Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-23-1998 - C4 (a)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1998
>
Agenda - 11-23-1998
>
Agenda - 11-23-1998 - C4 (a)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2010 10:43:29 AM
Creation date
6/25/2010 10:43:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/23/1998
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C-4 (a)
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19981123
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
,~{~. <br />~_~~ <br />Memorandum <br />To: John Link, County Manager <br />From: Planning Staff <br />Date: November 16, 1998 <br />Subject: Cane Creek Watershed Recommendation <br />On October 20, the Planning staff presented a staff report on the Cane <br />Creek Watershed Study and subsequent recommendations for <br />protecting water quality by the OWASA Board of Directors. Staff would <br />like to take this opportunity to provide a recommended development <br />management option for Cane Creek watershed. <br />The October 20 staff report identified three management options that <br />were recommended for further evaluation: <br />1. Mandatory Flexible Development (with Large-Lot Zoning in the <br />critical areal); <br />2. Creative Open Space Design, and <br />3. Large-Lot Zoning/Creative Open Space (the OWASA- <br />recommended approach). <br />As mentioned in the staff report, staff indicated that the options would <br />be discussed at a community meeting in the watershed. These three <br />options were presented to 25 citizens at a community meeting at <br />Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department on October 29, 1998. In <br />addition, staff was to complete its research on these options and make <br />a single recommendation by the time of the public hearing on <br />November 23. <br />As you may recall, the primary downside to the Mandatory Flexible <br />Development and Creative Open Space options (#1 and #2) was <br />whether these options could protect water quality given their use of <br />cluster development (and the apparent requirements for using <br />structural impoundments to do so). <br />Staff completed its research into this issue in late-October. We have <br />been unable to find any examples of communities that have used <br />cluster development solely for water quality protection, with or without <br />relying on structural controls (detention basins) or very large-lot base <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.