Agenda - 03-18-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Orange Water and Sewer Authority .. . 406 Jones Ferry Roams .SA.1 P.O. Box 366 • 021 Carrboro, t4C 27510 (919) 968-4421. December 2, 1985 Dr. Donald Wi lhoit Chairman • Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Courthouse 106 East Margaret Lane Eil?shorough, HC 27278 Deer Dr. Witlhoit: Orange Water and Serer Authority (OWASA) appreciates the Orange County Board of Commissioners extension 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 .Pernissive basin-snide development controls, consideration could be given to handling extenuating circumstances on a case-by case basis through a variance request procedure or sirefl r process 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: 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 XI and I-1 districts, as represented by -permitted gross floor area," would increase by more than 215Z and 245Z, respectively, over 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 c i ng coverage in EI and 1-1. districts." Generally, the greater the building coverage, the greater the volume of traffic, the larger the parking area and greater the associated non-point source pollution. The associated adverse impacts are not limited to the building space. If permissible development intensity is increased for these districts there should be some corresponding measures for assuring the protection of water quality.