Agenda - 09-01-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8/5/09 O There are only two (2) nodes, the rural community activity node (Cedar Grove) and the rural industrial node (off NC 54) that will be impacted by this proposed amendment Any future node would have to be adopted by the County Board of Commissioners with the Planning Boards input through a comprehensive and a land use plan amendment Right now this amendment is going to address development issues within one spedfic rural community activity node because as I've indicated, the rural industrial node has a specific end game plan as far as allowable land uses once the quany operation ceases. The SUP says that once the quarry ceases operation, it will convert to a reservoir. It is my understanding that the SUP also indicated the rural industrial node disappears. There will not be a node there. Larry Wright: What streams lead to that? Craig Benedict Phil's Creek. They actually release water from a small OWASA reservoir on part of the site to a second reservoir and then into Phil's Creek to help fill University Lake. Michael Harvey: Just as a point of clarification, this existing section impacts the University Protected and Critical watershed overlay districts, where there are no other nodes except for the rural industrial node, the Cane Creek Critical where there are currently no nodes, and of course the Upper Eno Critical area. We have already seen the boundaries of rural community activity node located within the Upper Eno Critical watershed overlay. district that is essentially three quarters (3/4) encumbered by the critical watershed area. At the public hearing, there were several comments made as a result of this proposed amendment The Board members essentially agreed that is was not the original intent of the County to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node but that there needed to be careful attention paid to what was permitted within the critical area. Larry Wright: I don't understand that statement by the Board members. When you take a look at the land use that is was not the original intent to restrict development you take the land use element and you look through on page.... Michael Harvey: That's the old copy of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Larry Wright: Is it still in effect? Michael Harvey: No. IYs been usurped by the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. While the policy may still exist in some level and fashion we need to make reference to the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Larry Wright: If the spirit of this did cant' over, on 3.26.9 this seems to be inconsistent with statement one (1). I don't understand. When you stop and think, I guess the conditions of the soils have not changed and this is in here that it is largely characterized by poor soils, heavy day soils. How are you going to justify that when all water flows out~of Orange County? No water flows in. Is that right? Craig Benedict: That's correct. Larry Wright: So we have five (5) watersheds here in Cedar Grove. You have Little River, The Flat River, South Hyco, Black Creek, and Upper Eno. Then if you start dealing with runoff coeffidents and bringing in-more pavement and you have the packed day soil for probably a .3 or .4 in a runoff coeifident and lawns are .25, drives are .75. You start bring in commerdal and 1 think you are going to get some runoff that you don't want in each of these five watersheds. Michael Harvey: My response is that I believe the rural community activity nodes came first, it was never the intent of the Board through the adoption of watershed overlay districts to exdude that portion of the rural community activity node from being developed. If that was the case then the node boundary would have been altered. As we indicated during the quarterly public hearing the actual critical area for the Upper Eno that the County adopted is much larger than what the state had rewmmended and what the state had justified bads in the adopted watershed overay regulations. Craig Benedict We moved to keep the impervious the same even though it is commerdal the imperviou$ is still going to be limited like the residential. Yes the use may change but they are not going to be allowing more impervious. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Can you give an example of commerdal or industrial types of businesses that would meet the same standards as residential. Craig Benedict: If you have a 10,000 square foot parcel and you only allow a 6°~ impervious which we do at our critical watersheds in most cases, and then whether it's a residential use or anon-residential use it cannot have over at 6%. That indudes the building and the parking. It is very restrictive for commerdal. This full circle was put on the map bads in 1981 as a 2