Minutes - 19931101 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 (6) Change the upper limit for non-residential impervious surface in WS-IV watersheds from 50$ to 70~ to correctly reflect the amount allowed by the State mandate. (7) Correct the definition of Critical Area in Article 22 to reflect a distance of 1/2 mile from the normal pool of the reservoir or the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less. (8) Other clarifications of and references to standards which are already in place. Mary Willis noted that the only issue where the Planning Board differed from the staff recommendation involved the sliding scale for impervious surface. The Planning Board proposed alternative sliding scales to address the decrease in square footage on lots from 4.5 to 6.0 acres. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mary Willis clarified that the same impervious surface scale is proposed for critical areas and the areas in the balance of the watershed as well. This would include all of University Lake watershed for new lots. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mary Willis stated that the 300 feet setback for septic systems has been in place since 1984 and was the result of a study done at that time. Julie Andresen, Member of the Chapel Hill Town Council and Chair of the OWASA Board, stated that she has not had adequate time to review the proposed changes and asked that she be allowed additional time to make comments. She feels that the watershed standards should be more restrictive. Mary Willis stated that she does not know if any of the four landfill sites are in the watershed area. With regard to the convenience centers, in most areas this situation is improved by less restrictive regulations in the proposed standards with exception of the Upper Eno Watershed and the Back Creek Watershed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to a map of University Watershed with travel times. She noticed that not all the watersheds are the same. One difference has to do with the total size of the watershed. The larger travel times for stormwater runoff to get to the reservoir are north/south at around six hours. It is less for east/west. Without a study the travel times for Cane Creek are not known but they are probably about the same. In contrast, the Little River Watershed has a twelve hour travel time to the reservoir in Durham County. She feels the County should think of these watersheds not only in terms of classification but in terms of their size and travel times for stormwater runoff. This could result in a higher standard for Cane Creek and consideration of a lower impervious surface ratio outside of the twelve hour travel time. She would like to see more differentiation in the watersheds of a similar category. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the validity of the travel time. He would like to discuss, at another time, the County's ability to regulate travel times. He has a problem with protecting Durham's water supply when the County has no signals that Durham will do the same for Orange County. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the impervious surface issue needs to be looked at in terms of the total amount and the sliding scale. The Planning Board expressed a concern that this impervious surface ratio would discourage larger lots. She feels that the County should look at the commitment to protect the reservoir and also the intent for the use of that land. She would like to see a more differentiated approach based on the specific watershed. She does not support a sliding scale which gives smaller