Agenda - 03-24-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5/19/82 Minutes 1.71 r:. had not been received from either the County Attorney or the Institute of Govern- 1 r 5. ment. Fred Luce, of the Planning Staff, reviewed the draft policy with the Board 6. (the document is on pages of this book). Commissioner Walker disagreed 7. with the revolving fund set up to pay back costs of extension suggesting instead 8. 'a six year payback from ad valorem taxes." Commissioner Gustaveson felt that 9. a more "flexible policy" was needed. Following much discussion, the Chairman 10. suggested that the Board wait for the Attorney's and Institute's comments before 11, making its own suggestions for changes. 12. 3. Requests for Special Public Hearings: The Board, by consensus., set 13. July 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough as the time 14. and place for a public hearing as requested by Mr. Fred Cates and developers of 15. Midway Airport. 16. 4. Lease Agreement for Child. Support Offices: The Manager presented 17. the Board with a lease agreement for the Child Support Office; he said he hoped 18. to locate the office in County facilities within about six months. Commissioner 19. Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the lease agreement 20, as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 4-,(Comnissioners Whitted, Gustaveson, 21, Marshall and Walker); noes, 1 (Commissioner Willhoit). 22. Having finished the agenda of the previous evening's meeting, the Board 23, continued with the announced agenda for this meeting. 24. 1. Cane Creek Environmental Statement: Commissioner Willhoit noted 25. several points. he would like to make in the County's response to the Cane Creek 26. Environmental Impact Statement: 1) there are no permitted point source discharges 27, in Cane Creek while there were 132 such discharges in the Haw River; 2) 8% of 28. the flow of the Haw River at the dam is effluent; 3) there is. no urbanization in the Cane 29. Creek watershed, consequently urban runoff is minimal-while the Haw drains a large 30. urbanized area and there is significant urban runoff into it. Commissioner Willhoit 31, said there would be significant difference in the water quality of Jordan. Lake. 32, and the proposed Cane Creek Reservoir. He added that the EIS quoted Burby's study 33, regarding growth around such sites when the study cited actually showed very little 34, impact on recreational growth if such sites were more than 300 yards from the reservoir. 35. CommFissioner Marshall thought that the Socio-Economic impact section of 36. the Staff response to the EIS should address the pattern of growth and development 37. that has followed the up-grading of Highway 54.