Minutes - 19900228 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OWASA's responsibility to clean the water. GEORGE BRUMLEY, developer in Orange County, stated his major grievance is the issue of changing the rules in the middle of the game. They develop property and they develop according to the rules as they were written at the time they began the development. They are now faced with an impervious surface restriction that would actually change the rules during the period in which they no longer have a choice of whether to make the decision to proceed or not. If this impervious restriction is approved, he will have to change the type of development originally approved. VERLA INSKO, Chair of the OWASA Board, read a prepared statement. This statement is attached to these minutes as EXHIBIT "A". RANDY FEW feels this is an issue of fairness and practicality. He feels the financial burden of clean drinking water should not be on those who receive no benefits from it. Those who say that a reduction of allowed impervious surface will not affect the value of land are wrong. The value of the land in Chapel Hill will rise due to the quality of life, benefits they will receive from the reduction of density surrounding the town and the increase in the quality of water. It is an unfair transfer of wealth. He stated that quality drinking water is a goal that must be achieved but he asked that the County not make those in the way of an expanding Chapel Hill and Carrboro pay the price. He asked that a way be found to spread the cost among those who will benefit from it. He feels that passing this ordinance will render many lots nonconforming. He supports Mr. Collins' proposal. PHILIP SZOSTAK spoke as a supporter of the work group that developed the watershed protection measures. What became evident during the discussion was that a stricter consistent amendment to the Land Use Plan and Development Ordinance must be put into practice. It also became clear that the CDM study was a good beginning but could not be used to scientifically justify planning restrictions. Accountability of data was the major issue of discussion. The development model was so simplified it did not take into account roadways, right-of-ways , parklands, or other undeveloped land. It did not take into account the greater reduction of possible density that would occur if septic tanks were the only method of wastewater distribution. It did not take into account the standard or required development practices such as the State's Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinances which require that each development allow stormwater runoff to a velocity and volume that exist prior to construction. Detention basins (BMP's) would have , to be installed. All development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro must further illustrate this compliance with a computerized model as part of the final approval process. He recommended that Section II Natural Environment, subsection B on water resources, reflect. two acre zoning with on-site detention ponds. Concerning Section V, Joint Land Use Operating Principles. He suggested that public water and sewer service be offered as the most reliable method of protecting our water resources. Concerning Section V, Land Use Joint Planning Areas, he recommended Option II as presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. Concerning Section VI - Overview of the Implementation Strategies, he recommended that a study be done on public water and sewer extensions. With the EPA change in water quality guidelines, he recommended that a permanent watershed task force be establish to continuously monitor and recommend strategies to protect this water. DAVID CARR, Partner of Oak Value Properties, stated they are developing Oak Crest Subdivision and are following the rules put in place by the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. They are environmentally sensitive developers trying to work per the rules laid out. He opposed the rules changing half-way in the game. He asked that the developers be considered in any decision made and to consider the people whose sole