Agenda - 05-04-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

05'e 3 The Committee suggests three possible ways to do this. One of them is to exchange the extraterritorial jurisdiction from the University Lake watershed on either a per acre or dwelling unit equivalency basis, i.e. , to exchange it from University Lake watershed to the Bolin Creek drainage basin. A second possible proposal is to extend Carrboro' s transition area to a transition area under the joint planning agreement further north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin. The third proposal is to defer further requests from Carrboro for annexation and water and sewer extensions into the watersheds until the capacity study is complete. The alternative to this would be to maintain Carrboro' s present extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition areas which the committee feels would leave a great deal of pressure on the University Lake watershed. The third issue is maintenance of the rural buffer which could be threatened by the extension of urban densities into it either by annexation by Carrboro or Chapel Hill or by extension of public water and sewer lines. However, this area continues to be attractive to growth. The proposal is that both communities agree to protect the rural buffer and not to annex into it voluntarily or involuntarily, carry out a rural buffer study to look at the standards for maintenance such as a water and sewer extension policy and the acquisition of conservation easements. The alternative to that is to use present county zoning and planning standards to guide future use of the rural buffer and to allow urban annexations to occur. Before we can be concerned where the line should be drawn between Carrboro and Chapel Hill regarding review of future development, the proposal is that joint courtesy review be established in the northern rural buffer area west of Interstate 40 in a strip about 4000 feet wide to the line used on the joint agreement map. Carrboro and Chapel Hill would share this area in terms of joint courtesy review to the County. The alternative would be that Chapel Hill alone would review and comment to the County who holds final authority. Issue number five is: should the individual local governments or should the Orange Water and Sewer Authority decide future growth patterns or should this be done in the joint fashion. The proposal is to use a joint planning committee to work out future plans and review the role of OWASA in the process. The alternative would be continued use of individual approaches. Issue number six is: should the proposed cluster development called Amberly be approved and annexed by Carrboro even though it lies within the University Lake watershed. We did not come to an agreement on this. We agreed to disagree perhaps and felt that Carrboro should continue to review the project which is already in the application process. Orange County and Chapel Hill may not necessarily support this construction. The alternative to that would be that Carrboro and Orange County could defer action on Amberly and all other development proposals in the water supply watersheds until the capacity study is complete. Everyone has had the opportunity to pick up this one sheet flyer as well as an agenda for the meeting. The one sheet flyer has the 13 points of our agreement on the back. Item number seven includes the