Agenda - 06-01-2010 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

46 425 426 Larry Wright: I would like to entertain a vote. He wants a straw vote. 427 Vote: Unanimous 428 429 Craig Benedict: The next criteria. We are building the future shape of our critical area. There are some other streams involved 430 here. These streams specifically,Seven Mile Creek is a fifth order stream and there is some Eno River between these reservoirs 431 down here. With this criterion,defined in the package, is a small segment here and the Seven Mile Creek,fifth and fourth order 432 stream in that area. The reason for protecting Seven Mile Creek is this is a large order stream aimost in order range of the Eno 433 River,provides a lot of water to this intake. Even though we collect a lot of water from Lake Ben Johnson in this area,there is a 434 large watershed area for this Seven Mile Creek and that is why they put a potential reservoir there so we are suggesting 435 protection about two and one half miles up stream. The board may say 2�/2 mile is too far;IeYs go two miles or one half mile. 436 437 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I would like to recommend, in your recommendation for the straw vote,that you foilow the new lines'that 438 came from the counry hearing as well as the community which was the new one you passed out tonight. 439 440 Craig Benedict: With one minor addition. The little pullout of that Seven Mile Creek bubble above West Ten Road. 441 ' 442 Larry Wright: Are those two different votes. I think we are looking at Proposed Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area West Ten 443 Area Revision and then this cailout here? Could you clarify? 444 445 Craig Benedict: This was the original definition within the 22�d public hearing package and that included the half mile off Seven 446 Mile Creek. Earlier tonight, I suggested an amendment to pull this line back as shown in the attachment that was handed out 447 tonight, I suggested that this criteria that this half mile, excluding this new language about Seven Mile Creek which would be 448 shown on this map. 449 450 Larry Wright: You would like a separate vote on that? 451 452 Craig Benedict: Yes. 453 454 Mark Marcoplos: This is all part of the same thing. If we are going to give protection to that stream based on a criteria we have 455 discussed,iYs going to resoive in the solution of that area. 456 457 Craig Benedict: The two votes that could be out there are;don't exclude that area;the other vote is excluding that area. 458 459 Rachel Hawkins Phelps: Why is it excluded? 460 461 Craig Benedict: Because the area,you can decide to use manmade features such as a road,you don't have to exactly use that 462 half mile buffer from Seven Mile Creek. They were suggesting in this area actually showed that some water in this area flows 463 north over and back again so we took a micro scale look at this and say it is reasonable to use a roadway in this case because 464 waters do not flow directly down this way from that line. 465 466 Perdita Holtz: Craig,did you mention something that the Efland Mebane plan calis for mixed use for that entire arear? 467 468 Craig Benedict: Yes. We thought it would be problematic to have a little section of that area over here in some critical area and 469 allow development adjacent to it. 470 471 Mark Marcoplos: We are talking about protecting drinking water flowing into the reservoir so that is consistent with everything 472 else we have done. I know there is some feeling that this process ought to resolve in the lowering of some regulation 473 somewhere for commercial development and if we do protect that area and remove that section Craig has been talking about,we 474 accomplish both things. We protect the drinking and we make a rationale decision that the area around I-85 is right for 475 development,iYs not going to make a big difference in that watershed. 476 477 May Becker: My concern is that right off the interstate,we are essentially trying to protect a potential reservoir, if you develop 478 more in that area,it is common sense,there will be potential for run off. It seems that it would be wiser to protect that area. 479 480 Earl McKee: We pulled back to West Ten,why did we not go back to this point to catch this half mile boundary there and bring it 481 down to West Ten because this whole area here is an Economic Development Zone. I guess technically, this would be 482 Economic Development Area even though it is in critical area? 483 484 Craig Benedict: The logic was the Efland Mebane Small Area Plan that studied this area, throughout Efland and over to 485 Mebane, had in their recommendations that the I-85 was the cutoff between areas that could have urban styled developmeny