmental officials, as well as Orange County public water suppliers, to analyze the drought's implications far short-term water supplies and options far promulgating additional water restrictions. It is likely that by the time of this August 29 work session, the water level in Lake Orange will have dropped below the paint at which the imposition of Stage Vi restrictions will have been triggered by the provisions of the County's droughtlwater use ordinance and the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement. The County Engineer has prepared the accompanying rnenio to outline issues of immediate concern. He will provide a brief verbal report and respond to the Board's questions at this work session. The E3aard may also wish to discuss and provide direction to staff regarding longer term water supply considerations, such as a follow up to the County's Water Summit held earlier in 2002. As noted in the accompanying staff paper, the Health Department has engaged in outreach efforts to inform well owners about potential drought effects on their water supplies and measures they might consider to preserve their own individual water supplies. Health Department representatives will provide follow up to Commissioners' questions and comments as appropriate, On July 23, 20x2, Orange County, along with 72 other counties in North Carolina, was declared an agricultural disaster area. The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, in collaboration with the local Farm Service Agency and other agricultural related agencies, ,has been working closely with local farmers to determine relief efforts and the impact of the drought on these farming enterprises. Staff have prepared a list of Cooperative Extension activities in response to the draught, and will attend the work session to provide further information on the educational and federally assisted programs being offered for drought relief, FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving and discussing these staff reports. However, the County will need to devote additiona! staff resources towards the public education effort and if necessary, financial resources towards mitigating adverse consequences for County human service clients who lack the resources to dea! with the worst drought impacts. There are also some costs, not yet quantified, associated with the use of new water coolers in lieu of existing water fountains and water-free hand cleaning supplies in County facilities. RECOMNIENDATIQN(S~: The Manager recommends that the Board: 1) receive and discuss the reports; 2} endorse changes to the drought/water use ordinance that would mandate the use of single service in County restaurants; 3} endorse the recommended public information strategies as outlined in the County Engineer's report; 4} endorse the use of water conservation technologies in County facilities where appropriate; and 5} provide additional direction, as appropriate, to the Manager and staff. MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners COPIES: Jahn Link, County Manager Itod Visser, Assistant County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: August 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Drought and drought response related activities in Orange County As per the request of the BOCC, the fallowing information is provided relative to the drought currently affecting Orange County (as well as the central portions of North and South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia). Orange County and central North Carolina are in the fourth year of below normal rainfall (drought) conditions. The impact of the below normal rainfall finally became readily noticeable to the general public in the spring of 2002 when local surface water supply reservoirs failed to completely refill over the winter or - as in the case of Lake Orange -refilled very late in the season. Lake Orange, which normally refills by Wald to late January did not completely fill until mid April. OWASA's Cane Creek reservoir and Durham's reservoir never completely refilled. Other indicators of the effects of the drought are: 1) record law stream flows for the time of year {80% percent of streams have had less than 10% of normal seasonal stream flow); and 2) water levels measured at well over SO°lo of USGS groundwater level monitoring wells in central North Carolina are either lower than the previous record low levels or are approaching record low levels. The outlook for the end of the drought or the lessening of drought conditions is unclear. While some meteorologists have hypothesized that the area is in the fourth year of a seven-year drought cycle, others predict anear-term (winter of 2002) return to slightly wetter than normal weather conditions as a result of a mild E1 Nino climatic condition. However, if area's weather pattern fellows the usual wet/dry climatic conditions for the remainder of 2002, Orange County can expect even drier weather in the sort term (the area's driest part of the year runs from mid September to mid-November). In the typical years, relief from seasonal dry conditions comes with the winter rains begin at some point between late November and mid-January. PTistorically, Orange County has occasionally seen some relief during the very dry season by way of significant rainfall quantities generated by hurricanes, tropical depressions and nor'easters. The water supply situation for the portion of central Orange County (Hillsborough and Efland area) that depends on water from the Eno River has been much worse than usual in some ways and better in others. That is, conditions involving normal instream flow and remaining water storage in Lake Orange have been worse than have been experienced since the development of Lake Orange in the early i 970's. Initiation of water releases from Lake Orange and the implementation of withdrawal and customer use restrictions associated with the County's (and Town of Hillsborough) draught ordinance and the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement began approximately ten weeks earlier than normal. Accordingly, the water level in Lake Orange is at a historic law (far any time of year). This, in turn, means that water customers of Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance are facing very stringent water use restrictions and Piedmont Minerals is facing a potential complete shut-down of its operations. However, the first time availability of raw water from Hillsborough's new reservoir (which has never cazzzpletely filled) has helped not only the Town, but Orange-Alamance and Piedmont Minerals as well, delay the imposition of ever more stringent (Stage Vn water use restrictions (and associated costs or losses) for an additional two or tbz'ee weeks. The availability of water from the new Hillsborough reservoir has been and continues to be a significant asset to this area at a time when water chemistry issues (different methods/chemicals used to disinfect treated water) and the water supply shortfalls experienced by almost all area utilities (excepting primarily the Mebane/Graham and Burlington systems) have severely impacted the ability of those water utilities to provide water for use here. County engineering staff anticipate that, given the existing water level at Lake Change ($' 11"below spilling as of 8/23) and the current rate of fall in the water level (approximately 1" per day), Stage VI water use restrictions will be implemented an or before Wednesday, August 28t'' (absent significant rainfall in the interim). Water use restrictions already imposed on individual water customers of the Hillsborough and Orange-Alamance water systems {through Stage V of the County and Hillsborough drought ordinances) have prohibited all outside uses of water as well as the filling or refilling new or existing indoor or outdoor pawls and have "strongly" encouraged the use of a number of techniques for conserving water far various indoor water uses. The provisions of the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement (analogous to the Stage VI level of the drought ordinance restrictions) call far the Town's Ena allocation to be reduced from 1,130, 000 gallons per day (gpd) to X80,000 gpd; Qrange Alamance's allocation to be reduced from 620,000 gpd to 370,000 gpd; anal Piedmont Mineral's allocation to be reduced from 190,000 gpd to 0. Ha~uvever, Hillsborough can supply its full current demand (approximately 1,000,000 gpd) from its new reservoir far approximately 100 more days; and Orange-Alamance has been able -thus far - to obtain sufficient water, by pumping from its three grouzxd water wells and purchasing treated water from bath Mebane and Graham, to meet its current demand (approximately 1,000,000 gpd}. Piedmont Minerals is in the worst shape in that it will only be able to obtain the untreated water it needs for its production processes by utilizing and recycling water stored in a few an-site ponds. All available information on Lake Orange indicates that that the imposition of Stage VI drought ordinance restrictions coincides with a remaining water storage capacity of 30 percent of the total capacity ar approximately 140 million gallons. At the current rate of water demand (620,000 gpd for Qrange-Alamance, 190,OOp mgd for Piedmont Minerals}, in-channel loses and evaporation, these numbers indicate that Lake Change has approximately 100 days of storage left. Hillsborough, has not been using its Eno/Lake Orange allocation far the last three weeks, but will probably begin using its allocation within the next week. A calculation incorporating the additional release would show the remaining days of storage capacity to be halved (50 days). Froze a practical standpoint, however, Lake Orange may have only between 20 and 30 days of storage left since it appears that a large portion of the remaining storage maybe inaccessible. That is, the lowest gate in the intake structure {which opens upward and is intended to be the means for draining the lake} is now known to be malfunctioning to the paint of inoperability (it appears to be binding sa tightly that it cannot be raised). Furthermore, the gate also appears to be completely buried in the silt that has collected around the outside of the intake structure. If the gate were opened and then could not be closed as a consequence of silt filling the lower r.. J portion of the intake structure and gate opening or if there were some mechanical failure that impaired the functioning of the gate, the ability of the lake to impound water would be severely compromised, at least in the near term. Accordingly, it is probable that engineering staff will ultimately recommend that the lower gate not be utilized to access the last of the water impounded in Lake Orange. The Stage VI provisions of the County and the Town drought ordinance call for the imposition of water rationing on the Hillsborough and the Orange Alamance water system customers. The nature, extent, methodology, etc., of rationing are not specified by the ordinances. The Town of Hillsborough is not yet ready to impose actual rationing on its customers. It has as much remaining water supply capacity, in terms of remaining days of supply, as OWASA or Durham. Neither of these utilities is planning to implement rationing at this time and both continue to allow some level of outside use of water for plants and so forth. Furthermore, water rationing is very problematic from a financial standpoint for all water utilities, including Hillsborough's. That is, the fixed casts of operating a water utility do not diminish with a decreased rate of water production, while water sales derived income does diminish. Hillsborough's utility funds have already been severely stressed by the costs associated with development of its new reservoir and expansionlimprovement/renovation of its water treatrnent plant. Orange Alamance, on the other hand, might prefer water rationing to purchasing treated water from other utilities at costs which significantly exceed the cost of treating its own water. However, it has no legislative authority to impose rationing ar penalties associated with overuse. Orange County does have the legislative authority to impose rationing, but it does not operate a water system or have water customers and thus lacks any practical means of monitoring and enforcing a rationing strategy. From a practical standpoint, Orange County's role in a water rationing process will be limited to: 1) adopting and enforcing criminal penalties (if the BOCC sa desires} related to the failure of individual water customers (within County jurisdiction) to meet water use limits set by the utilities; 2) taking a lead role in reducing water consumption and implementing water conservation techniques and practices within the facilities under County operation and contml; 3) providing public information and educational outreach to citizens as to water conservation techniques that will allow households to continue functioning with . drastically reduced water consumption; 4) providing material support such as bottled water, paper plates, etc., to those at risk households akeady within the County's social support system; and 5}providing staff support in advisory roles to utilities, as necessary, to devise water rationing strategies. Over the last several weeks, County staff (Health, Emergency Management, Social Services, Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, ERCA, Engineering, Manager's Office) have been meeting with local utility staff, as well NC Division of Water Resources staff to discuss strategies for dealing with various aspects of drought, water well depletion, rationing, public outreach/education and so forth. Recommendations for BOCC review and approval that are emanating from the various discussions are as follows: • Hold ajoint ---County, Town of Hillsborough, Orange-Alamance, OWASA -press conference, possibly an Friday, August 30`h to provide drought and water conservation information ~ Announce new Stage VI water use restrictions for customers using the Eno River water supply, primarily an outright requirement to use single service plates, cups, utensils at restaurants (requires that the BOCC modify its draught ordinance at August 29`h work session) ((i • Announce a coordinated drought web-site that we are now creating Provide a list ofsevere-condition water conservation techniques • Kick off a campaign soliciting donations of bottled water and paper plate type products for low income households depending on both municipal water systems and wells • Publicize a telephone hotline to deal with drought, water conservation, ground water and well questions and issues • Announce several water savings techniques to be utilized by the County (cut off water fountains to use water cooler systems, the availability ofwater-free hand cleaning in restrooms [where appropriate -food preparation, daycare, etc. have statutory requirements for soap and water hand cleaning], and the like) in buildings and facilities that it awns or controls These staff meetings are ongoing and it is possible that additional recommendations will be available for BCC discussion at its August 29`" work session. Flease note that water conservation techniques for individual water consumers will be identical or nearly so for households supplied by water wells or municipal surface water systems If T may provide additional information or clarification of this information, please advise. 7 Proposed Stage 6 'VV~ater Restrictions /Rationing Town of T~illsbarough Utilities Department, August 23, 2002 The following is proposed for Stage 6 water restrictions, to be added to the Hillsborough Tawn Code, at Section 14-40.3(e), after the opening paragraph, replacing current items i & 2: 1. The use of single service plates, utensils, and cups is required in restaurants and cafeterias {industrial & institutional), and recommended for residential users. 2. hotels and motels are required to offer guests staying multiple nights the option to not have their bed sheets changed daily. 3. Bottled water is recommended to use far drinking and cooking. 4. All customers are recommended to NOT use garbage disposals or automatic dishwashers. 5. Fire protection systems that expend water during testing are required to only be tested the minimum amount required by governing regulations. 6. Installation of water saving fixtures (shower heads, faucet aeratorslrestrictars, toilet tank inserts, etc.) is recommended. 7. Ilse of "waterless hand sanitizes" {instead of soap & water) for cleaning hands is recommended for all water customers. Where soap and water is required to be available by State law (restaurant rest rooms, etc.), it is recorarnended that waterless hand sanitizes be made available in addition to soap. 8. Limiting of toilet flushing is recommended, within reason. 9. Use of portable toilets is recommended for businesses, ,industry, etc. 10. Large commercial and inskitutional water users shall be contacted to determine specific ways their individual water use can be curtailed. 11. No water use is allowed outside at any time. 12. The Town website www.ci.hillsborouQh.nc.us has further water saving taps for water users. 13. It shall be unlawful to fail to act in accordance therewith or use water in any manner or attempt to evade or avoid such water rationing restrictions. 14. Fire protection will be maintained, but where passible tank trucks shall use raw water. 15. The Town will further curtail usage or enhance water availability with the following practices: {i) Water pressure in the Town distribution system shall be lowered by decreasing tank holding levels; to the extent possible. (ii) if flushing of water lines is required for water quality concerns, the water will be captured in a tanker and transported upstream of the raw water intake far reintroduction into the river. (iii) Other potential water sources will be evaluated and utilized, if feasible (investigate rock quarries, ponds, springs, other water utilities, etc.). (iv) Inform local daily newspaper of the daily water usage, reservoir level, and goal far water usage for daily publication, to enhance public awareness. This information will also be pasted periodically on the Town website." The following is proposed far Stage 6 water restriction civil penalty, to be added to the Hillsborough Town Cade, at Section 1441.1(b), replacing "and stage VI" with the following: ", and $150.00 during stage VI." This modification will change the total fine for violating Stage 6 restrictions to $200.00 (the additional 550.00 is stated in paragraph (a)). Drought Response Report Orange County August 14, ~U02 Background There has been a fair amount of both media and public attention to the worsening drought conditions throughout the spring and summer, While the majority of the focus has been on public water supplies and indeed those aze vital to service the majority of the population, it is important to remember that between 30-40% of our population are served by wells. Some of the issues related to wells going dry and appropriate response to other aspects of the drought that overlap into the public water supply area include: emergency supplies fax residents served by individual wells that ga dry, the education of the public about water conservation, the use of untreated graywater for irrigation purposes, and recommendations to food service establishments on how to reduce water usage and still. maintain good sanitation. It will be important to develop a local comprehensive drought management plan that incorporates practices for all water users; establishes cooperation among all jurisdictions; provides a framework for emergency supplies; and integrates bath public water supplies and a rural cornrnunity approach into such a plan.. Dry Wells When a water supply well begins showing syrnptozns of going dry, it is usually exhibited by surging in water pressure, air in the pipes, and periods when the water does not flow. After fuming the water off and letting the well recharge for a period of tinge, flow may be restored. However, a well may reach a point where water is pumped out at a rate faster than it can be recharged. This is referred to as the well "going dry". The Health Department's Environmental Health Division becomes aware of these situations only as well owners come to the office to apply for replacement well permits. Applications are typically received during the dry summer and fall seasons to replace dry wells, .however our ability to search records in prior years for the number of "replacern,ent wells" is limited. Anecdotally, we have observed that the number of applications received during this summer season is higher than we have seen in the past. In the period between June 1St and July 14~` 2002, the Environmental l-Iealth office processed 60 well permit applications. Of these, 11 (18%}were to replace wells or springs that had gave dry or were low on water. From July 15~'to August 13a' 2002, the office received another 60 well permit applications. Of these, 18 (30%) were replacements far existing wells or springs that were going dry. An additional 4 or 5 of the wells were drilled for irrigation purposes or for livestock. Of the wells that were reported to have problems with going dry, a vast majority of them were either springs or large diameter hand-dug or bored wells. These wells are supplied by very shallow sources of water and are rarely more than 30 or 40 feet deep. As such, they are susceptible to variations in the water table and are much more readily affected by seasonal drought. Since the sauxce of water is traveling in the soil layer over consolidated rock, they also are susceptible to contamination by bacteria and high levels of minerals. only four of the problem wells had been drilled wells {6 inch diameter). Most of these were older wells and generally shallower than "modem" drilled wells. Three of these aze in an area of the county that is known for low-yield wells, and had reportedly had problems in previous dry periods. For the replacement wells that have been drilled; the depths and yields have been typical of other wells recently constructed in the county. Tn other words, the presence of a shallow well that had gone dry in the area did not necessarily predict problems in finding water in the new well. Environmental Health continues to give priority to applicants with water supply problems. These permits are processed within 24 hauxs, some of them the same day. Consequences of Dry Wells Perhaps one of the biggest challenges for the Health Department occurs when wells start going dry either sporadically or en masse. Residents may be left without water to drink, to flush the commode, or to maintain basic sanitation levels iii the home. Bottled water can alleviate the drinking water demand and its use also partially removes some of the deficiency of water from the well and frees it for other purposes. The lack of water to flush corrunodes and wash hands could lead to moderate or even severe public health consequences as modern day plumbing doesn't work without water. Cleaning and disinfecting one's hands can be adequately provided for in the short term with waterless sanitizers, but there is no real solution other than water far flushing commodes. Aside from the practical limits of supplying the water to homes for use to flush commodes, there are same legal barriers and health aspects to consider for many of the stopgap solutions that many have used in the past. First, the "spiking" of wells or hauling water in to fill the bore hale has been deemed by the state as needing an injection permit in the past which is quite an involved process. Environmental Health has confirmed with the state that this interpretation is still valid. The concern in this practice is contamination of the groundwater by water that is of unknown or questionable quality. Another practice is the use of dry ice to further fracture the well is questionable as to its effectiveness and may even cause the well to collapse ar be damaged. This practice is one that has anecdotal history of increasing the flow from a well, but na scientific studies have been found that substantiate these claims. There is a practice called hydra-fracturing {or "frocking") the well, which is acceptable, but it generally only increases the flow by a small percentage of the original flow. Finally, many times neighbors will let someone with a dry well hook up to their water supply temporazily. This practice is acceptable with a couple of precautions. First, if the water is for consumption, it should be transmitted through a hose or conduit suitable for potable water and not through a normal garden hose. Secondly, in the event the home supplying the water is connected to a public water supply, there are plumbing code requirements for the connection that are designed to prevent cross-contamination of the public water source from the private well. Graywater Reuse This issue has been in the news a lot lately as many residents in North Carolina are affected by the draught. On the surface, it seems quite logical and practical to use the leftover water from ,~ non-commode fixtures (graywater) for watering and irrigation purposes, but at this paint there are several reasons why this practice should not be encouraged or condoned. The first and maybe the mast salient reason is that it is illegal in North Carolina to dispose of wastewater in an unapproved manner. Dipping and dumping or otherwise discharging graywater from sinks and other fixtures is not an approved method as the water has not been effectively treated and as such, surface application is not an acceptable disposal method. Some states do allow far the use of graywater, but most have some level of treatment required before discharge or other conditions regarding its handling and placement. The NC Dzvision of Water Quality has confirmed that this is their position. The next reason is really more of an explanation of the first reason in that graywater does carry a significant pathogen load. For example, a recent article in the Journal of Enviranmen~at Heatth (June, 2D02} cited two studies, Erandes (19"78) and Gerba, et al. (1995), that documented graywater as containing considerable amounts of bath total colifarms and fecal coliforms. The pathogens can .also multiply greatly if the graywater is stared for even a short time. There are many other undesirable characteristics associated with graywater, but the pathogen load was the most notable. When you couple the amounts of fecal coliform available in graywafier with the fact that the infective dose of some e. roll strains may be as few as 10 organisms (Institute of Food Science and Technology (UK), (1996), it raises concern about the use of graywater in an unrestricted manner. Drought Planning and Education Efforts The Health Department posted an advisory for well users in late July intended as a public service announcement, after the declaration of Stage III restrictions by the county. (attached). This was an effort to provide information and services to Chase water users in the rural area of the county that would likely be affected by a drought situation later in the season if drought conditions persist. Instead of being picked up as a public service announcement, several print media developed the information into print articles. A number of county departments are beginning to meet together to develop a response plan for an extended drought period that will include both rural users of individual wells as well as those served by public water supplies. These departments include Emergency Management, Cooperative Extension, County Engineer, and the Health Department. This will also be a tapir at the water users meeting scheduled for next week. Issues such as potable water distribution; monitoring groundwater; public education on conservation methods; restaurant conservation methods education; and other topics are being discussed. Plans will be coordinated with public water suppliers as they move through the steps needed for additional restrictions and contingencies. We will keep you apprised of these efforts. C7ran a Coun Coo erative Extension Drought-related Efforts • Articles and ane program so far on landscape management under drought conditions. • Information on home Landscape drought management at Carrboro and Hillsborough Farmers Markets. • Dairy and Livestock newsletters dealing specifically with nutritional issues, forage and feed supply issues related to the drought and drought recovery. • Web page link to drought related information and mosquito home illnesses. Planning dairy and livestock meetings on feeding with by-product and commodity feeds and on forage options for the fall and winter. • individual consultations with agricultural producers on issues related to drought. ~:Jt3? 1 ~f ~1biJL 11: ~l - t y;~y~441~yb ~ u~t t~u_ ~~ Hills gh T4W~V OF HILI.SBQROrIG~i' - STAFF INTERESTS ~~~ Regarding Orange Couxty Area Drought Aug~cst z4, ~©OZ PAGE 82 ~acksruglad oA tl~e West Fork (Enol Reservoir: The Town's zeservair was designed and permitted as a supplemental water source #'or the of Hillsborough water system (i.e., to provide far the Town's water needs av+cr au.d abav9e the allocation Hillsborough is permitted via the Capacity U'se Agreement. Hillsbomugl~ voters approved a bated referendum in 1993 to fxnazace the canstnrctiam at' the Nest Fark Rs"seavoir, Sub®equeritly, customers an the Town's system (bath in-town amd out-of--fawn) have been paying $723,200 in aanrxal debt service payments, in addition to funding in excess of X500,000 in cash for the project The annual debt service payments plane for this project make up approximately 25% of the annual water-related expezaditures in the FY03 Budget and spproximatcly I5% of the entire Water & Sewer Fund Budget. As a result, Hillsborough customers (especially those who are out-off town austamers) are paying some of the highest water rates in the state. The purpose of constructing the West Fark Reservoir was to 1) eliminate Hillsbarougb,'s deperXdency op its neighbors (e.g., Durham and OWASA) to provide water to rrxeet peak demands, 2} reduce the frequency and severity of water restrictions due to law flow conditions ~ the Eno, and 3) allow the Town to accamrnadate reasonable amounts of growth in the future sa as to strengthen Hillsboarough's local economy and diversify its tax base. Ia addition, newer customers axe necessary to provide same "economies of scale" so as to help share the financial burden regarding the many fixed costs associated with operaf~g a water system. While nirt required and rat requested to da sa, the Town started releasing additional water from the West Fark Reservoir during Stage 4 so as to help slow the "drop" in Lake Change anal to delay entry into more seveze restriction stages (i.e,, Stage S and likely Stage 6}. While the Town was/is using about 1.0 - 1.1 MGD; it started releasing 1.0 MGD im addition to the mi~aimal required in-stream flow, increased the release to 1.51+viGD for a period, and is now releasing 1.1 MGD ar the equivalent of t1~e Town's average daily usage. Hillsbomugla; has either been releasing an amount equal to (ar in excess) a£' the water it has been using for about three (3) weeks. So, Hillsborough has essarttially rat used any water #'rom Lake Prange i,n thz~ee weeks, even though it's permitted up to a x.1 1VIGD withdrawl during Stage 5. The Town did net make the additional releases with the intention of requesting any financial compensation from the other entities that are receiving any indirectldirect benefit from flue action. The additional releases from Hillsborough have delayed what appears to be a likely entry iota Stage 6, by helping to slow the water level drop in Lake Orange. While theare are benefits far Hiilsbaraugh, this has also benefited the Piedmont Minerals and Grange-Alamance systccns by delaying tine entry iota Stage 5 where they had to reduce their withdrawls from the Eno. Delaying the entry into Stage 6 7~ 101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 4P9 • Hillsborough, North Carolina P7878 919-73E-I27p • Fuac 919-644.239D '9~,'151'1kliD1 11: ~l y'1yb44G~'~a i lJ4+VM h1~1LL PACE 03 1 allows Piedmont Minerals to stay open and operatit-g, since they must shut down in Stage 6. Orange-Alamance must deareaee them Eno withdrawl by approximately an additional 300,000 GPD if Stage 6 occurs. It is not Hillsborough's intention to request compensation for the aforementioned releases at this time, this was atk effort made by tine Mayor and Hoard of Cammissianer to be a gaud neighbor. Though, due to the extreme cost of the reservoir it is clear that the Hillsborough water customers cannot continue to pay (through very high rates} for a reservoir that is providing substantial benefits to the Piedmont Minerals and Orange-Alamance systems without receiving fair compensations at some paint in the future. Otherwise, Hillsborough will depleta its reservoir at an accelerated rate to supplement the needs of Orange-Alarnancc and Piedmont Minerals. In addition, the post for supplementing these two other systems will have been paid far by Hillsborough customers who are already paying very high rotas. SHQIiT-TERM INTERESTS: • Continue coordixtatiozj/partnership with Orange County regarding releases at the two reservoirs so as to preserve the water storage in t11e mast reasonable asui fail means passible during this crisis. Continue coordination with C?range County when Hillsborough finds it nerds to decrease the supplement that it's cuz~remt releasing from the West Fork (i.e., Hillsborough has essentially not b~ using any of the allocation in which it is entitled to over the past three weeks, adjustments will likely have to occur sometime in the future). • Jointly develop and implement a `5ratianing" system to address the requiremeants established in Stage 6. • Meet with Piedmont Minerals, Grange-AlamanGa, prangs County, and Hillsborough to discusslplan ~ we would all respond if Lake 4rgnge gnus dry (i.e., a worst-case scenario). MEDIUM-RANGE INTERESTS: * Updating the Capacity Use Agreement to better account far the changeJimpact of the West Fork ~+rservair an Lake pratyge and its users. • Consider re-eY•*++;r;++g (and coordinating where reasonable) the specific provisiazts of each stage of restriCt~ans. • If additional releases are gait~tg to be required of the West Fark Reservoir tv supplement the withdraw] capabilities of Orange-Alamance and Piedmont Minerals, then same fair method o f reirnbuming the Hillsbaraugh system must be agreed upon. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 29, 20Q2 Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Update an the Status of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) DEPARTMENT: Planning and lnspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YlN) No ATTACHMENT(S): ~ INFORMATION CONTACT: Attachment 1: Memo on Comprehensive Plan Land Use Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 Committee (CPLUC) Activities _ Thomas R. Tempia, ext. 2579 Attachment 2: List of CPLUC Members and Altemates TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Attachment 3: Charge, Purpose, and Outcomes of the Hillsborough 732-81$1 CPLUC Chapel Hill 96$-4501 Attachment 4: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Durham fi88-7331 Tentative Process and Schedule Mebane (338} 227-2031 PURPOSE: To update the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC} on activities and status of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC}. BACKGROUND: At their April 16, 2002 meeting, the BOCC authorized the Planning and lnspections Department to proceed with the frst step of the comprehensive planning process, the CPLUC. The BOCC appointed members of the various County Boards to CPLUC at the May 21 ~ meeting. Then the BOCC, at the June 18, 20t}2 meeting, confiirmed the charge and parameters of the CPLUC. The CPLUC has met three times on June 24"', July 22"d, and August 19'". The notebooks, which contain all of the handouts, work products, agendas, and minutes from the CPLUC, have already been distributed to BOCC. Attachment 1: Memo an Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) Activities. This memo provides a brief summary of the three CPLUC meetings. Attachrnen# 2: List of CPLUC Members and Alternates This document lists the 9 Committee members and 7 alternates appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Attachment 3: Charge, Purpose, and Dufcornes of the CPLUC. This attachment explains the charge and parameters of the CPLUC as well as what the anticipated outcomes are. Attachment 4: Comprehensive Flan Land Use Element Tentative Process And Schedule. This document illustrates how the CPLUC fits into the proposed overall Comprehensive Planning Process. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): No action required at this time. ATTACHMENT 1: MEMO ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE COMMITTEE (CPLUC ACTIVITIES MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Craig Benedict, Planning Director Thomas R. Tempia, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor DATE: August 22, 2QQ2 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee Status Report Below is a brief summary of the three CPLUC meetings: June 24, 2002 Meeting. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) met for the first time on June 24`" with 8 of the 9 Committee Members present as well as 3 of the 7 altemates. This meeting focused on a review of current land use conditions, countywide development trends, and demographic changes. July 22, 2002 Meeting. The second meeting of the CPLUC took place on Jufy 22"d with 7 of the 9 Committee Members and 4 of the 7 altemates in attendance. Also in attendance was Chuck Cooper from the Historic Preservation Board. The second meeting included a review of the GOOD planning model by staff, and a discussion of the growth management challenges facing Orange County. The CPLUC agreed that the following growth management challenges are confronting Orange County: . 1. Efficient Provision of Public Services 2. Protection of Rural Community Character 3. Preserve Farmland and a Viable Local Farm Economy 4. Protect Water Resources -Watershed and Groundwater 5. Traffic Reduction 6. Reduc#ion of the Fiscal Impacts of Development 7. Hazard Mitigation -Reduction of Stormwater Runoff and Flooding 8. Protection of Natural Resources 9. Reduction of Air Pollution 10. Development Location and Type 11. Economic Prosperity and Diversity 12. Affordable Housing 13. Preservation of Community Character -Neighborhoods and Historic/Cultural Features August 19, 2002 Meeting. The third meeting was August 19"' with all 9 Committee Members and 4 of the 7 alternates present. The Committee discussed the issue of sprawl. The Committee also considered the pros and cons of urban growth boundaries, cluster/conservation subdivisions, and other tools as ways of addressing sprawl in Orange County. September 23, 2002 Meeting. The fourth meeting of the CPLUC will be on September 23~ at 5:30 PM in the Southern Human Services Center. "'~ r ATTACHMENT ~: CPLU~ MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES BOARD OF COUNTY Representative: Representative: Alternate: Barry Jacobs Moses Carey Alice Gordon OTHER BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REPRESENTATIVES Planning Board Economic Development Commission Representative: Barry Katz-- -- „ ,. Representative; __Hunter Schofield __ Alternate: Nicole Goodin -Ra Representative: Ruffin Slater Altemate: Bob Half Board of Health/Environmental Health Represen#ative: Melvin Hurston Alternate: Alice White Agriculture Preservation Board Commission for Environment Water Resource Committee Representative: Marty Mandel! Altemate:_ Noah Ranells Representative:. Cara Crisler Alternate: Herve McIver Representative: Don Cox Altemate: Charles Daniel 3 4 ATTACHMENT 3: CHARGE, PURPOSE, AND OUTCOMES QF THE CPLUC Charge and Purpose. The charge and purpose of the CPhUC is fio: a. Bea "sounding board" during the first stage of the Comprehensive Planning process, with all materials being forwarded to the BQCC; b. Review background data on current land use conditions, analysis of countywide development trends, and demographic changes; c. Identify constraints to future growth (includes discussion and pursuit of definitions on sustainabiiity, natural limits to growth, and quality of life issues); d. Review the various future growth scenarios; and e. Qffer perspectives, based on their areas of interest, on the pros and cons of addressing and resolving land use and growth issues through a system of Goals, Gbjectives, Policies, and Implementation Regulations. Outcomes. The Committee will provide staff with feedback in writing or through the minutes of the meetingson: • The pros and cans of the various growth management tools; • The direction of the Comprehensive Planning Process; and The possible need for and discussion points for Small Area Planning Committees andlor meetings. ATTACHMENT 4: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TENTATIVE PROCESS AND SCHEDULE 5 STEP DATES 7: Authorization To Proceed By Board C1f County Commissioners (BOCC) April 16. 2002 2A: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC} On-going 3: BOCC Reviews CPLUC Report and Suggests Next Steps Nex# steps in the process may include, if necessary, one or more of the fo(Iowing activities: • Small Area Plan discussion and/or interface with Iocal governments • Updating The Board Of County Commissioners • Public Outreach Community Meetings • Reconvene CPLUC To Discuss Public Outreach • Updating The Board Of County Commissioners • Formal Public Hearings • Planning Board Discussion and Recommendations • BOCC Discussion And Decision ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 29, 2002 Action Ageni da Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Report on Growth Gantrois in Large Residential Projects DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N} No ATTACHMENTS}: 1. June 18, 2002 BtJCC Report and Action 2. Planning Board Letter of May 6, 2002. 3. Staff Report -Growth Control Issues INFORMATION CONTACT: Graig Benedict, ext. 2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Chapel Hill Durham Mebane 732787 988.4501 688-7337 (336}-227-2031 PURPOSE: To provide a report on various elements associated with the implementation of growth controls in large residential projects. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002, the Orange County Planning Board €orwarded a letter to the Board of Gounty Commissioners regarding the need for growth controls in large residential developments. This topic was also broached at a joint Board of Commissioners /Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2002. On June 1$, the Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution (see attached) regarding what actions and issues need to be researched prior to further deliberation. The Planning Board discussed these issues within their purview on August 7, 2002. The attached report outlines the preliminary findings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the information presented and provide direction to staff on a course of action. REPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JUNE '18, 2002, 1N RESPONSE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 'GROWTH CONTROL' LETTER O~ MAY fi, 2002 PURPOSE: To direct administration to research the elements to consider while evaluating interim growth controls on larger scale residential developments within Orange County's planning jurisdiction. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002 the Orange Gounty Planning Board forwarded a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding options to invoke [growth] controls in large residential developments. The Board of County Commissioners and Orange County Planning Board have discussed in joint meeting on June 6, 2002, the need to examine the impact of large development on the county while many comprehensive planning and regulatory initiatives are in progress. Important initiatives including, but not limited to, the comprehensive plan update, Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, water resource limitations, and transportation planning are in deliberate progress. ACTION: The County Manager, County Attorney, County Planning Director and Planning Board are directed to: identify the many facets of such a proposal such as defining the size and scale of a 'large' residential project • determine and dune what'pipeline' proposals would be affected • formulate the steps necessary (including public hearings) to pursue as an option a' limited moratorium or other growth controls, • explore legal consideration • research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases • research through Institute of Government and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short temp goals • Planning Board and staff to research special use process for large projects and other strategies and options ORANGE COUNTY' PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig.N. Benedict, AICP, Director ~p6ut, a! 6~ Administration ~~°` * ~ ''P ~ 30fiF Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~ ~ P O Bax 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) ~. Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc,us ~~<<b ~.~a~`°' North Carolina, 27278 May 6, 2002 To the Board of Qrange County Cammissianers (Distribution): Re: Orange County Planning Board Recommendations for Contro s in L e Residential Develo ment Dear Sir or Madam: At the May 1, 2002 meeting for the Planning Board of Orange County, the Board put forth the following statement to be placed before you for consideration: In light of a forthcoming revision of the land use element of the Compzeheasive Plan, and additional concerns including: [3 Schools Adequate Public Facilities C3rdiixance adoption ^ Water resources ^ Transportation issues ^ High density development in the rural area The 1lanning $aard recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take appropriate steps (which might include a moratorium in large residential development) to address these concerns in a timefxame that the Board deems appropriate. Very truly yours, Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair Page 11 May ~, 2002 Distribution: Maser Carey, Jr. " County Commissioner 901 Lystra Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Margaret W. Brown County Commissioner 1509 Smith Level Raad Chapel HiII, NC 2751 b Dr. Alice Gordon County Commissioner 282 Edgewoad Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Stephen Halkiotis County Commissioner 2930 Franklin Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Barry Jacobs County Commissioner 2201, Moorefields Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 ccs: John Link, County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Flanning Board File (May 1, 2002) Planning Staff Report for August 29, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Work Session Growth Control Issues ISSUE 1: Identify the details of a proposed moratoria including: size and scale of a large residential project. ' RESPONSE: August 7`h, 2002, the Planning Board agreed to define large development as any subdivision with 20 or mare lots. ISSUE 2: Determine what "pipeline" proposals would be affected. RESPONSE: The Planning Boazd discussed three "pipeline" options at which to stop an existing project: . l .) A subdivision that has been submitted to staff; 2.) The project's concept plan has been approved by the Planning Board; 3.) A project that has been issued a formal preliminary approval by the BQCC. ISSUE 3: List the steps necessary to produeelimplement alimited growth moratorium or other growth control. RESPONSE: 1. Report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of June 18, 2002, in response to the Orange County Planning Boazd "Growth Control Letter of May 6, 2002. A moratorium could be enacted in the following time frame. The length of the moratorium would be coordinated with the completion of a utufied development ordinance which would create a special use process far major subdivisions. The Planning Boazd has asked for additional time to process subdivision applications. The comprehensive plan land use element, adequate public facilities ordinance, and ordinance revisions regarding water resource issues would be concurrently researched and implemented to same degree. The shortest regular timeframe for the enactment of a moratorium would be as follows: Request for Legal Ad November 6, 2002 Quarterly Public Hearing November 25, 2002 PlaruYing Board Action December 4, 2002 BOCC Action December 10, 2002 A shorter timeframe if requested could be accomplished by creating a special public hearing at a regular BOCC date. RESPONSE: 2. Unified Development Ordinance Definition A Unified Development Ordinance (TTDO) is a combined land development code that integrates the present planning regulatory system of "free standing" codes of subdivision, zoning, environmental impacts, erosion control, flood management and economic development. The Unified Development Ordinance creates a comprehensive and cross-referenced document, combines various land use controls in a different procedural context. For example, the legislative review of special use zoning can be integrated with the typical administrative context of subdivision review. Special conditions, therefore, can be put forth on subdivisions of relatively high impact. General and specific parameters of interest such as traffic, property values, affordable housing, phasing, open space, dedications, etc. can be addressed thmugh the Unified Development Ordinance development approval process. The creation of a Unified Development Ordinance is time consuming and complex because all existing freestanding code must be collapsed and reorganized into one document. Some existing code areas will be deleted in their present form and replaced with a nan- conflicted, non-repetitive and all-inclusive system of review. A consultant is suggested for this type of work, with a close overview by the Planning Director and eventual legal procedural review by the County Attorney. The document would also be reformatted to the prototypical indexing used by the municipal code corporation, which can then be codified and available on the internet. The time frame for Unified Development Ordinance development is about S - 9 months, and public hearing processing including final recommendations and adoption depending on the extent of outreach, can be an additional 3 - b months. Staff could first pmceed with a request for qualifications (Rp'Q), and then proceed with a request for services. The cost of this type of Unified Development Ordinance development for a County is in the investigation stage. The Town of Chapel Hill is presently in the Unified Development Ordinance process and information regarding their experience can be given at the work-session. ISSUE 4: Explore legal consideration. RESPONSE: Legal report to be provided by County Attorney. ISSUE 5: Research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases. RESPONSE: In 1995 Huntersville, NC placed a 12-month moratorium on all development in order to study traditional town. planning methods and rewrite their existing zoning ordinance. Warwick, New York implemented a development moratorium while updating their comprehensive land use plan. ISSUE 6: Research through Institute of Govemment and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short-term goals. RESPONSE: Ongoing .~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting bate: August 29, 2002 Action Agen~ Item Nv. SUBJECT: Oran a Coun J Durham I-85 / US 70 Economic Develo meet District Area DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N} No INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, ext. 2592 Dianne Reid, ext. 2326 Paul Thames, ext. 2303 TELEPWONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Chapel Hill Durham Mebane 732-8181 9684501 688-?331 (336)-227 2031 PURPOSE: Ta update the Board of County Commissioners on progress of the Orange County Durham I-$5 J US 70 Economic Developmen# District Cooperative Planning Area. BACKGROUND: Respective Orange County and City of Dufiarn staffs have developed some preliminary recommendations regarding cooperative planning sys#ems between both jurisdictions: Discussion, research, and analysis have been in progress since June of 2001 to evaluate topics of joint interest. Those topics include: I. Planning II. Water and Sewer III. Annexation IV. Financing of Utilities of areas near I-85/U570 After this progress report work-session, planning staffs are prepared to present our preliminary reports to respective managers and then to gaveming boards in the next few months. The purpose of these cooperative planning efforts is to improve land use and transportation decisions, improve intergovernmental coordination and information sharing, and be able to consistently respond to inquiries far development in the area, as well as, respond to public health emergencies such as failed septic systems. There are six companion studies, plans and agreements that affect this area. Subject Areas -Planning Studies and Reports A. 1. Orange County Economic Development District (EDD) (-$5/US Hwy 70 Adopted 3/1/94 and amended thru 8/20/96 ATTACHMENT(S): Map ~;, Primary Development Area 287 acres Secondary Development Area 100 acres Open Space Area 186 acres Right-of-way 60 acres 2. Commercial Industrial Activity Node B. Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Adopted 815196 C. Durham Urban Growth Boundary and Study D. Orange County Water and Sewer Management Plan and Boundary Map . (see Attachment #4) E. Town of Hillsborough and City of Durham WaterlSewer Boundary Agreement F. Resolution of Cooperation -- A resolution of cooperation between the City of Durham, North Carolina, the Durham County, North Carolina, the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and Orange County, North Carolina relating to land use planning along and near jurisdictional boundaries. Joint staffs are working on an abridged list of potential government actions by the respective jurisdiction. A map is attached which illustrates some areas of potential use and cooperation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time 2 FiECQMMENDATION(s~: Receive the status report and offer comment and direction to the staff. Wo~~~NC~ DRA~'~' I-85/US 70 IYa[ural ArBa$ F~enning Area ~ 4a -Durham rMerim Grozvlh 8wrnlary (EDUI ~ 1b -Durham rrderlm Growth 8aundary fEDD) ® 2e -Durham rrHerbn Growtl+ &wndary (CLAN) 9 2b - Dufiam lntrrtr+ Growth BounOery 8 -Durham Lang Term 7-Orange Co Long Tem+ 8-OWASA B - Hiasbomu~+ Prdmery Sbeels +P rear Trar:sitron 20 Year Transi+lon Rural Residenria! Rr,rar euHar ~.. AorieukurelResrdentia! e~"aR K a~ R ~ .tip n~~{ a X500 5000 7~0o Feet Created by 6ettina 8rinktey December, 2001 0 1 Miles DRAFT LAND USE. CONCEPT PLAN SMALL .AREA PLAN