Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
52 <br /> 62 <br /> 63 Craig Benedict: The point is that I compared the catchment areas to these third order streams to find out if Panther Branch area <br /> 64 was different than the Crabtree Branch and they are all very similar so they all have similar water flows,catchment areas and it <br /> 65 would be hard to differentiate why Panther Branch was different than Crabtree. <br /> 66 <br /> 67 Mark Marcoplos: What does dendritic mean? <br /> 68 <br /> 69 Craig Benedict: A treelike pattern where you would see more linear streams,the erosion is in similar sedentary rock so there <br /> 70 was not one more than the other. <br /> � 71 <br /> 72 Jeffrey Schmitt: What does benthic mean? <br /> 73 <br /> 74 Craig Benedict: The shelves within the little streams adjacent to the streams that are sometimes wet,like the bank. Section 2.7 <br /> 75 gives all the definitions for these different descriptions of third order,fourth order, etc. You end up with a hiatus point between <br /> 76 these two reservoirs. LeYs call it criteria 2.7 and we suggested that is included in this Upper Eno Preserve Area. Some of the <br /> 77 comments at the last meeting were,is it easier to administer this way and that should be the guiding principal versus the private <br /> 78 properry rights within that area saying they should remain at one unit per one acre densiry and the areas around it would be one <br /> 79 unit per two acres. We did check the soil maps and the soil in this area are moderate, which are not a gangbuster,so it is a <br /> 80 decision that we can administer it with the hole in the donut and say this is one unit per one acre and the impervious is 12% <br /> 81 versus one unit per two acres,the impervious is 6%because our GIS and Zoning maps would show that accordingly. This area <br /> 82 between had been covered by the 1994 Zoning which was the lower density so we would actually be returning this area. If you <br /> 83 do not want to include this,you would be giving them back something that may have been taken back before. The average lot <br /> 84 size is 2.4 acres per unit. One unit per two acres is not really taking away from the natural land holding capacity that is indicative - <br /> 85 of a lot of these soils around the Upper Eno. <br /> 86 <br /> 87 Larry Wright: Given the soil rype and the relative perk condition of this area,what realistically can be built within so many acres? <br /> 88 <br /> 89 Craig Benedict: Saying this is included in the critical area would not take away much development potential for that area <br /> 90 meaning it would not develop at any less densiry than the one unit per two acres. Again this was included in the maps from 1994 <br /> 91 but it was not described well. <br /> 92 <br /> 93 Samantha Cabe: How many properties were located in that isolated area? <br /> 94 <br /> 95 Perdita Holtz: I think there are only portions of three very large parcels. <br /> 96 <br /> 97 Pete Hallenbeck: Mr.Faison has his horse farm? <br /> 98 <br /> 99 Samantha Cabe: Do we know the acreage? <br /> 100 <br /> 101 Larry Wright: Is that where Bellchase is? They are about 10 acre lots. <br /> 102 <br /> 103 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the road right above it is Bellchase. <br /> 104 <br /> 105 Jeffrey Schmitt: If you have the technology to monitor this,a much more precise method,why would you not just leave it as it is? <br /> 106 <br /> 107 Craig Benedict: We can monitor by GIS but for consistency somebody might say,why one unit per two acres and on unit per <br /> 108 aere here? We could say this whole zone between both reservoirs and around the reservoirs is all on unit per two. It is the <br /> 109 decision of the board what has more weight to it. <br /> 110 <br /> 111 Mark Marcoplos: It seems that if you create a loophole as we would here then you give people opportunities later in other areas <br /> 112 to say you have let that anomaly happen there and that can cause problems. I think it should be uniform and given the fact that <br /> 113 there is not great development potential there anyway, it would be more of a symbolic nod to this person's property rights over <br /> 114 protection of the watershed. It seems the simplest,cleanest way is to say that we are going to stick to our watershed regulations <br /> 115 especially since there is no harm to the property. <br /> 116 <br /> 117 Jeffrey Schmitt: We don't know that,that is a supposition on your part that the property owner may want to do something with it. <br /> 118 I flipped back to 2.6 and ask the question,the state says,I guess this is what the state requires? <br /> 119 <br /> 120 Craig Benedict: Section 2.1 is what the state requires. <br /> 121 <br />