Minutes - 19761028 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ms. Marshall stated "I think we have to find someway for sure. We obviously cannot say that we have worked out the recreation yet, and while we know that the fear which the people always have when we talk about an easement along the stream on people's property, they suddenly feel that 35,000 people in Chapel Hill are going to be walking there all at one time. We know this isn't true, but on the other hand, we know that this is a recreation hungry community and it would be a very attrac- tive facility. One thing, I believe we all would agree on is that we know we are going to have to find someway to keep the private lines involved. That certainly we must control access to the point that other people's lines will not be wandered all aver. Secondly, we don't have all the answers to the pattern." Ms. Marshall spoke on the recreation area of Plum Island in Massachusetts and its controlled access. Jonathan Howes stated "you have to go back to the principle purpose and the principle purpose of this reservoir is for water supply and not for recreation. Because of that certain basic restrictions would have to apply. If you are looking at the University Lake model, then you are probably Close to what will happen out there. I thank the intensity, the control of recreation as it occurs out there as at happens is more like what going to happen in this area." General Hurow stated "as we were talking about Allen's presentation, the words, 'the University Lake Model', I was opposed to and I said, please don't say anything that going to be modeled after the University, and that the reason." Mr. Johnson said surely people will understand the difference between the University and University Lake. Mrs. Garrett stated "another thing the County would be doing is sur- veying and talking to people about Cane Creek is that at the same time we are talking about Cane Creek tonight, we are also having a projected re- port and a closer up-date in the intensifying of Seven Mile Creek. There seems to be an obvious advantage to doing them both. Whether they are built at the same time, they can be on the same bond issue and looking at them both together, ghat might be practical, ar the thing to do in one area, might not be iri the other. I think that broader picture may be able to bring out a better .......' Chairman Mortis asked if any of the other visitors had anything that they wished to say. An unidentified voice asked "suppose the County votes not to pay for this proposed lake and it goes back to OWSA, or whatever, O'K, then in years to come if there is regulations put on the dairy farmers, will OWSA be willing to take up some of the slack in paying for these sedimentation pools or whatever that is going to cost, no telling how much in the future?" Mr. Morris replied "I couldn't answer that. The only thing I know is that OWSA will be very concerned about that. OWSA will feel a finan- cial responsibility, or whether it will urge the good officers of the County. I don't know, and I don't think anyone could answer that from the Authority. I am quite sure that the Authority is very much concerned and wants to see the right thing done. Now whether it could do it itself or try to get the County to do it, I don't know:" Chairman Garrett stated "if the general obligation bonds referendum should fail, I think that would not mean the County Commissioners would not feel an obligation to the citizens. Whether hardships come up or whatever other way. I think that is something that we owe to the citizens:' Mr. Morris stated "you have many reasons for responsibility, health, land use, Clear Water Act and all these other legitimate concerns of the County Commissioners." Commissioner Gustaveson stated "sure, not knowing quite what kinds of regulations are going to grow out of, in terms of actual capital expenditures we would be required to implement the 208, that I would assume that at some point - as expenses - there would be some kinds of fund similar to the 201 fund."