Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
40 <br /> 1 (i) The amount of water anticipated to be used on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual <br /> 2 basis; <br /> 3 (ii) An analysis of the amount of groundwater withdrawal considered to be safe and <br /> 4 sustainable in the immediate vicinity; and <br /> 5 (iii) An analysis of whether other wells in the vicinity of the proposed use will be affected by <br /> 6 withdrawals made by the proposed use. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Change in groundwater usage standard language <br /> 9 Language Proposed as a result of comments <br /> 10 A comprehensive groundwater study, for facilities expected to use more +"moo <br /> 11 gds of groundwater on an annual basis per day per °^r° of'^+ are than an average <br /> 12 single family residence (which uses 240 gallons of water per day) built at the highest <br /> 13 density the existing zoning district would allow. For example, if the existing zoning district <br /> 14 allows a residential density of 1 unit per 2 acres and the proposed use is on a 6 acre lot <br /> 15 (which could yield 3 residences), the proposed use(s) may use three times the water <br /> 16 used by an average single family residence (or 720 gallons per day, on an annualized <br /> 17 basis) before a comprehensive groundwater study is required. The water usage rates of <br /> 18 any existing use subject to zoning regulations located on the same lot shall be taken into <br /> 19 account when determining if a comprehensive groundwater study is required. Said <br /> 20 study shall detail: <br /> 21 (i) The amount of water anticipated to be used on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual <br /> 22 basis; <br /> 23 (ii) An analysis of the amount of groundwater withdrawal considered to be safe and <br /> 24 sustainable in the immediate vicinity; and <br /> 25 (iii) An analysis of whether other wells in the vicinity of the proposed use w414 are expected to <br /> 26 be affected by withdrawals made by the proposed use. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Agricultural Preservation Board and Planning Board Review <br /> 29 APB has reviewed 3 times <br /> 30 Consensus to move forward <br /> 31 Would like farmers to have the ability to apply for as many uses as possible <br /> 32 (Do not remove more intensive uses from consideration) <br /> 33 Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee reviewed 2 times <br /> 34 • Same conclusion as APB <br /> 35 Both Boards had minor comments/questions that have been incorporated into draft <br /> 36 materials <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Public Notification <br /> 39 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO <br /> 40 ➢ Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks <br /> 41 Held Public Information Meeting on February 17 (was postponed from advertised date of <br /> 42 February 13) <br /> 43 ➢ Flyers posted <br /> 44 ➢ Press Release <br /> 45 Has been a topic on a few agendas in the past year <br /> 46 ➢ BOCC (including Assembly of Governments) <br /> 47 ➢ Planning Board <br /> 48 ➢ Agricultural Preservation Board <br /> 49 Planning website posting on January 24 <br /> 50 <br /> 51 County Attorney's Office Comments <br />