Agenda - 11-19-1997 - 10a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

[Received Via E-Mail) From: Dodd, Randall C. 35 Sent: Thursday, June 12, 1997 7:02 AM To: 'Ed Holland' Cc: 'Deborah Amaral' Subject: Cane Creek Committee Recommendations Ed- I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight, but would like to submit comments on the recommendations being developed for the Board. I submit these comments as 1) an OWASA water user; 2)a landowner in the watershed; and 3) a water quality professional. 1. The recommendations that have been developed focus heavily on land use and development (primarily lot size) issues. I concur that this is a major issue, but believe that more comprehensive recommendations addressing land cover and land management issues are also warranted. I believe a primary goal for watershed management should be to protect and restore forested land, with a focus on riparian systems. (Various versions of draft rules for the Neuse River basin could be helpful in providing technical details.) I understand that-this overlaps with recommendations that have come forth-my suggestion is to more explicitly acknowledge and pursue(primarily riparian) forest protection, restoration,and management through a wide array of both voluntary and regulatory mechanisms. 2. 1 have not reviewed the Zoning Ordinance for the watershed, and so cannot comment at this time on whether I believe any changes are warranted. I would encourage OWASA and the Advisory Committee to thoroughly review the ordinance at this time in light of new initiatives in Carrboro's Northern Transition Study Area, the Neuse River Basin(including the upper basin), and ongoing initiatives in the Chesapeake Bay. 3. I do not agree that the overall performance goal should be based on large lot build out. I believe that this assumes a transition that is neither imminent nor necessarily desirable. I believe that performance goals should be based on a desired water quality,which relates more directly to land cover and management than lot size. 4. I am troubled by the wording of the sentence (under Potential Town and County Tradeoffs) "The Committee offers no judgment...". First, I believe the committee should clearly acknowledge that residents were heard("no judgment" implies they weren't). Second, I believe the committee should clearly acknowledge that a win/lose proposition is possible if actions (such as rezoning) occur in which residents are again asked to make sacrifices (without benefits) which benefit OWASA and customers. (The committee should be striving to achieve a win/win proposition.) Finally, I disagree with the use of"perceptions" and "perceive" in this sentence. Loss of development rights through rezoning is a very real (and not perceived) loss. I do concur with the suggestions and recommendations to address the issue, and suggest that Purchase of Development Rights be included(along with Transfer of Development Rights). Designation as a Forest District may provide an additional legal option. 5. I concur with Dolly Hunter's recommendations (attached in the last mailout) and hope the Committee and Board give serious consideration to these suggestions. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. C-7