ORD-1999-015 Text Amendments Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed

Browse Search

30 measures of compensation to deal with issues affecting the community. However, they are faced with a situation where prevention, through watershed protection, is by far the best measure. It is-the safest way to protect the water supply. Engineering solutions are used in treating the finished water but the end of the pipe kinds of solutions are not as good or as reliable. As water standards become tighter, the prevention strategies are more desirable. The phrase that the "current watershed protection that is.in place now is insufficient to prevent deterioration of the.water quality" is the key. The kind of recommendations that are before you are to provide that protection for the water.quality. In regard to the Flexible Development Plan he asked that they look very carefully at the record of Community Water Systems and Waste Water Treatments Systems, before approving any kind of, proposal that would allow that kind'of system. He mentioned the situation in University Lake where. .a company described as "the Cadillac of private-public utility companies" installed alternative . systems. In the last ten years,every one of the systems installed by that company has gone bad and has been bailed out by local governments or residents. The company itself is bankrupt.' These are problematic systems. Mr. Carl Shy stated that the issue here is one of"d.isequity" in.the treatment of the people who are residents in the Cane Creek Watershed. They would lose some of the economic potential for development of this land. There are no provisions being made for the loss of this economic . opportunity. The issue is protecting the watershed which is based on the amount of discharge. Two five-acre properties could have more discharge than five two-acre.properties. The real issue 'is to protect the watershed from discharge..There must be other options that would limit discharge so that there is not an excess of discharge from.the two-acre lots. Technology could be used to limit the discharge. The Air Quality Act is a good example of an emission budget being issued. Then emissions were considered as a whole in the budgeted area. Something similar could be established with regard to the discharge within the'entire watershed. People could decide bn their own if they wanted_to develop at two-acres. People with more land could be compensated if they did not develop. If this proposal is implemented, there would be.no benefits to the people who live there now. The benefits are all going to the consumers of the water supply. Ms. Peggy Ritch, of 4211 Dairyland Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She stated that if it was passed., the average person who-grew up in Orange County would not be able to afford to live here. This is not fair. Mr. Barry Jacobs stated that the open space option that does allow two-acre lots seems to be forgotten in this discussion. He was told that although the Planning Staff has not found other - jurisdictions who have used open space development for watershed protection, he suggested that they should look at Howard County, Maryland and places in California. He asked that this be included in future considerations. He also pointed out that the problems with off-site septic systems or the County's current flexible development ordinance, can be addressed. Those problems are not necessarily fatal flaws: Ms. Lucy Baldwin stated that her mother's estate is near the watershed. She opposes the five-acre option because it would not be possible to divide for the children. Mr. Lonnie Kirk stated that the majority of these land owners are farmers or have been H:\B0CC\N0V2399.MIN