Agenda - 01-19-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Shanklin stated the Water Task Forc,a Report shr,ul,3 go to p,_.bl:_c hearing. cra.wford indicated:that would not. occur until the Report was incorporated into an ordinance. Shanklin wanted a public hearing prior to incorporation, noting certain statements in the Report as being' opinions, not fact, upon which other con- clusions were drawn. Crawford stated the Report can and will be discussed in terms of implementation. Amendment Proposals AGENDA ITEM #4: Revised Watershed Zoning Am Luce distributed the revised Proposed zoning Amendments. Polatty noted the following changes in the Proposed Zoning ,Amendments: PW-T, applied t.o urban watersheds such as McGowan Creek: PVJ-11, applies to all other protected watersheds; PW-11 b) application criteria: "This district should be applied to all protected water supply watersheds designated in the band Use Plant except McGowan Creek`c 4.2.27 b) 1, should read as "This district will be applied in all protected water supply watersheds designated in the Land Use Plan." DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENTS FOLLOWED. Discussion an 6.23 Extra Requirements for Protected. Watershed Districts (Pw•-I and PW*II) nsued. 6.23.1 c) should read as follows: "Streets and bridges crossing a buffer area shall enter and exit the area as nearly perpendicular to it as possible." Shanklin asked how the buffer is to be ca).culated, especially noting the problem of slope. Staff res- ponded that the recommendation had been changed earlier, and was not yet clear in this document and would be similar to the wording in the Task Force report. Discussion took. place on 6.23.1,5. The Board discussed the trade-offs between centralized sewer systems and individual septic systems. Crawford noted the language in the amendment is prohibitive. Kizer cited 6, 23.2 a) and inquired as to what method would be used for measuring runoff. Cannity responded that runoff figures are available for different vege.tative types. lie noted it was primarily an engineering problem, shanklin questioned 6.23.1. Cannity responded indicat- ing that storage would be required to assure a dis- charge rate equal to the runoff rate before develop- ment. Kizer inquired how this would be administered. Cannity responded it would be an engineering exercise. Lunsford inquired who was responsible for getting the engineers. Cannity noted that the developer was res- ponsible for hiring an engineer adding that these requirements would only apply to new development.