Agenda - 12-02-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Orange Water and Sewer Authority • 406 Jones Ferry Road l P.O. Box 366 Carrbbro, NC 27510 (919)968-4421 • December 2, 1985 Dr. Donald Willhoit Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County;Courthouse 106 Bast Margaret Lane Hilleborough, 'MC 27278 Dear Dr. Willhoit: Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) appreciates the Orange County Board of Commissionersjextension of the November 25, 1985 public hearing concerning certain proposed modifications to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. OWASA staff has completed review of those proposals which were included in November 25, 1985 Board of Commissioners agenda packet. The following comments are offered concerning those proposals affecting the control of development • activities within University Lake and Cane Creek public water supply watersheds. • General Comment: It is the understanding of OWASA staff that the proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would be adopted for all of the Cane Creek and University Lake watershed areas. Perhaps rather than adopting these more permissive basin-wide development cgntrols, consideration could be given to handling extenuating circumstanceslon a case-by case basis through a variance request procedure or • similar procens which could be incorporated into the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. This would maintain intact the present water supply protection program but would also provide the flexibility needed to address a.limited number of cases where an alternative approach may be acceptable. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5: 1 When coupled with the recently approved increase in the impervious surface. • . • limits,, the proposed revisions to the Floor Area Ratio for the industrial district would permit a significant increase in allowable development intensity within these districts. Based on the example•provided in the information packet, development intensity in the RI and I-1 districts, as represented by "permitted grass floor area," would increase by more than 215% and 245x, respectively, ever that presently permitted. • It is stated that "If the adverse impacts are confined to the building space, it would seem advisable to allow a greater building coverage in BI and I-1 " r coverage,Generally, the greater the building c era a the greater the y s g "n$ $ s $ volume of trafjfic, the larger the parking area and greater the associated nonfpoint source pollution. The associated adverse impacts are not limited to li the building apace. If permissible development inte nsitq is increased f or the se districts them should be some corresponding measures for assuring the protection of rater quality. An Equal Opportunity Employer