Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
123 <br />5 <br />Planning staff created a website for the project to provide information and maps to interested <br />persons. The site was up and running beginning on Friday, February 5, 2010 at: <br />hftp://www.CO.orange.nc.ua/Riannin-q/Critica[AreaAmendments.asp and has been updated with <br />additional information as necessary. <br />Plannina Board Ordinance Review Committee: <br />Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee <br />(ORC) on January 6, 2010. The Summary Notes for the meeting are included in Attachment 5. <br />The ORC's main concern is the possibility that formally removing the previously identified <br />potential reservoirs from County - designated Critical Area protection may preclude construction <br />of future reservoirs. Planning staff has pointed out: <br />• There are other potential reservoir sites in Orange County slated for future use as <br />reservoirs (i.e., quarry site on Highway 57 and American Stone quarry site on Highway <br />54) <br />• The County has an allocation of one million gallons per day from Jordan Lake which is <br />not being exercised at this time. It is possible to use this water through existing inter- <br />connections and inter -local agreements (to be developed) in the future if necessary or <br />desirable. <br />• Amending the Critical Area line does not preclude future development of an additional <br />reservoir(s) in the Upper Eno watershed. Rather, if a reservoir were constructed in the <br />future, the Critical Area boundary could be amended as needed at that future time. <br />• The County- designated Critical Areas continue to protect the vast majority of potential <br />reservoir sites in the Upper Eno watershed. <br />Quarterly Public Hearing <br />This item was heard at the February 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing. Approximately 40 <br />people attended the hearing 8 people addressed the Boards with comments. Comments <br />included the following (staff responses are in italic font): <br />1. Concerns over the change in the impervious surface limit for properties being added to <br />the Critical Area. The proposed amendments to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance <br />(discussed in section below) should adequately address concems regarding changes in <br />impervious surface limits. It should be noted that impervious surface limits and maximum <br />density regulations in other water supply watershed in the county are more restrictive <br />than those proposed for the Upper Eno watershed. <br />2. Concern regarding a private road easement crossing a lot being counted toward the lot <br />owner's impervious surface limit. New subdivisions (last 10 years) take this into <br />consideration. Older subdivisions may need a case -by -case review and special <br />guidelines. <br />3. An opinion that Critical Area boundaries should take into consideration stream flow <br />distance and direction, not just straight -line distances from the centerline of streams. <br />Straight -line distances are used because it's consistent with State - Required critical areas <br />and distances are more easily measured. Customization based on stream flow and <br />direction would likely require significant field work by staff and may or may not result in <br />many differences. Additionally, there are some people who might argue against <br />implementing results that are not fairly easily replicable by a layperson. <br />4. An opinion that if development is connected to public water and sewer, it should not be <br />included in the Critical Area boundary. While there is merit to the position that it would be <br />better to not have septic systems in a Critical Area, there is still the issue of impervious <br />